Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Tiffany Hayes

2010-05-13T15:06:29Z

64.180.184.65: /* Disambiguation page? */ new section

{{WPBiography
|living=yes
|class=
|priority=
|listas=Hayes, Tiffany
}}

== [[WP:LDR]] citation style ==

I decided to add some material and reference it using the [[WP:LDR]] citation style. In order to reduce confusion, I converted existing references to LDR style, so all are in the same style. Any questions, please ask.--[[User:Sphilbrick|SPhilbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|T]] 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

== Disambiguation page? ==

This doesn't much sound like a professional voice actress.

Talk:Windows 95

2010-03-21T11:12:32Z

64.180.184.65:

{{afd-merged-from|Development of Windows 95|Development of Windows 95|02 September 2009}}

{{WikiProject Computing|class=Start|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows|class=Start|importance=top}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-24|oldid1=5428216}}
----

== 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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.193.175.235|71.193.175.235]] ([[User talk:71.193.175.235|talk]]) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (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. --[[User:24.249.108.133|24.249.108.133]] 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It is the second paragraph under "editions" [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It's buried in the paragraph. It should be the same format as the other Windows entries. --[[User:24.249.108.133|24.249.108.133]] 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

==386SX==
Does 95 run on 386SX processors? --[[user:AdamWill|AW]]
:No, at least officially as Tannin seems to say something else. I didn't try it was slow enough on 386DX.[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 11:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia ... er .. I mean Adam ... it runs just fine on a 386SX of any speed. Load a 386SX-16 up with 8MB of RAM, press the power button, shave, take a shower, get dressed, comb your hair, and it's right there at the desktop ready and waiting for you already. (Don't laugh, I've worked on machines configured like that.) [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 11:22 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

A few years ago, a friend of mine gave me an ancient laptop he had to play around with for a few days. I can't recall which brand it was, but I remember it had a 20mhz AMD 386SXL, 4mb of memory, 60mb of harddrive space and a greyscale screen. No cd-rom, so Windows 95 had to be installed from floppy disks. It installed fine, and booted up surprisingly quickly. This little laptop had a modem which I believe was less than 9600 baud. I wanted to try installing Windows 95's dialup internet connection software and try going online with it, but for whatever reason I just never bothered with it. [[User:Infinitrium|Infinitrium]] 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Intel's SX chips were horrendously slow rip-offs. If you've got a 386 laying around, replace the SX chip with an AMD 386DX40 - it's far faster.
Now, that screenshot: is that of Windows 95? It looks more like Win98 or a version of Win95 with IE4's gui hacks.

: Heaps faster, yes. Pin-compatible, not even close. A 386SX runs on a 16-bit board - essentially a 286 board with a BIOS tweak. A 386DX uses a 32-bit board which is essentially the same as a 486 board but with a different socket. Many boards of the era (notably those based on the OPTi 895 chipset, but others too) were "universal" - i.e., they could take a 386DX, 486DLC, 486SX, or 486DX.

: Win95C had IE 4.0 as standard. (Which is why is was so slow and buggy.) 95B had IE 3.0, 95A had neither. It's probably a 95C in the screenshot. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 17:18 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
:: Hmm i don't remember any version of windows 95 installing IE as part of the standard install though some OEM copies i saw came with an IE4 CD in the box. The screenshot certainly doesn't have windows desktop update installed though thats not complete evidence that IE4 isn't installed. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"The screenshot certainly doesn't have windows desktop update installed though thats not complete evidence that IE4 isn't installed". yeah, i know that with NT 4.0, if you install a later version it doesnt install the update automatically (e.g ie6) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 

==NT==
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.
-- [[User:67.83.112.108|cprompt]] 01:06, 25 Aug 2003 (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. -[[User:Hoshie|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. — [[User:El Chico|El Chico!]] [[User talk:El Chico|Talk]] 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No.[[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (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.

Regards

: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. --[[User:MikeRS|Mike]] 00:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== MS-DOS ==
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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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? [[User:Naelphin|Naelphin]]
*No, does it still say so or was this re-added? [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
**It is from here: <nowiki>{{History_of_Windows}}</nowiki> 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

==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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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. [[User:PainMan|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]]. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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. [[User:PainMan|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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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.

[[User:PainMan|PainMan]] 15:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

: There is no reason to duplicate the content that already exists on [[graphical user interface]]. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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.''

[[User:PainMan|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.

[[User:PainMan|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 [[graphical user interface|GUI]] page, not on the [[Windows 95]] page. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia]] isn't a mouthpiece for [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge|uninformed]] detractors, nor for rumour and innuendo. If you want to insert this 16 bit stuff, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|source]] it to someone [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|qualified]] to say so. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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. [[User:PainMan|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! [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 16:54, 14 May 2005 (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. -- [[User:Eagleamn|Eagle]][[User_talk:Eagleamn|'''a''']][[User_talk:Eagleamn|'''m''']][[User_talk:Eagleamn|'''n''']] 08:57, Jun 20, 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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).

[[User:PainMan|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.
[[User:PainMan|PainMan]] 13:09, 10 December 2005 (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.

*[http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/2463/HackWin95.html Windows 95 Service Pack 1 Update (Feb 13, 1996)]
*[http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;145667 Microsoft Windows 95 Service Pack 1 README for Microsoft Windows 95 (February 1996)]
*[http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&num=10&q=%22Windows+95%22+%22Service+Pack+1%22&qt_s=Keres%C3%A9s&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1996&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=1996 Google Groups messages]

== 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!):

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1995/debut082495.htm With Windows 95's Debut, Microsoft Scales Heights of Hype]
* [http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112728,00.html Windows 95: The hype and beyond]

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

== DMA = Ultra DMA? ==

What is "DMA support"? Ultra [[Advanced Technology Attachment|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. [[User:82.92.119.11|82.92.119.11]] 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) [[User:Plugwash|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. [[User:82.92.119.11|82.92.119.11]] 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? [[User:Plugwash|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 for a printed one. —''[[User:R._Koot|Ruud]]'' 23:09, 29 October 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? -- [[User:Foofy|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. -- [[User:Foofy|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. --[[User:Foofy|Foofy]] 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

== Spelling error corrected ==

I've just made a very minor change. Fixed a spelling error: "were'nt" to "weren't".

== 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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! [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]]
:That sentence was obviously vandalism, and flaming to boot. --[[User:Andrew T.|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. [[User:Plugwash|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). [[User:PaulGS|PaulGS]] 04:04, 15 February 2007 (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.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]][[User talk: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%. --[[User:The Inedible Bulk|TIB]] ([[User_talk:The_Inedible_Bulk|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 [[WP:CITE|citation]] for it.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]][[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]] 23:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From recent microsoft security bulletin:

{{quotation|'''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.|[http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms06-068.mspx 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''."
--[[User:Davidbspalding|David Spalding]] | [[User talk:Davidbspalding|Talk]] 13:34, 15 November 2006 (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?

[[User:24.84.72.113|24.84.72.113]] 07:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Letters after 950 indicated various release candidate builds that did not go out to the public. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:14, 11 April 2007 (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? - [[User:Theaveng|Theaveng]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.125.110.223|69.125.110.223]] ([[User talk:69.125.110.223|talk]]) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 
:: Need source on Bill gates comments :) --[[User:Waqas1987|Waqas1987]] ([[User talk:Waqas1987|talk]]) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

== 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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.125.110.223|69.125.110.223]] ([[User talk:69.125.110.223|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. - [[User:Theaveng|Theaveng]] ([[User talk:Theaveng|talk]]) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (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.

== 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 (http://www.usbman.com/Win95%20USB%20Guide.htm). 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.

[[User:Nihad Hamzic|Nihad Hamzic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== 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. '''[[User:RingtailedFox|RingtailedFox]] • [[User_talk:RingtailedFox|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RingtailedFox|Contribs]]''' 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. - [[User:Josh the Nerd|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh the Nerd|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Josh_the_Nerd|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.). '''[[User:RingtailedFox|RingtailedFox]] • [[User_talk:RingtailedFox|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RingtailedFox|Contribs]]''' 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:RattleMan|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. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] ([[User talk:Plugwash|talk]]) 10:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The "working set" for the base OS is 14MB. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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... '''[[User:RingtailedFox|RingtailedFox]] • [[User_talk:RingtailedFox|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RingtailedFox|Contribs]]''' 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== 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:

- http://toastytech.com/guis/win95.html (shows the GUI of the original CD-ROM version) ;
- http://toastytech.com/evil/retrospective.html#1995-1 ;and
- http://toastytech.com/evil/lab.html#rem95

If there are no objections, I will modify the article accordingly.

[[Special:Contributions/70.48.71.202|70.48.71.202]] ([[User talk:70.48.71.202|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 [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx 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. [[User talk:Warren|-/-]] [[User:Warren|Warren]] 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

:No, the original Windows 95 CD-ROM did not include Internet Explorer. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/70.48.241.204|70.48.241.204]] ([[User talk:70.48.241.204|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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== 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.

== Software rot ==

Can't believe how much software rot had happened to Windows 95. I've recently found my Windows 95 CD. I wanted to try it out see how usable it is now, so I installed it on VMWare. It was such a trouble to install with the CD not being bootable. Finding sound driver took awhile because even drivers marked for windows 9x used WDM (not introduced until w98). Near impossible to get a full function modern browser to work (i.e. browser+flash). Opera still works w/W95, but Adobe/Macromedia ended W95 support with Flash 7, so I couldn't get Flash 7 to work with the newest Opera. IE5.5 stales on a lot of websites, including Microsoft's own. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Same. NT4 is a little better as it is bootable cd, supports dual core, multiple gigs of ram and decent networking, ie6, office (up to 2000) etc....
[[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 05:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure office 2K runs on win95. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] ([[User talk:Plugwash|talk]]) 00:24, 2 June 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. [[Special:Contributions/76.22.201.109|76.22.201.109]] ([[User talk:76.22.201.109|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? [[User:Posix memalign|Posix memalign]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC). 

:::I agree with 76.22.201.109 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. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Posix memalign|Posix memalign]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Posix memalign|Posix memalign]] ([[User talk:Posix memalign|talk]]) 01:35, 25 July 2009 (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. [[Special:Contributions/64.80.57.251|64.80.57.251]] ([[User talk:64.80.57.251|talk]]) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

== PX 1308 & 1310 ==

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

== Initial cost? ==

Anyone know the initial cost of the Upgrade or Full versions?
And can we put them in the main article?
[[Special:Contributions/64.180.184.65|64.180.184.65]] ([[User talk:64.180.184.65|talk]]) 11:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Windows 95

2010-03-21T11:09:17Z

64.180.184.65: /* Initial cost? */

{{afd-merged-from|Development of Windows 95|Development of Windows 95|02 September 2009}}

{{WikiProject Computing|class=Start|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows|class=Start|importance=top}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-08-24|oldid1=5428216}}
----

== 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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.193.175.235|71.193.175.235]] ([[User talk:71.193.175.235|talk]]) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (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. --[[User:24.249.108.133|24.249.108.133]] 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::It is the second paragraph under "editions" [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
::::It's buried in the paragraph. It should be the same format as the other Windows entries. --[[User:24.249.108.133|24.249.108.133]] 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

==386SX==
Does 95 run on 386SX processors? --[[user:AdamWill|AW]]
:No, at least officially as Tannin seems to say something else. I didn't try it was slow enough on 386DX.[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 11:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia ... er .. I mean Adam ... it runs just fine on a 386SX of any speed. Load a 386SX-16 up with 8MB of RAM, press the power button, shave, take a shower, get dressed, comb your hair, and it's right there at the desktop ready and waiting for you already. (Don't laugh, I've worked on machines configured like that.) [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 11:22 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

A few years ago, a friend of mine gave me an ancient laptop he had to play around with for a few days. I can't recall which brand it was, but I remember it had a 20mhz AMD 386SXL, 4mb of memory, 60mb of harddrive space and a greyscale screen. No cd-rom, so Windows 95 had to be installed from floppy disks. It installed fine, and booted up surprisingly quickly. This little laptop had a modem which I believe was less than 9600 baud. I wanted to try installing Windows 95's dialup internet connection software and try going online with it, but for whatever reason I just never bothered with it. [[User:Infinitrium|Infinitrium]] 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Intel's SX chips were horrendously slow rip-offs. If you've got a 386 laying around, replace the SX chip with an AMD 386DX40 - it's far faster.
Now, that screenshot: is that of Windows 95? It looks more like Win98 or a version of Win95 with IE4's gui hacks.

: Heaps faster, yes. Pin-compatible, not even close. A 386SX runs on a 16-bit board - essentially a 286 board with a BIOS tweak. A 386DX uses a 32-bit board which is essentially the same as a 486 board but with a different socket. Many boards of the era (notably those based on the OPTi 895 chipset, but others too) were "universal" - i.e., they could take a 386DX, 486DLC, 486SX, or 486DX.

: Win95C had IE 4.0 as standard. (Which is why is was so slow and buggy.) 95B had IE 3.0, 95A had neither. It's probably a 95C in the screenshot. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 17:18 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)
:: Hmm i don't remember any version of windows 95 installing IE as part of the standard install though some OEM copies i saw came with an IE4 CD in the box. The screenshot certainly doesn't have windows desktop update installed though thats not complete evidence that IE4 isn't installed. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"The screenshot certainly doesn't have windows desktop update installed though thats not complete evidence that IE4 isn't installed". yeah, i know that with NT 4.0, if you install a later version it doesnt install the update automatically (e.g ie6) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 

==NT==
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.
-- [[User:67.83.112.108|cprompt]] 01:06, 25 Aug 2003 (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. -[[User:Hoshie|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. — [[User:El Chico|El Chico!]] [[User talk:El Chico|Talk]] 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No.[[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 05:16, 21 May 2009 (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.

Regards

: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. --[[User:MikeRS|Mike]] 00:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== MS-DOS ==
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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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? [[User:Naelphin|Naelphin]]
*No, does it still say so or was this re-added? [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
**It is from here: <nowiki>{{History_of_Windows}}</nowiki> 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

==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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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. [[User:PainMan|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]]. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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. [[User:PainMan|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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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.

[[User:PainMan|PainMan]] 15:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

: There is no reason to duplicate the content that already exists on [[graphical user interface]]. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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.''

[[User:PainMan|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.

[[User:PainMan|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 [[graphical user interface|GUI]] page, not on the [[Windows 95]] page. [[User:AlistairMcMillan|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:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia]] isn't a mouthpiece for [[Wikipedia:Common knowledge|uninformed]] detractors, nor for rumour and innuendo. If you want to insert this 16 bit stuff, [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|source]] it to someone [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|qualified]] to say so. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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. [[User:PainMan|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! [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 16:54, 14 May 2005 (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. -- [[User:Eagleamn|Eagle]][[User_talk:Eagleamn|'''a''']][[User_talk:Eagleamn|'''m''']][[User_talk:Eagleamn|'''n''']] 08:57, Jun 20, 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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).

[[User:PainMan|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.
[[User:PainMan|PainMan]] 13:09, 10 December 2005 (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.

*[http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/2463/HackWin95.html Windows 95 Service Pack 1 Update (Feb 13, 1996)]
*[http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;145667 Microsoft Windows 95 Service Pack 1 README for Microsoft Windows 95 (February 1996)]
*[http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&num=10&q=%22Windows+95%22+%22Service+Pack+1%22&qt_s=Keres%C3%A9s&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1996&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=3&as_maxy=1996 Google Groups messages]

== 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!):

* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/microsoft/stories/1995/debut082495.htm With Windows 95's Debut, Microsoft Scales Heights of Hype]
* [http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112728,00.html Windows 95: The hype and beyond]

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

== DMA = Ultra DMA? ==

What is "DMA support"? Ultra [[Advanced Technology Attachment|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. [[User:82.92.119.11|82.92.119.11]] 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) [[User:Plugwash|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. [[User:82.92.119.11|82.92.119.11]] 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? [[User:Plugwash|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 for a printed one. —''[[User:R._Koot|Ruud]]'' 23:09, 29 October 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? -- [[User:Foofy|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. -- [[User:Foofy|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. --[[User:Foofy|Foofy]] 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

== Spelling error corrected ==

I've just made a very minor change. Fixed a spelling error: "were'nt" to "weren't".

== 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|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! [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]]
:That sentence was obviously vandalism, and flaming to boot. --[[User:Andrew T.|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. [[User:Plugwash|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). [[User:PaulGS|PaulGS]] 04:04, 15 February 2007 (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.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]][[User talk: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%. --[[User:The Inedible Bulk|TIB]] ([[User_talk:The_Inedible_Bulk|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 [[WP:CITE|citation]] for it.-[[User:Localzuk|Localzuk]][[User talk:Localzuk|(talk)]] 23:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

From recent microsoft security bulletin:

{{quotation|'''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.|[http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms06-068.mspx 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''."
--[[User:Davidbspalding|David Spalding]] | [[User talk:Davidbspalding|Talk]] 13:34, 15 November 2006 (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?

[[User:24.84.72.113|24.84.72.113]] 07:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

:Letters after 950 indicated various release candidate builds that did not go out to the public. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 18:14, 11 April 2007 (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? - [[User:Theaveng|Theaveng]] ([[User talk: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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.125.110.223|69.125.110.223]] ([[User talk:69.125.110.223|talk]]) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 
:: Need source on Bill gates comments :) --[[User:Waqas1987|Waqas1987]] ([[User talk:Waqas1987|talk]]) 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

== 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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.125.110.223|69.125.110.223]] ([[User talk:69.125.110.223|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. - [[User:Theaveng|Theaveng]] ([[User talk:Theaveng|talk]]) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (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.

== 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 (http://www.usbman.com/Win95%20USB%20Guide.htm). 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.

[[User:Nihad Hamzic|Nihad Hamzic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== 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. '''[[User:RingtailedFox|RingtailedFox]] • [[User_talk:RingtailedFox|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RingtailedFox|Contribs]]''' 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. - [[User:Josh the Nerd|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh the Nerd|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Josh_the_Nerd|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.). '''[[User:RingtailedFox|RingtailedFox]] • [[User_talk:RingtailedFox|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RingtailedFox|Contribs]]''' 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:RattleMan|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. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] ([[User talk:Plugwash|talk]]) 10:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The "working set" for the base OS is 14MB. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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... '''[[User:RingtailedFox|RingtailedFox]] • [[User_talk:RingtailedFox|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RingtailedFox|Contribs]]''' 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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== 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:

- http://toastytech.com/guis/win95.html (shows the GUI of the original CD-ROM version) ;
- http://toastytech.com/evil/retrospective.html#1995-1 ;and
- http://toastytech.com/evil/lab.html#rem95

If there are no objections, I will modify the article accordingly.

[[Special:Contributions/70.48.71.202|70.48.71.202]] ([[User talk:70.48.71.202|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 [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx 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. [[User talk:Warren|-/-]] [[User:Warren|Warren]] 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

:No, the original Windows 95 CD-ROM did not include Internet Explorer. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/70.48.241.204|70.48.241.204]] ([[User talk:70.48.241.204|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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

== 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.

== Software rot ==

Can't believe how much software rot had happened to Windows 95. I've recently found my Windows 95 CD. I wanted to try it out see how usable it is now, so I installed it on VMWare. It was such a trouble to install with the CD not being bootable. Finding sound driver took awhile because even drivers marked for windows 9x used WDM (not introduced until w98). Near impossible to get a full function modern browser to work (i.e. browser+flash). Opera still works w/W95, but Adobe/Macromedia ended W95 support with Flash 7, so I couldn't get Flash 7 to work with the newest Opera. IE5.5 stales on a lot of websites, including Microsoft's own. --[[User:Voidvector|Voidvector]] ([[User talk:Voidvector|talk]]) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Same. NT4 is a little better as it is bootable cd, supports dual core, multiple gigs of ram and decent networking, ie6, office (up to 2000) etc....
[[Special:Contributions/134.36.93.46|134.36.93.46]] ([[User talk:134.36.93.46|talk]]) 05:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure office 2K runs on win95. [[User:Plugwash|Plugwash]] ([[User talk:Plugwash|talk]]) 00:24, 2 June 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. [[Special:Contributions/76.22.201.109|76.22.201.109]] ([[User talk:76.22.201.109|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? [[User:Posix memalign|Posix memalign]] —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC). 

:::I agree with 76.22.201.109 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. -- [[User:Tcncv|Tcncv]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Posix memalign|Posix memalign]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Posix memalign|Posix memalign]] ([[User talk:Posix memalign|talk]]) 01:35, 25 July 2009 (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. [[Special:Contributions/64.80.57.251|64.80.57.251]] ([[User talk:64.80.57.251|talk]]) 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

== PX 1308 & 1310 ==

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

== Initial cost? ==

Anyone know the initial cost of the Upgrade or Full versions?
[[Special:Contributions/64.180.184.65|64.180.184.65]] ([[User talk:64.180.184.65|talk]]) 11:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Windows 95

2010-03-21T11:08:55Z

64.180.184.65: /* Initial cost? */ new section

Talk:Zion Christian Church

2010-03-20T22:18:26Z

64.180.184.65: /* Info deleted? */ new section

{{talkheader}}

Surely if someone wants to know more about the church, they will contact its headquarters. There is no use making unfounded or perceived statements, or even worse appointing oneself an expert of the church without any intimate knowledge or experience whatsoever.

From the article, "The bishop of the ZCC preaches on peace and respect, humble of Jesus Christ ." I'm not really certain what statements like this mean; maybe someone with a better knowledge of English can try a re-write?[[Special:Contributions/76.167.202.17|76.167.202.17]] ([[User talk:76.167.202.17|talk]]) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

==Annual Pilgrimage to Polokwane==

I came to this page wanting to find out more about the ZCC annual pilgrimage. I'd always known it took place, and they're expecting over 1 million pilgrims from accross the country this easter weekend (2008). But I'd like to know a bit more about the history of this yearly journey - what's its significance (Other than that's where the HQ of the church is), what takes place during this weekend, etc. Perhaps someone who knows can add a section? --[[User:GrahamDo|GrahamDo]] ([[User talk:GrahamDo|talk]]) 06:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been to the ZCC Easter Pilgrimage, and though I do not know it's history, I do have firsthand experience with what happens -though it has been more than ten years. I have difficulty figuring out how to add information via editing, and, as these are firsthand experiences and not 'verifiable', they do not really qualify for addition to the ZCC page. (I do find it odd that the Star of David is presented as a symbol of the ZCC Church, it is nowhere present at Morea. A five pointed neon star presides over that place[[Special:Contributions/76.105.218.234|76.105.218.234]] ([[User talk:76.105.218.234|talk]]) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)peatkinsey, september 14ish, 2008

LETS BE AWARE

PEACE BE UNTO YOU

my name is MPHAHLELE THATO DAVID i know nothing about zion christian church but as an ipcc i feel i have to say something,during the easter in moria the spiritual leader of the church doesn't assume or even expecting a certain number,no,he knows very well as the spiritual leader as to how many members will attend the gathering every year,the bible says"many are invited but only few are chosen"with this scripture i just want to tell the members of the public that,whenever you hear huge number of about +8millions members attented the gathering like 2009 easter conference now that another 8millions are not present or even more.

IF SOMEONE WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT ZCC
check:
-psalm 2
-isaah 2
-isaah 42
and many more, you will now more about the leader and the church.

WHAT I HAVE REALISED

most people hates zcc with excuse that it has many rules,AAA,NO,NO,i don't agree is not the church nor THE BISHOP but biblical scriptures like:

LIVITICUS(TELLS YOU ABOUT THE RULES OF CHRISTIANS)
1 TIMOTHY 2-10
THEY ARE MANY MORE

FOR MANY PEOPLE WHO ASKS THEMSELVE THE QUESTION"WHY SO MANY PEOPLE FLOCK TO MORIA DURING THE CONFERENCES?)
HERE IS THE ANSWER TODAY THIS IS NOT MAN-MADE ANSWER BUT THE ANSWER FROM THE BIBLE:

==
----
Headline textthe benefits of society in zion christian church(this church is meant for people == —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/196.21.218.142|196.21.218.142]] ([[User talk:196.21.218.142|talk]]) 10:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 

= PSALM 2 (THE LAST VERSUS)
THE BENEFITS OF THE SOCIETY I ZCC AND ABROAD

at first the church builds two high schools,
(1)MAROBATHOTA HIGH SCHOOL(ZCC0
(2)MAKGOKA HIGH SCHOOL(ST ENGENAS ZCC)
HOW MANY CHRCHES TAKE THE INTERESTS OF THE SOCIETY AND EDUCATION AS THE FIRST PREFERENCE?EHH?

ZCC-AGAIN MADE IT THE POINT THAT THE PEOPLE TRAVELING AROUND POLOKWANE INCLUDING LEARNERS AT ABOVE MENTIONED SCHOOLS PAY LESS IN THEIR DAILY TRIPS(MOSTLY TO SCHOOL AND WORK),BY ESTABLISHING BAHWADUBA BUS SERVICE,WHAT AM SURE OF AS THE STUDENT IN UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO IS FROM TURFLOOP TO MORIA WE PAY LESS THAN R5.WHAT A MERCY.

AGAINTHE SAME CHRCH(ZCC)MADE IT THE POINT THAT THOSE LEARNE'S WHO PASSED WELL IN THEIR MATRIC,IN THE FAMILIES OF CHURCH MEMBERS ARE ASSISTED IN TERTIARY BY BISHOP EDWARD LEKGANYANE BURSARY FUND.LAST YEAR 2008 I HEARD THAT THEY GAVE 2 STUDENTS FROM UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO TURFLOOP CAMPUS R35000.00 EACH NO FOR SCHOOL FEES JUST FOR THEY COMPLETED THEIR STUDIES,AND THEY WERE FUNDING BY THE SAME SCHEME,PEOPLE R35000+R35000=R70000.OO.THE QUESTION MAY BE HOW MANY CHRCHES IN AFRICA PUT THE INTERESTS OF THE SOCIETY FIRST

QUESTION=HOW IF TOMOEEOW ZCC STOP TO PROVIDE ALL THESE SERVICES?

YOUR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU WHAT ZION CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTAILS

IN THE HOLLY TRINITY

(THATO DAVID MPHAHLELE FROM GA-MPHAHLELE MAMAOLO)

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Morutse II|Morutse II]] ([[User talk:Morutse II|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Morutse II|contribs]]) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 

==Wrong Symbol Used On Wikipedia as a Symbol for the Zion Christian Church at Moria, Boyne (South Africa)==

Just out of curiosity, I typed ZCC to find out whether there was an entry on Wikipedia for the ZCC and ended up here. I would like to agree with the author of the above text on the actual symbol used by the church. The one shown on the page is in error. The symbol used here is similar to the one on the Israel flag albeit its dark blue colour. In contrast, the symbol used by the ZCC at Zion City Moria which can be seen on the hill overlooking the church (easily searchable through Google maps) is a SILVER COLOURED FIVE POINTED STAR not a dark blue coloured 6 pointed star as shown in the page. I have been to that place a couple of times during the Easter pilgrimage and I have firsthand experience of the place, interaction with people there from different countries, etc. Besides, I have been a frequent visitor to the church branch in my home country. Most of my family members are baptized in the church and I have never seen anyone wearing this blue coloured six pointed symbol as a symbol for the church. Like I said, this is easily verifiable by going to Google maps to look for Zion City Moria location, there's a hill overlooking the church headquarters upon which a five pointed star symbol is drawn in white colour.[[User:Nnyaya|Nnyaya]] ([[User talk:Nnyaya|talk]]) February 17, 2009

== Info deleted? ==

and replaced with Zealous Computer Centre?

Is a Disambiguation page in order?
[[Special:Contributions/64.180.184.65|64.180.184.65]] ([[User talk:64.180.184.65|talk]]) 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Codex Regius (New Testament)

2010-03-08T12:39:01Z

64.180.184.65:

{{for|the Icelandic manuscript|Codex Regius}}
{{New Testament manuscript infobox
| form = Uncial
| number = '''019'''
| image = Codex Regius (019).JPG
| isize =
| caption= Ending of Mark
| name = Regius
| sign = Le
| text = [[Gospel]]s
| script = [[Greek language|Greek]]
| date = 8th century
| now at = [[Bibliothèque nationale de France|National Library of France]]
| cite =
| size = {{×|23.5|17}}
| type = [[Alexandrian text-type]]
| cat = II
| hand = badly written
| note =
}}

'''Codex Regius''' designated by '''Le''' or '''019''' (in the [[Biblical manuscript#Gregory-Aland|Gregory-Aland]] numbering), ε 56 ([[Biblical manuscript#Von Soden|von Soden]]), is a Greek [[uncial]] [[manuscript]] of the [[New Testament]], dated [[Paleography|paleographically]] to the 8th century.<ref name = Aland>Kurt Aland, and Barbara Aland, ''The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism'', transl. Erroll F. Rhodes, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, p. 113.</ref> The manuscript is lacunose.

== Description ==
The codex contains 257 thick parchment leaves ({{×|23.5|17}}), with almost complete text of the four [[Gospel]]s. The codex contains five [[Lacuna (manuscripts)|lacunae]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matt]] 4:22-5:14, 28:17-20, [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 10:16-30, 15:2-20, [[Gospel of John|John]] 21:15-25).<ref name = Scrivener>{{cite book
| last = Scrivener
| first = Frederick Henry Ambrose
| authorlink = Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
| coauthors = Edward Miller
| title = [[A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament]], vol. 1
| publisher = [[George Bell & Sons]]
| date = 1894
| location = London
| pages = 137–138
| url =
| doi =
| id =
| isbn = }}</ref>
Written in two columns per pager, 25 lines per page, in large, not round uncial lettes. It has breathings ([[Spiritus asper]], [[Spiritus lenis]]), and accents often added wrongly.<ref name = Gregory>[[Caspar René Gregory|C. R. Gregory]], "Textkritik des Neuen Testaments", Leipzig 1900, vol. 1, p. 55.</ref> Carelessly written by an ignorant scribe.<ref name = Scrivener/> The letter phi [is?] enormously large. It contains tables of the {{lang|grc|κεφαλαια}}, {{lang|grc|τιτλοι}}, {{lang|grc|κεφαλαια}}, the Ammonian sections, [[Eusebian Canons]], and lectionary markings.<ref name = Gregory/>

Badly written by the scribe, who was more probably Egyptian than Greek, with a tendency for writing Coptic rather than Greek.

It has two [[Mark 16#Hypothesis About the Ending|endings to the Gospel of Mark]] (as in codices Ψ [[Uncial 099|099]] [[Uncial 0112|0112]] [[Minuscule 274|274mg]] [[Minuscule 579|579]] [[Lectionary 1602]]),<ref>[[Bruce M. Metzger]], [[Bart D. Ehrman]], "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", ''[[Oxford University Press]]'', Oxford 2005, p. 77.</ref> while [[Jesus and the woman taken in adultery|John 7:53-8:11]] is omitted.

[[File:Codex_Regius_(John_12,13-14).JPG|thumb|widthpx|220px|John 12:13-14 (facsimile)]]
; Omissions

:* Matthew 12:47 omitted (as in codices [[Codex Sinaiticus]], [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|B]], 1009, [[Lectionary 12|'''ℓ''' ''12'']], [[Codex Corbeiensis I|ff1]], [[Codex Bobiensis|k]], [[Curetonian Gospels|syrc]], [[Syriac Sinaiticus|syrs]], copsa). Mark 7: 16; 9:44.46; 11:26; Luke 17:36, and John 5:4 are omitted. It contains Luke 22:43-44 (the agony) omitted by other Alexandrian witnesses.

:* {{bibleverse||Matthew|20:23}} {{Unicode|και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε}} (''and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with''), as in codices Sinaiticus, B, [[Codex Bezae|D]], [[Codex Dublinensis|Z]], [[Codex Koridethi|Θ]], [[Uncial 085|085]], ''f''1, ''f''13, it, syrs, c, copsa.<ref>NA26, 56.</ref>

:* Luke 9:55b-56a — {{Unicode|και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι}} (''and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them'') omitted as in codices Sinaiticus B C Θ Ξ 33 700 892 1241 syr, copbo;<ref>NA26, p. 190.</ref>

:* Luke 11:4 phrase {{Unicode|αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου}} (''but deliver us from evil'') omitted. Omission is supported by the manuscripts: [[Papyrus 75|<math>\mathfrak{P}</math>75]], Sinaiticus, B, [[Family 1|''f''1]], [[Minuscule 700|700]], vg, syrs, copsa, bo, arm geo.<ref>UBS3, p. 256.</ref>

; Additions
:* In [[Gospel of Matthew|Matt.]] 27:49 codex contains added text: {{lang|grc|ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἒνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὖδορ καὶ αἳμα}} (''the other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood''). This reading was derived from John 19:34 and occurs in other manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type (א, B, C, [[Codex Tischendorfianus IV|Γ]], 1010, 1293, pc, vgmss).<ref>Bruce M. Metzger (2001). "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament", ''Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft'', Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, p. 59; NA26, p. 84; UBS3, p. 113.</ref>

== Text ==
The Greek text of this [[codex]] is representative of the [[Alexandrian text-type]] with a large number of [[Byzantine text-type|Byzantine readings]] in the Gospel of Matthew (1:1–17:26). [[Kurt Aland|Aland]] placed it in [[Categories of New Testament manuscripts#Category II|Category II]], it means it has a number of non-Alexandrian readings.<ref name = Aland/> According to Wisse, who examined Luke 1; 10; 20, their text is a "core member" of the Alexandrian text.<ref>Frederik Wisse, ''The profile method for the classification and evaluation of manuscript evidence'', ''[[William B. Eerdmans Publishing]]'', 1982, p. 52.</ref>

It is probably the fourth-best manuscript of the Gospels, trailing only [[Papyrus 75|P75]], [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Codex Vaticanus]], and [[Codex Sinaiticus]]. It is much closer to Vaticanus than to Sinaiticus.

In some cases it supports Sinaiticus and Vaticanus against almost all of the rest of manuscripts. In Matt 23:38 word ερημος (''desert'') omitted like in B and [[Lectionary 184|'''ℓ''' ''184'']]. In Matt 19:29 instead εκατονπλασιονα (''hundredfold'') it has πολλαπλασιονα (''manifold'') like in codices [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|B]] and 1010.

In Luke 4:17 it has textual variant καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ βιβλίον (''and opened the book'') together with the manuscripts [[Codex Alexandrinus|A]], B, [[Codex Washingtonianus|W]], [[Codex Zacynthius|Ξ]], [[Minuscule 33|33]], [[Minuscule 892|892]], 1195, 1241, [[Lectionary 547|'''ℓ''' ''547'']], syrs, h, pal, copsa, bo, against variant καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον (''and unrolled the book'') supported by א, Dc, [[Codex Cyprius|K]], [[Codex Sangallensis 48|Δ]], [[Codex Koridethi|Θ]], [[Codex Petropolitanus (New Testament)|Π]], [[Codex Athous Lavrensis|Ψ]], ''f''1, ''f''13, [[Minuscule 28|28]], [[Minuscule 565|565]], [[Minuscule 700|700]], 1009, 1010 and many other manuscripts.<ref>Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'' ([[Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft]]: Stuttgart 2001), p. 114.</ref><ref>NA26, p. 164.</ref>

It was in the 19th century remarked that there is strong resemblance to Codex Vaticanus, to the citations of [[Origen]], and to the margin of the Harkleian Syriac.<ref name = Scrivener/>

== History ==

Probably it was written in Egypt.

The text of the codex was cited by [[Robert Estienne]] as η' in his [[Editio Regia]]. It was loosely collated by [[Johann Jakob Wettstein|Wettstein]]. [[Johann Jakob Griesbach|Griesbach]] set a very high value of the codex. It was edited in 1846 by [[Constantin von Tischendorf|Tischendorf]] (''Monumenta sacra inedita''), but with errors.<ref name = Scrivener/>

The codex is located now at the [[Bibliothèque nationale de France]] (Gr. 62), in [[Paris]].<ref name = Aland/>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Bible}}

* [[List of New Testament uncials]]
* [[Textual criticism]]

== References ==

{{reflist}}
{{refbegin}}
{{refend}}

== Further reading ==

* [[Constantin von Tischendorf]], ''Monumenta sacra inedita'' (Leipzig 1846), pp. 15–24.
* [[Henri Omont]], ''Facsimilés des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibl. Nat. du IVe et XIIIe siecle'' (Paris 1892).

== External links ==
* [http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/ManuscriptsUncials.html#uLe Codex Regius L (019)]: at the ''Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Regius}}
[[Category:Greek New Testament uncials]]
[[Category:8th-century biblical manuscripts]]
[[Category:Bibliothèque nationale de France collections]]

[[de:Codex Regius (Neues Testament)]]
[[fr:Codex Regius (Nouveau Testament)]]
[[it:Codex Regius (Nuovo Testamento)]]
[[nl:Codex Regius (Nieuwe Testament)]]
[[pl:Codex Regius (Nowy Testament)]]
[[pt:Codex Regius (Novo Testamento)]]
[[ru:Королевский кодекс]]