[toki]

andrew turnbull is completely right. i used windows 95 too, as long as possible (2006).

windows 95 has many good things that the modern version of windows have lost or never had:

- lightweight (Doesnt even use memory <128 MB)

- very fast

- total cost of ownership = 0

- functional (office, opera, etc: everything works somehow)

- easily replaceable (ebay)

- robust (works even with damaged hardware - somehow)

- security (through obscurity)

- i have an idea how it works (in modern version of windows i have somehow lost the overview)

- no need to update (just accept how the system is)

- free of distractions (no widgets, sidebars, audoupdates)

:)

[gscott]

The changes that MS makes now seem to be just for selling new versions. I use Windows 2000, it is handy, no Internet registration scheme where they track your usage, and so on. When I was younger I wanted to run the newst thing out there and would change often. Now I stick with whatever works best until it breaks.

[workpost]

Great points, actually. I was running it in Virtual PC recently and marveled at how incredibly few resources it used. I was surprised by how much software I could get to run on it as well.

[nailer]

I've read that the 95 kernel fits in the CPU cache of current Intel CPUs.

[toki]

oops: hackernews somehow didnt like the layout of my last comment and made one big sentence out of it.

just use your imagination to see some paragraphs in my last message. :)