Talk:Windows 95/Archive 1

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2

Xerox PARC

An anon IP added a lot of text about Win95 realizing the dreams of some PARC engineers. Its useful text, but I'm not sure it belongs where it does. SchmuckyTheCat 02:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Friendly, but vehement disagreement

User:SchmuckyTheCat I made the edits to this article. I don't see how my changes cannot be considered completely germaine. Therefore, I am re-introducing them. I don't know why my moniker, PainMan didn't show up; I had no intention of hiding behind anonymity. (I am new at this.) Engelbart's work and Xerox PARC's development of said work are directly related to all subsequent GUI development and any article discussing their most commercially, if not technologically, successful "descendant" is incomplete with their mention. They must go back in. PainMan 14:11, 14 May 2005

We already cover this stuff elsewhere. Graphical user interface Why is it crucial that it be added to the Windows 95 article? If it belongs on Windows 95, then it just as equally belongs on Windows 1.0 and Mac OS. AlistairMcMillan 14:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If iteration of critical information in more than one place is a sin, then Wikkipedia's got a serious problem; indeed, it throws the whole concept of cross-indexing out the window. If you know little or nothing about Engelbart and PARC, you might never discover it if you didn't check the articles on Win 1x, etc. Newbies or the uniformed can use the information I've added to obtain a fuller understanding of GUI evolution. I fail to see the logic behind the objection to this. PainMan 15:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This stuff is mentioned elsewhere. It deserves a link, not the entire focus of the second paragraph of the article. The contributions of hundreds of msft engineers who directly did GUI work isn't in this article, and many of them have wikipedia articles. By your reasoning, Requiem for a Dream needs to go on at length about Herodotus.
And the other edit, about Win95 being a 16 bit OS with a 32 bit emulation layer is absolute nonsense.
I reverted the whole thing. If you'd like to add a sentence with a link to this guy at some point (probably not the introduction) it'd probably be better recieved by the other editors. SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the whole thing. If you'd like to add a sentence with a link to this guy at some point (probably not the introduction) it'd probably be better recieved by the other editors. SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means. I'd appreciate if you'd 'splain. If I've violated protocol, it's a result of ignorance, not malice or tendentiousness.

:And the other edit, about Win95 being a 16 bit OS with a 32 bit emulation layer is absolute nonsense.

I'm not an engineer, but I've heard from too many who are, people whom I'm certainly not going to mention by name without their permission, given the behemoth of Redmond's reputation. So we're going to have to agree to disagree there. I also added a qualifier to it that I believe was sufficient to show that it is a contentious point.

And my edits are going back in as I consider them to be essential information. One of the biggest flaws in engineer-think, something I had the opportunity to observe at close hand for years, is the assumption that everyone knows what engineers know. Hardly true. Many will come to this without having worked in IT as you and I have.

PainMan 15:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to duplicate the content that already exists on graphical user interface. AlistairMcMillan 16:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Going against Lord Bill's writ is apparently not to be tolerated.

Again, I accept defeat. I accept my contributions are clearly not desired in matters of importance. It's nothing new. Been on the outside looking it for so long, my breath has started to stain the glass.

The most endangered species: the honest man...

--Neil Peart, Natural Science, from Permanent Waves.

PainMan 16:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If people aren't interested in my contributions

This controversy isn't worth making enemies to me. If people aren't interested in my addition to this, so be it. I accept defeat.

Apparently, there are cliques within this avowedly "open" community and I'm not welcome. I get the hint.

It remains to be seen if my views, when deviating from orthodoxy, will be tolerated at all here. I had hoped this would be different than the NYTimes or Yahoo! chatboards. I appear to have made a grievous error. It saddens me. But I'm used to rejection.

My contributions--if tolerated at all--are apparently to be confined to the ephemeral. I've noticed, for instance, that my addition to the article on Arrakis has drawn no attention whatsoever, let alone such contention.

Since I still hope there can be a place here for me, I'm not going to do anything to give anyone ammunition to eliminate me from the "community."

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to tell me whom I must placate to be taken seriously here. Once again, I overestimate my fellow bipeds.

So be it.

Again, Mr. McMillan, thanks for your time.

PainMan 16:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No one is stopping you contributing. I'm sorry you first major contribution here has caused problems, but discussing the history of the GUI belongs on the GUI page, not on the Windows 95 page. AlistairMcMillan 16:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Anybody who has studied the Windows 95 kernel architecture would laugh at the idea it's a 16 bit OS. It's absolutely preposterous. For backwards compatibility there is some 16/32 bit hybridization code left over from WfWg, and that's pretty much restricted to GDI code, and was re-written in assembly. Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for uninformed detractors, nor for rumour and innuendo. If you want to insert this 16 bit stuff, source it to someone qualified to say so. SchmuckyTheCat 16:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

No need to beat a dead horse, Schmucky. No need to "ply the thong with extra vigor." I accept defeat and rejection. You're clearly going to win; if there's one thing I've learned in 34 years, it's when to raise the white flag. It's so raised. PainMan 16:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, betaing not intended, that was written while other edits were on the page. (it's a wiki, sometimes things are fast and furious). See my entry on your talk page. I don't want to bite the newcomer! SchmuckyTheCat 16:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

For newbies, don't deviate from the party line...

While the last revision was, shockingly, actually warranted, those new to wikipedia, or just this article, should be aware there's a group of folks, some of whom are former employees, or, perhaps present employees of Lord Bill (who just forced all XP users to give him the right to spy on their computers when they download the latest fix for an OS short-coming or security hole that should have been caught before XP ever hit the shelves, the fact that this will create a two tier world of Windows and make the OS, if possible, even less secure, seems to be about as high on the MSFT priority list as quality control, or so Ph'd holding computer engineers tell me), that will not let any content that doesn't follow the Microsoft party line get into this article.

So, don't even try it. Like Sinyavsky and Daniel in the late 60s Soviet Union, you'll be slapped down by the MSFT Central Commitee faster than you can say "Palo Alto Research Center"--the place that created the first corporate GUI--a fact verboten from this article.

Bottom line: views contrary to Lord Bill's ukases are not wanted and will be removed. And I'm sure a reason will be found for removing this comment even though it's on the Discussion page. It'll probably last about as long as the time between Microsoft fixes for major security holes...

I'd bite anyone who removes information from a talk page unless it was harassing or illegal somehow. Last time you entered information here, most agreed it was relevant and interesting, but more relevant on another article. If you think you want to add something again, why not just do it and see what the reaction is? If you think there is serious objection, dump it here for discussion first. SchmuckyTheCat 20:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"If you think there is serious objection, dump it here for discussion first."

That's exactly what I did. :o) "I'd bite anyone who removes information from a talk page unless it was harassing or illegal somehow." Really, even if it said information were, hypothetical speaking, incorrect? Isn't one of the major advantages of wikipedia--perhaps I'm wrong--is that incorrect information can be corrected? Unlike say Britannica where I have no idea how one would go about getting erroneous information corrected.

While I realize now I was rather thin-skinned about the whole thing, I still dispute that including a thumbnail sketch of the GUI's history (Engelbart, PARC, etc) is "irrelevant" in an article on Windows 95. The fact that certain data may appear in another article is no reason NOT to include one or several more articles. I believe this is called cross-referencing and can help people seeking knowledge about the long history of the GUI. Many younger folks (i.e. the under 20 crowd) believe that computing began with Windows, when in fact nearly all the major features of GUI were already invented when Gates and Allen were selling traffic data already freely available from the state of Washington (an early example of the marketing genius that, far more than anything technological, allowed Microsoft to conquer the microcomputer world--much to its detriment. Its inconceivable to argue that two or three serious OS competitors [to Windows] would not make for a better computing universe for everyone, well, not everyone).

PainMan 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Additions/corrections in final paragraph

I felt some minor corrections had to made to the final paragraph, i.e. before the chart of various 9x iterations.

I belive the article is incomplete without mentioning the strong resemblance between OS 7.6.1 and 95--and the ensuing litigation. That the market-place dominance achieved with 95 has allowed MSFT to port Windows to non-PC devices is also, I feel, very germaine to the article.

Certain people objected when I attempted to include a brief history of the GUI in the article some time back. I still do not understand the objection to what was highly relevant information (after all, in an article on the Napoleonic Wars you don't leave out biographical material on the Corsican!). As I said, a number of people disagreed. None, imo, had cogent reasons for doing so.

This final paragraph, however, needed some additions to make the article more complete. Microsoft's use of its desktop monopoly to leverage versions of Windows into CE, PDAs and embedded devices cannot be irrelevant regardless of whether its mentioned in some other articles.

I decided not to dispute it the last time. This time, I feel I must stick to my guns. The facts I added are important and completely on-point. I suppose its possible someone can convince me otherwise, but I doubt it.

The Start button/task bar did NOT originate with 95. Clearly the inspiration was OS 7.6.1. I'm no patent lawyer but the resemblance is too obviously to be ignored. Also, from what I understand, Apple was making serious head-way in its litigation against Microsoft. Whilst the anti-trust case probably had more to do with Redmond settling than the turn of the litigation tide, it was still a concession, regardless of the usual "no admission of liability" BS (who pays $150M is there's no liability? This wasn't a $2000 car wreck), that the basic look of 95 had been filched from the Mac.

If the "apple" logo in the upper left-hand corner of OS 7.6.1 wasn't a "start" button what was it? It contained lists of recently opened documents and programs and well as short-cuts to applications.

So, I'm going to sit back and see what happens. PainMan 13:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


I've greatly edited this paragraph:

  • Windows 95 ran on MS-DOS 6.22 (and later releases on MS-DOS 7.0), which was included (but generally hidden from the user). Windows 95 was the first Windows product to be tied to a specific version of DOS; this was seen as a way to leverage the dominant position Windows 3.1 had established in the GUI market and ensure that no non-Microsoft product would be able to provide the underlying operating system services.

First, Windows 95 never ran on dos 6.22, at all, period. MS-DOS 7 was never aproduct it's just the version of the command line shell. Second, Windows and DOS7 weren't "tied" to "leverage" so that a non-MS product could provide the "underlying operating system services". That's bogus by any understanding of the Win95 boot strap process.

I'm making other changes at the same time. I doubt they'll be controversial, but that large edit may be. SchmuckyTheCat 23:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As 95-ME only used DOS for bootstrapping, and used its own routines for just about everything, is it fair to call it DOS based? Naelphin

  • No, does it still say so or was this re-added? SchmuckyTheCat 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is from here: {{History_of_Windows}} It puts together 3.x and 95 as "MS-DOS based" Would anyone mind if I instead but 95-ME on hybrid?
  • ugh, I'd make it 16 bit rather than DOS based, because even windows 1.0 did some of it's own memory management. And then, yes, something for 95-ME. Go to it. SchmuckyTheCat 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Release hype

While cleaning up my workspace I found these links I had saved a while back. They talk about the hype surrounding the launch and it might be nice to work these into the article at some point (they're reputable sources, after all!):

Basically dropping them here for later. :) --Foofy 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows resemblance to Mac OS

The strong resemblance between Windows 95 and the Apple Macintosh's OS 7.6.1 would lead to years of litigation between Microsoft and its archrival in Cupertino, CA--especially because the Start button and taskbar, according to Apple's claims, were taken directly from OS 7.6.1.

Okay, what's this based on? I know Microsoft and Apple got into a fight over Windows when it first came out, but I've never heard of this one! Also, where in OS 7.6.1 is there anything even resembling the taskbar? Source, anyone? -- Foofy 02:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

After much Googling I've decided to remove this bit from the article. I can find nothing to back it up, and I feel the original author was confusing it with earlier legal battles over Windows 1.0. -- Foofy 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I also decided to remove this bit from the same paragraph:

The near monopoly achieved of desktop operating systems with Windows 95 has allowed the Redmond-based giant to adapt Windows to non-PC environments, including PDAs (personal data assistants), home entertainment (Windows Media Center) and other consumer electronic products (with the unsurprisingly named Windows CE).

It's not specifically relevant to Windows 95, and that sort of thing is covered in other articles. --Foofy 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

DMA = Ultra DMA?

What is "DMA support"? Ultra ATA aka Ultra DMA support? Obviously all versions of Windows support direct memory access, or they wouldn't be able to read floppy disks... among other things. 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

UM floppies are certainly slow enough that you could read them without DMA (the data rate has only quadrupled since the days of the bbc micro and that certainly read them without DMA) Plugwash 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Speed is not the issue—on the PC, many (most?) floppy controllers only support DMA for data transfer. If Windows didn't support DMA, it would have a hard time interfacing with them.
Aside from that, speed is actually a bit of an issue, because reading a floppy without using DMA is like actively sucking molasses through a straw—the processor needs to devote attention to it, which is inefficient. 22:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah PIO is inefficant but i highly doubt that many flopy controllers only support DMA do you have a source for that assertion? Plugwash 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
PC floppy controllers ONLY support DMA (DMA channel 2 to be exact). Numerous references can be found online, but try ISBN 90-430-0349-6 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Invalid ISBN. for a printed one. —Ruud 23:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

fact check usage of win95 in 2006

As of 2006, Windows 95 remains in widespread use on some home PCs despite Microsoft's many attempts to get people to upgrade to more recent versions such as Windows XP.

We need a fact check for that. Source it anyone? I'll look as well.

It should simply be removed as it is unsourced speculation. I will do so. It can be readded if such a source is found.-Localzuk(talk) 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it's used on some, I know of a PC at my college running Win98 because of some peripheral that requires it. I think it's like, less than 4%. --TIB (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that it is 'some' but that doesn't mean 'widespread'. Also, Win98 is not Win95 and all of this is simply speculation. We would need a citation for it.-Localzuk(talk) 23:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From recent microsoft security bulletin:

Extended security update support for Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, or Windows Millennium Edition ended on July 11, 2006. I am still using one of these operating systems; what should I do?
Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition have reached the end of their support life cycles. It should be a priority for customers who have these operating system versions to migrate to supported versions to prevent potential exposure to vulnerabilities.

— Microsoft Security Bulletin MS06-068, Microsoft TechNet

Based on this, making a claim that Win95 is in wide use is imho reckless. Extended support for it ended some time ago. Perhaps we should say somethign like, "While still in use in isolated circumstances, extended support for this operating system ended blah blah blah." --David Spalding | Talk 13:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This part needs to go

Um.. I'm going to delete this part:

As of 2006, Windows 95 is still widely used among "technically-incompetent" computer users who purchased computers during the Windows 95 era and lack the skills and/or knowledge to desire an upgrade.

Anyone who doesn't agree?

It's fundamentally true, try re-wording it. SchmuckyTheCat 22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I dunno how common it is among home lusers but i do know for a fact that the john rylands university library of manchester use it for all the dedicated catalog terminals! Plugwash
That sentence was obviously vandalism, and flaming to boot. --Andrew T. 09:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok maybe using luser as shorthand for technically incompetant user wasn't the most polite of wording but the comment is certainly true. Plugwash 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This part also needs to go:

Windows 95 brought much greater power and usability to the desktop GUI, but on the bad side, it also stifled competition in the DOS compatible operating system market. While it was technically possible (but not a good idea given the above) to start the Windows 95 kernel and GUI from DR-DOS — and probably PC-DOS too — this did not emerge in court until some years later, by which time the other major players in the DOS market were effectively out of business.

I've reworded it, as it's clearly POV to state that Windows becoming dominant was a bad thing. There's advantages to having one standard OS, but lack of competition can be bad, too - not everyone agrees about the effects of monopolies (or whether Microsoft even really is one). PaulGS 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Win 95 ver 950 D?

I seem to vaguely recall that there is a fairly obscure final release of 95 that was sent out as 950 D only to people who purchased a version of Windows from an independent retailer (i.e. as a bare CD, with product key included), or who ordered from an OEM which included this build on the requisite recovery CD, or as an actual Windows 95 CD.

Can anyone substantiate the existence of this build? 07:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Letters after 950 indicated various release candidate builds that did not go out to the public. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

System Requirements

Can someone put the requirements for Windows 95 in the article? Seems kinda silly that there not here and i came here for that information.

I agree. This information can be found on other Windows entries on Wikipedia, but no Win95. -- 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is the second paragraph under "editions" SchmuckyTheCat 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's buried in the paragraph. It should be the same format as the other Windows entries. -- 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

USB support

I am almost certain that information about USB support in Windows 95 is slightly incorrect. According to the table in the "Editions" chapter, only Windows 95 OSR 2.1 (4.03.1212) and OSR 2.5 (4.03.1214) support USB, and OSR 2.0 ((4.00.1111) and earlier revisions DO NOT. This is not so. I claim that OSR 2.0 also supports USB just like OSR 2.1 and OSR 2.5 do. First to note - no Windows 95 edition features USB support as an "integral" part of the default installation. You have to add USB support as a separate update. For details, see ( This fact about USB support is not mentioned in the Wiki article.

Back to USB support in OSR 2.0. Even the writer of that guide wrote that OSR 2.0 does not support USB. But I have a genuine OEM installaton CD of Windows 95 OSR 2.0 (4.00.1111), and it DOES support USB. Even the CD itself has a print on it "With USB Support". The USB update itself is located in the folder "<CD>:\other\usb\". I have installed this particular Windows 95 numerous times on multiple PCs and I have used USB devices (joysticks, ZIP drives, ...) in it (with USB support installed) completely fine.

So - my point is - Windows 95 OSR 2.0 (4.00.1111) ALSO DOES support USB, just like OSR 2.1 and OSR 2.5 do. I propose to change the corresponding info in the table, and to additionaly, explicitly write a dedicated chapter about USB, FAT32 and UDMA support in Windows 95.

Nihad Hamzic (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

USB on Win95 shipped after the first release of OSR2. It isn't considered part of the OSR2 feature set. It was meant to, but it wasn't. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Cultural impact

i think one of these sections should be added, as w95 was (arguably) when a personal computer changed from a niche, hobbyist thing into something everyone 'had to have'. more due to the internet than windows 95 but the timing was right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The WWW Browser is what made computers attractive to average people. If the WWW had never been invented, computers would likely still be niche products used mostly for doing work (at the office) or gaming (at home) or as a hobby (for us geeks). The WWW browser made computers attractive to average people, and would have sold machines even if we were still stuck with Windows 3.1 trash. - Theaveng (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My Windows 95 looks like a Mac (look there's the ever-faithful trashcan)

Am I the only one to notice? Did none of the Magazine reviewers of the era make similar observations? - Theaveng (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

one of bill gates' stated goals of windows 95 was 'make it like the mac'. lots of people noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Need source on Bill gates comments :) --Waqas1987 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows 95 Service Pack 1 - February 13, 1996

The Windows 95 Service Pack 1 (as an update) was released by Microsoft on February 13, 1996.

Windows 95 for Dummies

I have the books Windows 95 for Dummies and More Windows 95 for Dummies, and they state that windows 95 will run on just 2 MB of RAM and 10 MB of hard disk space (as the bare minimum). Should that be included? I know 8 MB is the recommended minimum, while 4 will be okay if you just use Notepad or Microsoft Paint. (this data is on Win95 For Dummies' pages 40-43. RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the writer just forgot to update the system requirements from Windows 3.1 for Dummies. (Each book in that series is mostly the same as the previous book.) If I remember correctly, Windows 95 for Dummies 2nd Edition fixed this, changing it to 4MB RAM and 40MB of hard disk space. The pre-release version of Windows 95 for Dummies also claims that Windows 95 runs on a 286, which is definatly wrong. The only editions I've seen are the pre-release and 2nd editions. I don't know if the pre-release edition counts as the 1st Edition. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt a pre-release version/release candidate/beta/alpha would count as part of the OS's release schedule or version history. Windows 95 running on a 286? i doubt it! hell, the guy even said it would run on a 16-bit 386SX (the 386DX could handle windows 95, as it is 32-bit), which i don't believe for a single second. I think you need at least a 486-family processor (SX, DX, DX-2, DX-4, etc.). RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 01:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It will run on a 386SX. You never want to see this, but it will. The minimum supported processor was a 386DX. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Regarding RAM, you need to take into account the amount of virtual memory/size of the pagefile used. With Virtual Memory disabled and 4 MB of RAM, Windows 95 will not boot on my virtual machine. With 8 MB of RAM with the VM still disabled, it gets to the login screen, but when you clear that the shell will fail to load into memory. Only with 10 MB of RAM will the system boot correctly. Windows 95 willl also boot correctly with 4 MB of RAM and 9 MB disk space, VM enabled (a 5.53 MB swap file is created with this setup). If there is 2 MB of RAM and 10 MB of disk space as described above with VM enabled, it would probably be able to work. -- RattleMan 09:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Even with VM enabled there is a minimal ammount of real ram needed to get a sucessfull boot and installing certain stuff whether included (e.g. networking) or seperate (e.g. a virus scanner) can increase that ammount. Last time I tried it on a 4 meg machine (with VM enabled and plenty of free hdd space) installing either direct cable connection (which brings in the networking components) or the virus scanner I had handy was enough to push the system over the edge into not booting which suggests that 4 megs is pretty near the edge of what 95 will run on. Plugwash (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The "working set" for the base OS is 14MB. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I remember having 8 MB (later 16 MB) on an old 80486 (i think it was the SX model), and i think that would be the bare recommended minimum... i also saw Windows 95 on 12 MB.... though, i think the system works best with 32 MB... it was slow with 16, usable with 8... i would never want to see Windows 95 on a 286 with only 2 MB of ram and 10 MB of disk space... or maybe i would... i am the curious type, after all... RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It will not run on a 286. It requires a 32 bit processor. It will not run in 2mb.
In any case, this conversation is not about improving the article. Let's end it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh the Nerd (talkcontribs) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 1.0 WAS shipped with the original Windows 95 version

This article is incorrect. The shipped version of Windows 95 on floppies did not include IE 1.0, but the shipped CD-ROM version did in fact have IE 1.0 as mentioned here:

- (shows the GUI of the original CD-ROM version) ; - ;and -

If there are no objections, I will modify the article accordingly. (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, now, do we trust some web site with animated GIFs and "scary" MIDI music, and is devoted to bashing Internet Explorer to the point of sounding like a pack of rabies-infected hyenas hepped up on angel dust? Or do we trust Microsoft's published historical record? The fact that Microsoft shipped IE with Windows 95 after the initial release of Windows 95 is well-known, and this article accurately reflects that. -/- Warren 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the original Windows 95 CD-ROM did not include Internet Explorer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Yes it did. You may not believe that site I showed you, but you can't can't argue with the fact that during the antitrust procedings of 1998 in relation to Microsoft, Bill Gates and the questioner made it clear that while the Windows 95 "Upgrade" version (floppy disk) did not include IE 1.0 (it had to be installed by the Plus! pack, the Windows 95 CD-ROM did include it. If you want anymore proof, doggone it, I'll post a screenshot of an installed Windows 95 CD-ROM in a Virtual PC. (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it did not. At RTM, on August 24, 1995, Internet Explorer only existed for release with the Plus! Pack. The upgrade SKU was available on CD-ROM and floppy. As was the full version. Neither included Internet Explorer. Plus! was also available on floppies, I have no idea why. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh the Nerd (talkcontribs) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Release date

Where did the October 13 date come from? Windows 95 was in fact released to the public 24 Aug 1995, I remember because my birthday is the 23rd and I lined up that midnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh the Nerd (talkcontribs) 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image "designed for" questions...

I specifically posted an image of the Windows 95 "designed for" logo and, it got deleted. I used the exact procedures and image submit template that a guy used on the Windows XP page. Is it just that I'm doing something wrong? Am I supposed to submit a question if I can post it? Is it just me, or are the Wikipedia bots a little too harsh... And also, it wasn't a bad quality item either. I scanned a very god quality version and then edited in Gimp the sticker to make it look good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

MSIE and Win95

I have a question about this line:

Later editions of Windows 95 came with Internet Explorer 3, then Internet Explorer 4 preinstalled.

Wasn't there a Win95 that came preinstalled with IE5? I would add it, but I am not sure. -iHoshie 16:50, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there was, but Windows 98 Second Edition came with IE5. At least I'm pretty sure. — El Chico! Talk 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected Mode

Is it just me, or does this section read like, well—something that doesn't really need to be in a general overview of Windows 95? At the least it's geek-speak, and at worst it's completely useless information. Just my 2 cents worth. (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it really does need to be. It is very important and is the inverse of useless. The following is the reason why: The developers apparently had no idea what they were doing, and this serves to illustrate the fact. It is *highly notable* that one of the world's most powerful and successful software companies can produce such fundamentally flawed software, correct? Posix memalign —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
I agree with this this information as it stands is not useful. Without a discussion (and ideally non-OR sources) that discuss the addition of protected mode operation along with its capabilities and features, saying that it's broken is not very useful and appears to be simply windows bashing. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It is justified criticism, just by calling it "windows bashing" doesn't negate it, Windows 95 is one of the worst atrocities ever seen in the history of the computer, it does so many things wrong on so many levels that it could be a joke. Why isn't it noteworthy to point out how Microsoft could make such a bad product? Posix memalign (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if the reader is not familiar with protected mode, then the reader may read the protected mode article. Posix memalign (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

PX 1308 & 1310

Could anyone explain to me what references are PX 1308 & 1310? GL1zdA (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

using "Edstrom & Eller - Barbarians Led by Bill Gates - Microsoft from the Inside - How the World's Richest Corporation Wields Its Power" for 'needs additional citations for verification'.

the book above mentioned is from one of the first Windows developers and contains a lot of information about developing Windows 95, its goals, compromises in developing it.

Is it o.k to add references to it ? Ali chaudhry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

IE 4 in Windows 95C

My OEM copy of Windows 95C (shipped with my old HP Pavilion from 1998) seems to only have Internet Explorer 3 on it. I tested it out in Oracle VirtualBox, and it did not install IE 4. Could some Windows 95C copies have had IE 3 only and not IE 4? --Schala 01:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It should ship with a copy of IE4 on the disc, although indeed not installed by default. When you bought the computer with which the disc came the OEM should have installed it for you, though. I believe the same is true for OSR 2.1, you manually have to run the USB update after installing the OS. —Ruud 05:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

MS-DOS is just a command prompt?

Many sites say that MS-DOS does work, but Windows 95 does not need much with MS-DOS? I got this from many websites. The important application from MS-DOS is the MS-DOS Command Prompt, which is used only for the commands from the Microsoft Command Prompt, which was powered by the original command prompt Microsoft had created around the 1980s for MS-DOS and Windows NT. From Me, WiiRocks566 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

MS-DOS, when installed as a standalone OS, is considerably more than a command prompt. It provides program loading and file system services, along with a large number of built-in commands and utility programs.
Within Win95 there is a bit more of MS-DOS than just the command prompt. Booting of Win95 starts by booting MS-DOS and MS-DOS never goes away. A few Win32 API calls under Win95 do rely on code within MS-DOS itself ("thunking down" to 16-bit mode to get there), as of course does the Win16 (Win3.1) API compatibility layer. It was written this way because one of the goals of Win95 was as much compatibility as possible with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1.
Under the Windows NT family things are very different. There are NO vestiges of MS-DOS underneath the OS in the NT family. Calls to OS services from DOS apps and from Win16 apps are implemented by thunking up to 32-bit mode and calling the equivalent Win32 APIs. The preferred command prompt (what you get when you use the "command prompt" shortcut) is a 32-bit program called cmd.exe. It implements many extensions to the MS-DOS command language and supports a new file type for batch files (.cmd). In 32-bit versions of Windows NT-derived OSs they do supply something called; this will provide a command prompt window, but you're still not "running DOS". Its code is based heavily on the command interpreter of the same name from MS-DOS, and is there mostly for old times' sake. Occasionally one does run into an old .bat script that depends on some quirk or other of MS-DOS's and won't run correctly under cmd; running such under is a workaround. under the NT family still thunks out to 32-bit mode to call system functions. Jeh (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Initial cost?

Anyone know the initial cost of the Upgrade or Full versions? And can we put them in the main article? (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICESJasper Deng (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

upgrade already

i put a thing how if someone was still using windows 95 because they couldn't afford to upgrade their computer, using Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux with IceWM or JWM was probably better than w95 at this point. but it got reverted so it's here now.

WP:NPOV, WP:NOADSJasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

System file versions

In the editions table, how are system file versions determined precisely?--Luca Ghio (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Microsoft Knowledge Base and by using the Version tab in the properties window. —Ruud 16:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Win95 on 1995?

Sorry but I've always though win95 was release on 1996. Well maybe 10 years has make deep holes in my mind.


I'm almost sure that Windows 95 was originally planned for 1993 (although without Win32s). The original 95 was indeed released in 1995. Because of very serious flaws, a Service Pack 1 was released. A later edition had SP1 integrated, 95A, released in early 1996. Later in 1996, it had more 98-like features with 95B. --Mike 00:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Release date was August 30, 1995. How could you not remember the "start me up" hype! If you were older than a child, you would have seen news footage of people lining up for three blocks around the local CompUSA (brick and mortar then) or Computer City (out of business now) for two days before the midnight launch of Windows 95. The delay of 32-bit Office95 seems to be the cause of the later release.
See for the mostly irrelevant (3 fixes for users with problems with UNIX Samba servers? One for using the evil DOS Subst command.) fixes in Service Pack 1.
I was transferred to Win95 support in early 96; I had been using the platform preview beta of "Chicago" since late 93. Didn't have any problems with any program that also ran on Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95" describes programming similarities. Win32, Posix, and OS2 were the three subsystems that ran atop NT 3.1 (and NT3.5, NT3.51, NT4, W2K, et al) Native Mode (ntoskrnl.exe). As noted Win32 in Win95 runs atop VMM32. Win32s is a subset of Win32 designed to run in Windows 3.1 16-bit environment.
Shjacks45 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

cpu speed range

The System Requirements section is good. (It would be better to be a little more specific about cpu speed requirements at the low end.) But please add details about the high-end speed limits. Win95 is said to have problems above about 300MHz cpu speed, at least on AMD. Very relevant to modern hardware and virtual boxes. There are supposed to be various solutions to the problems.- (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

12/31/01 End Of Support Date

This OS wasn't supported very long, but it's still an awesome Os! -- (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sites sayy it ended on December 31, 2003. Yes i WANT them to bring it back. I hate Vista-8. The classic WIndows, Windows 3.0-XP are amazing and have great graphics! -- (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Windows 95 Release Day

This is what it was like on Windows 95 release day (not my photo). I remember going to a midnight sale to buy my copy back in the day. Too bad somone doesn't upload a photo like this to Wiki Commons. • SbmeirowTalk • 08:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A case of hating some Windows versions?

Hello guys.

The true nature of certain disputes in Wikipedia eludes my grasp. We have 19:59, 28 May 2013 edit, in which changes the phrase "with the first major paradigm shift not taking place until Windows 2012 in September 2012" into "... until Windows 8 in September 2012", with an edit summary that reads:

Changed Windows 2012 to Windows 8 because Windows Server 2012 is not being discussed here

Well, this edit has two problems: (1) September 2012 no longer applies to Windows 8. (2) Why does anyone should think replacing the mention of "Windows Server 2012" with a mention of "Windows 8" means we are discussing one of them less than the other? Both are being used as adverbs of time (event), only Windows 8 is wrong.

Apart from all of these, I have an objection to this edit and subsequent edits made by other editors who attempted a compromise: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view core policy says the most important tent is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Correct me if I am wrong, but all attempts to sacrifice accuracy just to suppress any reference to Windows Server family is a violation of this policy, regardless of the reason.

Best regard,
23:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It just feels awkward that we're mentioning a server version of Windows in an article that discusses a version of the consumer and desktop-oriented Windows (i.e. 95 > 98 > ME > XP > Vista > 7 > 8). I don't see how there's a problem with that because even our infoboxes say that 7 is succeeded by 8, not Windows Server 2012. The significant view from reliable sources is that Windows Server is separate when it comes to these things; its an awkward situation that Microsoft caused themselves by having Server 2012 hit GA before Windows 8.ViperSnake151  Talk  00:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Separate or not separate, we are using a Windows release as an adverb of time, a form of milestone. Adverb of time is either accurate or not. In addition, Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 are equally different from Windows 95. Finally, Windows Home Server 2011 is a consumers product. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No criticisms

That's so cool how this is like the only operating system, or major computer article, with no criticisms section. Windows 95 is the best OS ever, and everyone knows it. It's better than XP, which I think comes in second. (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's awkward how proper and neat the article makes Windows 95 look like. It was influential and revolutionary OS, but also carried high hardware requirements and was very crash-prone. (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maximum supported memory

Hello, everyone.

Ruud Koot and Reciprocist, I hope you are reading this because it is about your edits. To put is short, your change is synthesis of one or more sources incorrectly. Are you two trying to make compromises with sources? One says 1 GB, one says 512 MB and one says 480 MB; so you decide to go with the middle ground, am I right? (Practically, that's what has happened.) That's what you do in dispute resolution, not in verifiability.

Let's put the article 184447 aside; it applies to Windows 95, 98 and 98 SE. Therefore, what it says is correct for all of them, i.e. all may fail when more than 1 GB memory is installed. The point is: This statement is true even if all of them fail to start with less. Or, in this case, Windows 95. But when you get to 253912, in choosing between what it says and what Raymond Chen's source says, you must say something that both agree with or else have a very good reason to reject one. As soon as you say 512 MB, you are discrediting Raymond Chen's source and you'd better have a good reason for that.

IMHO, 253912 is mentioning a practical limit. While it is possible to install 512 MB of physical RAM, I am not sure if it is possible to install 480 MB physical RAM on a system marketed in 1998. But 512 MB of RAM was possible, if one installed four 64 MB memory modules.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I think KB 253912 is the most authoritative source as it's the most recent KB article (assuming they are numbered sequentially) and it rather explicitly gives instructions for limiting the physical memory Win95 will see to 512 MB, no more no less. The previous (and I assume older) KB article 184447 is nearly identical but suggests limiting the memory to 768 MB. Neither of them claims this is a hard upper limit. They do claim physical memory is mapped between 3G and 4G virtual, which would put a theoretical upper limit at 1 GB (which Win98 and Me where able to achieve, no more no less, according to KB 304943).
My original research using Bochs has shown there is no hard-coded upper limit, but you will get and "out of memory" message during when approaching 1 GB (~980 MB depending on hardware configuration and drivers loaded). This behavior is consistent with what the KB articles and Chen describe will happen. When lowered to just below this amount the system will boot but applications will start crashing with page faults. The KB articles describe there will be problems with large amounts of RAM even if the system does boot. (Obviously none of this can be included in the article without supporting sources.)
KB 181594 is highly problematic as it claims Win95 can use 2 GB of RAM. Clearly this is nonsense, given the above. I suggest we ignore this source because it is the oldest and most terse KB article and directly contradicts the other two KB articles.
I added Chen's blog posts a few years ago, before I became aware of the KB articles. As he was a Win95 kernel developer, I think we can count this a reasonable (self-published expert) source, although he does have a tendency to at times make bold claims without proof. It's interesting the number he mentions is almost exactly half the number I found. I think I tested with OSR2.5 and he is talking about the original release, though.
I think a carefully phrased "may fail to boot on computers with more than approximately x MB of memory" is the way to go, where either x=480 or x=512 is acceptable. The lowest number is probably safest, 512 comes from what is arguably the most authoritative source.
I think claiming that Win95 can "use 2 GB of memory" is not, as it is wrong, despite what that one KB article states. (Fortunately, while what we state in the article should be verifiable, everything that is "verifiable" does not need to be stated in the article.)
Ruud 11:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I now see that I confused KB 253912 and KB 304943. While KB 184447 and KB 304943 both suggest limiting physical memory by setting MaxPhysPage to 30000 (768 MB) for Win95, respectively 40000 (1 GB) for Win98/Me, KB 253912 implies merely limiting MaxFileCache (and not MaxPhysPage) to 512 MB might be sufficient (although it still mentions limiting physical memory to 512 MB by either installing that amount or less, or using MaxPhysPage, as workarounds as well). I'd be interested to try if one can boot and run Win95 with a larger amount of RAM this way. I'm doubtful if we should mention this in the article even if this does turn out to be the case. —Ruud 12:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Some more interesting limits I came across:
  • "Please note that Microsoft's testing did not include cache sizes greater than 40MB." [1]
  • "One of my friends got 96MB of memory on his machine to test that we didn't tank under 'insanely huge memory configurations'" [2]
  • "Windows 95 machines have been known to have issues with memory above 48MB because of how the memory is handled with VCACHE." [3]
Ruud 12:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
TL;RI. (Too long; read it!) Microsoft support articles do not identify their authors; some times the author is some Chinese guys that doesn't know enough English. In case, of Raymond Chen, however, the author of leg of WP:RS is well-established.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • From my experience, 512 MB is totally safe, no incompatibility ever encountered. From 512 MB to 1 GB one needs to limit the max file cache, as it is suggested in the KB. I never got more than 1 GB working, although the Microsoft sources say it may be because of large amount of video memory installed, so to boot with RAM above 1 GB one needs to change hardware. The prevuous statement attributed to a random third-party website that claimed 480 MB as the limit is definitely wrong. The article should mention 3 limits: the no-trouble limit of 512 MB, the practical limit (with tweaking) of about 900 MB and the theoretical limit according to Microsoft of 2 GB.--Reciprocist (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello, Reciprocist. "From my experience" is a taboo in Wikipedia. Please be sure to study Wikipedia:No original research policy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    Are you serious? I was reverted based on "empirical testing". My edit was based on Microsoft's sources. So based on "empirical testing" the reverter is also wrong.--Reciprocist (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"While it is possible to install 512 MB of physical RAM, I am not sure if it is possible to install 480 MB physical RAM on a system marketed in 1998. " - how is it relevant? We are discussing operating system, not hardware.--Reciprocist (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"As soon as you say 512 MB, you are discrediting Raymond Chen's source and you'd better have a good reason for that." - Raymond Chen does not say in his article whether he reduced the file cache size as advised in the Knowledge Base. Microsoft Knowledge Base is the official source of Microsoft and also a reference-book. If you encounter contradictions between reliable sources you cannot ignore one of them. But in this case there even is no apparent contradiction. According to q253912, when running a system that has more than 512 MB RAM Windows 95 can have troubles booting unless file cache size is reduced.--Reciprocist (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Windows 93

Is it real? I heard its fake. -- (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw this and wondered myself. Somewhere years ago, I obtained the files to make a bootable floppy for "MS-DOS 7.0Beta" that says, "Starting Chicago" when it boots. It had an "Autowin" command that appears to patch COMMAND.COM to either load the DOS prompt or run Windows automatically. (Autowin on|off). The files are dated 1/94, so that, coupled with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 being released in 1993 makes me dubious of that it was to be Windows 93. I recall that it was to be Windows 94, and the release date slipped so it was renamed to Windows 95. There was a joke that it was to be delayed further and named, Windows 96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Availability of 5.25" Installation Media

The article contains the following text: "While the floppy version of Windows was normally on 3.5" disks, a 5.25" version could be specially ordered as well." But it seems as though none of the references discussing system requirements make mention of this fact, and it does not have a citation of its own. Where does this information come from? (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you think the claim is bogus, and it is not referenced to a reliable source, you are free to delete it. Do be sure to use an edit summary that explains your deletion (e.g. "claim not found in references, and I couldn't find a ref to this anywhere else"). Jeh (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

cara de chango no copies esto

The mobile view has a text in Spanish : "cara de chango no copies esto". In the text below the title: fourth edition of Microsoft Windows operating system cara de chango no copies esto

I think this is inappropriate in this page. I am new to wikipedia, I was not able to correct this. For information, I configurate my browser to prefer Spanish content (I am not sure this is useful information) Walterpine (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

okay, I am completely new here, but I came here to report the same thing.
My Spanish is weak, but I think it says "don't copy this, monkey faces"-- some sort of insult, but nonetheless highly inappropriate for Wikipedia and serves no point in the article whatsoever.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B12A:27F:4B24:FEFD:34C4:D03F (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This is caused probably because the app loads information of Wikidata: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan.medeiros (talkcontribs) 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Broken Citation

Citation 9 ( just redirects to - There's nothing there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Logo problem


We seem to have a very big problem here: Alex Neman has uploaded SVG versions of Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows NT 4.0 logos to Wikimedia Commons and intends to use them here. SVG is great. But there is a big problem what Alex Neman has done: Commons has a very bad reputation of deleting Windows logos and leaving us in the lurch. We have previously lost logos for Windows Vista, 7, Server 2008, Server 2008 R2 and other articles. To make matter worse, Alex Neman has a very long history of grossly violating image policies of Wikipedia, and has currently violated dozen of Commons policies with those images. More specifically, on Wikipedia, he has already ignored WP:NFCC#3 regarding File:Microsoft Windows 98 Logo.png and File:Microsoft Windows 95 Logo.png.

To avoid losing three more logos and having to go to extreme measures of recovering them, we need to ensure that regardless of whether the logos are kept on Wikipedia or Commons, or whether the logos are SVG or PNG, the policy is zealously complied with.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Topics not covered

  • COM object model
  • Windows registry
  • PnP

--Reciprocist (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


The NPOV'ing of the comparison between NT kernels and the kernel used in Windows 95 is good intentioned, but a bit extreme. There are virtually no people who believe that Windows 95 had a superior kernel. The superiority of NT kernels is obvious to anyone who used Windows 95/98/ME and Windows NT/2000/XP. -- cprompt 01:06, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Infobox image

I think the image in the infobox should be the logo of Windows 95, the image currently in the infobox can be used somewhere else in the article. -- Eagleamn 08:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


I think it should be notified in the article how Microsoft marketed Windows 95 especially as introducing "multimedia", due to its introduction of 24-bit True Color (whereas Win 3.x had only been capable of 8 or 16-bit color, i. e. only up to 32,768 colors at most), as well as being the first Windows version to natively support AVI/VfW (or at least this feature was especially emphasized with Windows 95) and MPEG, was the first Windows version to natively come with (Windows) Media Player (instead of it being a separate add-on or only being included in special versions), and that also due to being the first Windows version that was massively used on machines with CD drives it was capable to access and play back interactive multimedia CD-ROMs (many of which at the time were informative and educational in nature, utilizing a combination of click-through text, audio, and short video clips, whereas such CD-ROMs pretty much were the epitome of what "multimedia" meant back in the mid-1990s). --2003:EF:13C6:DC62:9DAB:F762:C81E:FD53 (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

FBE Teens React

I still convinced that Fine Brothers uploaded to YouTube entitled, Teens React to Windows 95, which is published on March 2016, right? -- (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the article. Michaelmalak (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Michaelmalak, I struck the sock comment. The IP user is serial sockmaster Banana19208 editing in contravention of a ban (don't just take my word for it - check their contributions and the reverts by Checkuser). See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banana19208/Archive.

The first addition of this content, back in April, here, was by a different sock of the same banned user: (Tagzhoophe), which explains why they say above: "I still convinced". They've reinstated it with different sock/IPs several times. As such, all edits are revertable per WP:DENY.

Because you didn't know this I've reverted you again, so that you can decide what to do. You are, by policy, entitled to reinstate and accept responsibility for the banned user's edit as your own, and I won't personally challenge it if you do. For the record, though, I do oppose its inclusion as tangential, unimportant trivia, so you no longer have the consensus you thought you had, although, per WP:BOLD you are perfectly free to reinstate and take responsibility for the edit as your own 'new' 'B'old edit, with no consensus, and I won't exercise my 'R'evert right in the true, sock-free, BRD sequence... Sorry for any confusion. Thanks. -- Begoon 07:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Windows 95/Archive 1" page.