win 95

[Robert Fowler]

Why hasn’t M.S. been sued for this piece of software or these windows
mags report the truth.
Windows 95 is not superior to windows for workgroups, win 95 is not true
32 bit it’s not 16 bit,
it is however junk. I have a 486 that runs stacker, qemm, workgroups,
12megs of ram. I run
all current software, I constantly change and add, remove applications,
in 4 years have never
a crash, minor conflicts yes, total reinstall no. Windows for
workgroups is far more powerful
and stable than 3.1 or 95. I’m disabled and took up computers for a
hobby, I literally spend
10 -15 hr. a day messin around with the internet, games and programs.
My point is people
ask me for help as soon as they hear what my hobby is. These people are
not computer literate
or rich, they don’t have businesses, degrees, or lots of credit. I have
worked on lots of computers
installing software and hardware. Windows 95 doesn’t let things be
changed, won’t accept certain
hardware, won’t let you edit problems away and if you do it seems to
punish you with all new
problems. Microsoft said it would be 32 bit, more stable, very easy to
use, plug and play, use
existing software, no more DOS.
It was all a lie, go to
http://www.ora.com/gnn/bus/ora/win/brochure/index.html/ and read.
Windows 95 was only a way to get more money by excluding most software
from running forcing
people to buy more MS software, to force new software licensing by
computer companies and
makers of soft and hardware. Remember Softram 95 (I hope I got the
right co.) and how it did
nothing? The media tore this company apart for it’s false claims, at
least this application did
nothing to harm you. WINDOWS 95 ruins your pocketbook and your day over
and over.
Where are the stories of fraud now?
A man I was helping was sick of paying to have his computer fixed
(win95) so he wanted a
whole new computer, I told him it was just the OS, he said so now your
telling me I need to buy a
different kind, I told him about different OS’s he said he read 95 was
the future and refused to listen (he spent a grand fixing his NEW
computer). Win 95 was at fault. It’s still not fixed. My neighbor and I
traded CD ROM games we were tired of playing, when he tried to run it 95
crashed (he knows computers). After a year of perfect behavior 95 has
gone crazy on his machine, he wants to go back to 3.11. Where are the
defenders of the people now? Where are the stories of fraud? Where are
the
investigations and extensive testing to find and reveal bad in this
crapware.
With win 95 people have heard the bad and want no part of it, to them
it’s not just an operating
system, it’s the whole computer. Big companies are smart to hang back in
this case, but people
have no choice, win95 is bundled in their new computer that was bought
on credit
because they didn’t have $1,600 in spare change. Office Max, Circit
City, ect. don’t give you
a choice of operating systems.
Magazines are always reporting how things have slowed in computer
sales. Wanna no why?
Remember the surge during 93-94 (when 486’s were hot, start of netscape
ect.) common
people were excited about computers, no dos because of windows 3.1 it
seemed computers
worked right, windows 3.11 had allot to do with this too, with 32 bit
disk and file access for the
swap file. My computer still runs sweet and with the win32’s I run 32
bit software.
What I think is win 3.11 was to good so Bill saw that he needed a hook
to get the whole (money)
thing going again. He’s going to abandon 95 too, for the browser
operating system,
a hook to get the whole (money) thing going again. No more upgrades but
whole new OS’s.
Don’t get me wrong before win95 I thought MS was the greatest software
co. on earth I use
all their stuff (word, windows 3.11, bookshelf, encarta, works,
publisher, money, ect.).
No one can out do MS in my book. I really thought they were a people
co. with really reasonable
stuff, price and content wise.... Windows 95 has got me wondering if I
was wrong to
preach MS all the time. I hope Netscape will build an OS that will run
stuff 16 or 32 bit,
(mac won’t, IBM didn’t) I would buy it, it would serve Bill Gates right
for this Windows 95 outrage.
If you are having problems it’s not your fault!! I glad I didn’t have
the money at the time to buy
Windows 95, I would have to sue somebody (at least get my money back).
I hope this puts a
bug in someone’s bonnett, you so called journalist, to do a realistic
report on 95 instead of the
same old canned garbage to make Bill Gates happy.

[Cary Quinn]

Robert Fowler (rcfo...@kern.com) wrote:
: I hope this puts a

: bug in someone’s bonnett, you so called journalist, to do a realistic
: report on 95 instead of the
: same old canned garbage to make Bill Gates happy.

I apply the same challenge in return to you. In your whole tirade against
Windows95, not once did you provide more than heresay in the detail of the
information your wrote about. If you provided more specific information
about the problems you claimed to have, and not tried to hide behind the
certainty of "a computer expert", I may have been more inclined to take
your statements seriouisly; as it is, I con only look at your post as yet
another troll.

--

[Robert Fowler]

[Sylvain Jette]

You're obviously not a relative of Bill Gates but another typical Microsoft
Basher !
I bet you probably said the same thing when windows for workgroup came out.
First Microsoft never said that Windows 95 was a complete 32bit operating
system.
They said it would be a 32bit operating system with some 16 bit portion for
compatibility with older programs.
Os/2 3.0 is not a full 32 bit operating system either although people (Ibm
included) claims it to be.
If a journalist writes false stories it is not Bill Gates of Microsoft
fault it is their own.
Cool it, and think before writing "False stories" like those journalist
suppositely did !

[Freddie Mercury]

Well said Sylvain!

Windows 95 was a very good product, but I'm now running Windows NT4.0
The interface is the best thing ever. If the world wasn't full of people
wanting
to still run their crappy old versions of Word Perfect and Corel Perfect
like
they did in Windows 3.1 then we wouldn't need to keep putting up having
to have 16bit support in operating systems. I only run 32bit applications,
anything 16bit is not worth considering. Any Several Million have purchased
Windows 95 and I dont see them all moaning as well.

Freddie

Sylvain Jette <sje...@netcom.ca> wrote in article
<01bba721$05c24e00$6eb85ccf@dwigley>...