The collective uproar over Microsoft’s decision to kill the Start menu in Windows 8 reminds me of this discussion I found in microsoft.public.win95.shellui.

It’s from May 27, 1997:

I know it’s almost 2 years since Win95 was released, but even after a
year of almost daily use I’m still trying to get used to it and I hope
someone can offer words of wisdom: I still prefer the Win3.x way of
finding and then launching programs from pretty icons in group windows
in Program Manager rather than, as we do now, with multiple layers of
pure text menus (Start | Programs | many submenus, etc.)  I don’t like
the length of time it takes to wade through these submenus, and I
particularly don’t like the excessive hand/mouse activity it involves.
I especially don’t like not having a Program Manager which I can easily
Alt-Tab to in order to get to these icons.

I know I can minimize my open apps to get to my desktop icons, and I
know there’s Power Toys which will allow you to access your desktop via
a text menu, and I know there are other workarounds for this issue.

What I don’t understand is why the developers felt that this new way is
an advantage.  Can someone please help me see this?

The responses are downright poignant.

(Tip: You could replace that hideous newfangled Windows 95 Start menu with the time-tested Windows 3.x Program Manager by setting shell=progman.exe in System.ini.)

See also: Competing visions of the future of personal computing

While going through some boxes full of old stuff I ran across this pass from the Windows 95 launch party in Redmond, hosted by Jay Leno on a glorious August day in Redmond in 1995. I also found a pass from the Windows XP unveiling in February 2001.

The actual launch party was a very subdued occasion held in New York City in October 2001, when the country as a whole had other things on its mind. The event kicked off with the singing of “God Bless America,” and Bill Gates was introduced by Rudy Giuliani. I didn’t attend.

I don’t recall a formal launch party for Windows Vista, unless you count CES, which fell midway between the business introduction in New York on November 30, 2006, and the consumer release, also in New York, on January 30, 2007, as documented by Mary Jo Foley.

Microsoft hasn’t had good luck with Windows launches this decade, and Windows 7 is probably going to continue that unfortunate tradition. If the economy had remained strong, the Windows 7 launch probably would have been a big and glitzy affair. Now, though, with layoffs underway at Microsoft and customers worldwide tightening their belts, I expect a much more restrained, even businesslike, event. If the kickoff is in July or August of this year, I anticipate that I’ll be heading to Redmond, where the long summer days are perfect for a party. I certainly wouldn’t want to go to New York in the dog days of summer.

In the comments last week, Mike asks: “Why is the next version of Windows called ‘Windows 7’???”

As Peter Ortner responds in a later comment, “It’s the next version after Windows NT 6 (Vista).”

That’s true. Sort of. But Mike goes on to explain that he asked the question because he knows that Windows 7 is really Windows version 6.1, and what’s up with that? It’s a good question. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the Windows 7 name isn’t going to work in the long run. I take on that topic in a new post over at ZDNet (Will Windows 7 get a new name for its release?)

You can get the full analysis in that post, so I won’t repeat it here. Instead, I thought it might be interesting here to provide a little history about version numbers, and why this one is so unusual.

Every Windows version has a number that identifies its kernel. Software developers can write code that checks the version number to decide whether a program should be allowed to install. You can determine the version number for any Windows release by dropping to a command prompt and running the ver or winver command; the first produces a text string, the second reveals a dialog box, as shown here.

The version history of the various Windows families goes like this:

• Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (and Windows for Workgroups 3.11) from the early 1990s used the version numbers as part of their name. The first releases of Windows NT, also from that era, followed suit, with Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5.
• Windows 95 was technically version 4.0. Windows NT 4.0, which was released exactly a year after Windows 95, adopted the Windows 95 interface. Windows 98 was version 4.10.1998 and Windows 98 Second Edition was 4.10.2222A. The much-maligned Windows Me was 4.90.3000. (History lessons here and here for those who care.)
• Windows 2000 was the first release in the version 5 family. It was followed by Windows XP, which was version 5.1. Service packs are identified by build numbers, but service packs do not affect the version number.
• Windows Vista was Windows 6.0 (Vista Service Pack 1 is build 6001, as the screen shot above shows). Because the next release of Windows is going to be based on the same kernel as Windows Vista, it should have the version number 6.1. Indeed, every copy of Windows 7 that has leaked to public view so far has had a build number of 6.1.xxxx. This numbering is almost certain to remain in the final product. If the major version number changed to 7.0, many applications written for Windows Vista would fail to install or run properly, simply because of version checking.

So if the next release of Windows is version 6.1, why call it Windows 7? I agree, that makes no sense at all. I think, in fact, that Microsoft is much more likely to go back to a safe, boring name for its next release. Hop on over and read my prediction, then add your own vote in my online poll.

At first I thought this was satire:

Why I Still Use Windows 95

[…]

I am accustomed to getting strange or uncomplementary reactions from other people when they find out that I still do: "Are you insane?" or "Why the hell are you using Windows 95?!" are only typical. I can no longer count on most of the latest software being capable of running on this configuration. So, why do I still endorse a computer operating system more than ten years old?

What follows is the usual litany of Windows gripes about every post Win95 version: “frivolous animation and eye candy … slow performance … poor interface design … no compelling functionality…”

I would rather use a hammer and chisel with stone tablets than go back to Windows 95. Apparently the rest of the world agrees. The author of this piece says, “I wouldn’t be surprised if the proportion of people still using Windows 95 on a regular basis is ½% or less.” Heh. According to Net Applications, the correct number is 0.01%. Windows 98 and Windows Me are both significantly below 0.5%.

That corresponds neatly to numbers from this site. Of the last 100,000 visitors to this site, 8 were running Windows 95, 22 were on Windows Me, and 202 were using Windows 98. Maybe they can all get together and form a tontine.

(via Bink.nu)

Over at ZDNet, I’ve written a counterpoint to the widely quoted and amusing but (IMO) inaccurate notion that Windows Vista is the reincarnation of Windows Me. I see Vista going down a different path, the same one trod earlier by Windows 95:

Vista isn’t Me2, it’s Win95 + 12 years

[...]

So does Windows Vista deserve the Me2 label? After a careful look back at my Windows history books, I see Vista heading down a different path. In fact, I’m struck by how similar Vista’s path so far has been to the one that Windows 95 traveled. Let’s review: Windows 95 was launched with tremendous expectations on a tsunami of hype. It was notoriously unstable and finicky, and for the first year or two there weren’t all that many 32–bit programs. A total of four OEM service releases (in 1996 and 1997) added some interesting new features (like FAT32) but didn’t deal with the significant underlying problems of the OS.

It wasn’t until three years after Windows 95’s launch, with Windows 98 (and Windows 98 Second Edition a year after that) that the stability, performance, and interface problems were finally dealt with.

The similarities with Windows Vista are striking:

[...]

The comments have been especially interesting.

One commenter over there wondered if I was really trying to say that Windows Vista sucks just like Windows 95, so everyone should wait for the next version.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

I didn’t say Windows 95 sucked. I said it had problems (can we talk system resources, anyone?). On balance, it was quite usable, and anyone knowledgeable learned how to work around the problems. I think the same is true of Vista today.

In the case of Windows 95, the flawed OS was still better than its predecessor, Windows 3.1, for most people, so they accepted the problems and learned to deal with them. Windows 98 fixed a number of those problems and generally added a level of polish that the original didn’t have.

In the case of Vista, there’s a perfectly good alternative in Windows XP, which is why a lot of people will wait to upgrade. I regularly hear people say, “Hey, Windows XP is doing everything I want it to do, so why should I change?” There are good reasons why some people might choose to upgrade (especially on mobile systems) but there’s little penalty in waiting.

So Vista has some compelling advantages for some people today. For others, perhaps many others, its inconveniences and temporary incompatibilities outweigh the advantages.

Read the whole historical comparison here: Vista isn’t Me2, it’s Win95 + 12 years, and feel free to leave comments here or there.

For more than a decade, some variation of this screen has been part of the Windows Disk Defragmenter utility:

Well, no more.  The colorful progress window has been banished in Windows Vista. The Disk Defragmenter runs in the background, and the only interface available is the one to change the time it runs or to manually start or stop a defrag.

I remember people who actually used to sit and watch the Windows 95 Defrag progress window, in which little boxes of different colors were shifted around. We’ve come a long way.