Windows 95 Is Now An App You Can Download and Install On macOS, Windows, and Linux (theverge.com) 183
Slack developer Felix Rieseberg has made Windows 95 into an electron app that you can run on macOS, Windows, and Linux. The source code and app installers are available on GitHub. According to The Verge, "apps like Wordpad, phone dialer, MS Paint, and Minesweeper all run like you'd expect," but "Internet Explorer isn't fully functional as it simply refused to load pages." From the report: The app is only 129MB in size and you can download it over at Github for both macOS and Windows. Once it's running it surprisingly only takes up around 200MB of RAM, even when running all of the old Windows 95 system utilities, apps, and games. If you run into any issues with the app you can always reset the Windows 95 instance inside the app and start over again. Enjoy this quirky trip down memory lane.
No new & pure web emulators more interesting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No new & pure web emulators more interestin (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No new & pure web emulators more interestin (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the one that runs this:
https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=w... [copy.sh]
Yeah, hardly "new" Slashdot.
Seriously, the quality of technical content vs "hey look this is cool" crap is really putting me off now.
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it sad that an OS from 95 offered roughly the same functionality offered today but took much less space. Our tech is degrading.
(And yes, I know about faster internet and better security, that is still not a good enough excuse)
Re: Sad (Score:2)
'Much less space'??
We would often dun Windows 95 vack then on systems that had 4 or 8 Meg of RAM and an 80 MB hard drive.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, but 200Megs is still penauts in comparison to how much memory is used today.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite Windows install was on the laptops used by two developers we hired. They ran Windows 3.x on 1MB machines so that they could then run their development environment -- Multi Edit (for DOS) and a DOS shell where the finished ap could be run/tested -- all at the same time. Seemed insane. Worked.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite Windows install was on the laptops used by two developers we hired. They ran Windows 3.x on 1MB machines so that they could then run their development environment -- Multi Edit (for DOS) and a DOS shell where the finished ap could be run/tested -- all at the same time. Seemed insane. Worked.
DESQview [wikipedia.org] might have been a better choice. Several colleagues and I used it in much the same way as your two devs, with Brief [wikipedia.org] as the text editor instead of Multi-Edit.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if I could find a clone of Sourcerer's Apprentice!
old key bindings (Score:2)
> It'll be interesting to see if my fingers remember any shortcuts from the '90s.
I finally seem to have the 1990s MS Word/mac keystrokes out of my fingers (except for the allcaps formatting command . . . )
now if I could do the same for the 70s Wordstar movement commands . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
I was the DESQview guy -- and it was way too unstable for me.
Their system involved a swap that might take...a while...but other than that they could have DevEnv, Compiler (Clipper), BLink, Application all a few keystrokes away.
There was a time when we appreciated a pause here and there. Time for a coffee or bathroom break. Today we drink K-Cups that take 30 seconds to brew, suck a few times on our vape cigarette and we're back to work much too soon.
Re: (Score:1)
Today, the Facebook app is 496.1 MB.
Re: Sad (Score:5, Funny)
It is not easy to squeeze so much phoning home into such a small footprint you know.
Re: (Score:2)
It's less than 10MB on my phone. It's amazing how small Facebook can be when you strip the animations, video playback, streaming, gaming, marketplace, and all that other completely worthless shit out of it.
I'm sure it still phones home like all the others but for anyone interested: https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Being so small it's probably just a thin wrapper over the mobile site.
Anyway, many (Twitter does for example) apps have "lite" versions for resource constrained phones. Sadly, they're only (officially) available on developing countries. I guess the reason is to force users in developed nations to use the "big" versions which have much more spying so that the company can m
Re: (Score:2)
I'm both heavy and advanced Facebook user and it's enough for me. Seriously you get the "full" Facebook experience without the shit in the normal app.
Re: (Score:2)
Today, the Facebook app is 496.1 MB.
Windows 95 doesn't include a web browser. The Facebook app (for reasons stupid as heck) does.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Interesting)
Want to know something funny?
See something like Google Maps or other web-apps? They should be capable of running on a Win95-era machine easily.
Want to know why they don't?
Because Google developers are trash-tier developers that wrap their code in deeply-nested enclosures for no sane reason.
Want to know what's the worst thing to do in JavaScript?
Wrapping functions in deeply-nested enclosures.
T R A S H
I know this as a fact because I used to be able to use Google Maps on an old netbook. Now I can't. The newer update that came out a few years back is horribly optimized. It lags like ass. Street View is impossible to use. It runs at sub-1FPS. It never used to.
Likewise, so does Youtube. The mobile player works perfectly fine, but the full media player is insanely slow, even when it is playing 144p video. I don't know who wrote that shit, but they should be fired.
I can run Youtube 1080 streams over Hooktube better than I can on Youtube. More evidence to the point that their sites coders are shit.
The funniest thing is Google Maps developers said the site now looks better. Does it fuck. It's a pixelated mess! All the imagery is noisy as fuck when you zoom in now. Still, give credit where credit is due, at least it actually contains more up-to-date imagery now! They got off their ass and bought new imagery that almost every other mapping site has had for 5 years.
Deep inheritance and deep enclosure chains are the worst thing in ANY language, actually. It doesn't matter what you use.
Even with JavaScript and its prototype model, it still suffers horribly from it.
Even with all the great optimizations that have happened over the years with JIT'd JS, it still can't do this well.
It's a horrible meme I wish would die.
If you own a business, ban developers from using it. It's horrible. It's the worst thing to happen to software development. Not only that, it takes so much longer to develop because it's a pain in the ass trying to keep track of what the fuck does what.
You should never go more than 3 layers deep in ANYTHING, whether it is nested loops, functions or object inheritance. The only excuse is if you are using complex dimensions like that required in physics, machine learning, etc. But there are better ways.
Some people call this "progress", I call it retard developers that shouldn't be in the industry in the first place because software development has been artificially inflated with shit job roles thanks to the UML-kiddie generation of programmers. Not only that, it has been flooded by developers who have, at most, a summer-courses worth of experience with software development. India is infamous for this. It shits out low-quality developers like this.
Making your code worse is not progress!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:5, Interesting)
Our Tech isn't degrading.
Windows 95, Crashed on the slightest off glance, memory thrashing, memory leaks or buffer overflow can take control of your system, but you didn't even need to do that level of attack because in order to operate it properly you needed to run Windows 95 as Admin otherwise most applications and external hardware will not work. That is why Microsoft had 2 versions of Windows going on at the same time Windows 95 and Windows NT 4. NT was much larger and better designed to handle many of the stability problems, but it was expensive and took a lot of space and needed more advanced computers.
There is a lot of internal fixes beyond Multi-tasking + GUI Shell, which Windows 95 was essentially was at the time. Enhanced memory, protection, better networking stacks, driver modules that can offer hardware support under tighter restrictions.
Plus hardware has changed a lot from the 386/486 days. GPU (even cheap ones) are very powerful. RAM use to be a scarce commodity now we have it in excess, CPU are rarely ever single core. This means design priorities have shifted, this may make some bloat but also to allow things that required a lot of custom low level programming during the Windows 95 days.
I am not saying there hasn't been any useless bloat because they could get away with it. But there is a lot of internal stuff that is needed to make things better.
Heck MSDOS 3 would be installed on a double density 360kb floppy. With room for a custom autoexec.bat and perhaps a custom executable. But DOS was in essence a very simple OS, which took the .COM files and just replaced the binary and wrote it on top of the memory to be executed. or a little extra work with the .EXE files.
We can make tiny OS's today. The problem is we cannot use them on today's networked environment
Re: (Score:3)
Our Tech isn't degrading. Windows 95, Crashed on the slightest off glance, memory thrashing, memory leaks or buffer overflow can take control of your system, but you didn't even need to do that level of attack because in order to operate it properly you needed to run Windows 95 as Admin otherwise most applications and external hardware will not work.
You're being much too generous. You didn't "need to run Windows 95 as Admin", there was no access control in the system at all for running applications. The closest you got to access control was that you could set a password on network shares. The login process only switched you to your own profile.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I don't think we need to go back to the days of DOS where every program developer had to include their own sound, music, gamepad/joystick, modem, and network drivers in every single piece of software they made. People who complain about modern operating systems really don't know how bad things were back in the day. I haven't had my computer crash on me in over a year. It used to crash weekly, if no daily, on Windows XP/98/95/3.1 machines. I don't recall DOS ever crashing, but that had a whole lot
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall DOS ever crashing
That's an interesting point, I don't think I remember either just being on a command prompt and having the computer crash. Applications would crash, and might require a reboot, but I don't recall DOS itself ever going down in flames.
Re: (Score:2)
I had it crashed often with a bad floppy was inserted, or a poorly made TSR was in play.
Sometimes it would crash if I held down a key for too long, as the keyboard repeat action was faster then what the computer could handle.
However those who didn't have hard disks at the time. Often when running a program after quitting out you will
"Insert a disk with command.com" because most of DOS was overwritten by the application.
That said, windows would normally run fine just as long as you don't run any applicati
Re: (Score:3)
That's a bit like saying you've never seen a bicycle blow a head gasket whereas cars do. On a stock DOS install there was very little there to crash. You didn't have layers of drivers constantly in use, dozens of background processes, constant drive and network accesses, etc etc. You might have a sound driver that spent most of its time idle, maybe a mouse driver, and if you were super-fancy a network driver, but that was about it. Once you started adding TSRs and stuff like software VESA drivers, DOS did g
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 10 has so much drift to support the touch interface. You have two different places to configure the system, and different rules, between Settings and Control Panel. It has two independent web browsers. Code to support a ridiculous number of options on how to display file icons in the Explorer view.
These are just a few examples of the unnecessary bloat. If the unused garbage were thrown out, Windows 10 could be lean and mean. ReactOS is architecturally similar, based on Vista, but it's lighter and al
Re: (Score:2)
"but it's lighter and almost functionally equivalent."
Almost is the key problem. Anyone with any Software development experience knows getting that last 1% of functionality takes 90% of the time and effort. Often a lot of space and resources.
ReactOS also doesn't have the target audience of a general computer user. There are tiny details that can be left out, because it doesn't effect compatibility. The bloat such has to display a file icon while may seem silly for you as the default is good enough. But h
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention: how would you implant DRM sufficient to satisfy the MPAA/RIAA paymasters in a tinyOS? Clearly not "technically" possible....for broad enough priorities of "technically"...
Re: (Score:2)
Bloat is a far bigger issue than you make out. Windows 95 took up around 55MB of disk space. The Capital One banking app on Android is 104MB.
Devs are just lazy, plain and simple. Computers would be amazingly fast if the same TLC and discipline were applied to storage and memory usage these days as was in the 1990s.
Re: (Score:2)
there is some additional things as well. A modern "Premium" Phone has an HD-4k display So up to 32 Megs can be used just for a background image. Then being a Java like App there is a lot of overhead vs being compiled in a straight Assembly. Because otherwise you LG phone vs your Samsung phone just may not work.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95, Crashed on the slightest off glance, memory thrashing, memory leaks or buffer overflow can take control of your system, but you didn't even need to do that level of attack because in order to operate it properly you needed to run Windows 95 as Admin otherwise most applications and external hardware will not work.
That is nonsense.
Both Win95 and Win98 were extremely stable, and I never ran any computer as admin, regardless what OS. Never any problems with that.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it sad that an OS from 95 offered roughly the same functionality offered today but took much less space. Our tech is degrading.
You only find that sad because you remember nothing about the OS from 95.
It doesn't have anywhere near the functionality (Score:2)
Although a lot of features baked into Win 10 are behind a paywall. A better comparison might be a Linux install. There are Tiny Linux installs that get pretty close to that 200mb. But if you're talking about a modern one like Ubuntu (it'll eat about 2gb) you get a mountain of s
Re: Sad (Score:2)
Roughly the same functionality like a horse and buggy basically doses what a car does. How's your horse?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually run Windows 95? (Score:2)
I find it sad that an OS from 95 offered roughly the same functionality offered today but took much less space.
If all you do is some basic office tasks then you might be right. But as soon as you do something as simple as watch a 4K video then your argument blows up because those machines couldn't do it. A single video from my camera could easily fill up the entire hard drive and you could forget about editing it on any machine you could afford to own. Windows 95 was fine for its day but it took less space because it HAD to take less space. In those days a machine with 16MB of RAM was a lot of memory. Access to
Re: (Score:2)
You have a skin-deep view of the OS, and on that level you're actually right. Windows 95 UI is *similar* to modern version of Windows, and could reasonably be argued to be *better*, but Windows 95 isn't as good an OS. In fact it barely qualifies as an operating system at all. It relied on MS-DOS for a lot of the heavy lifting, which is why a simulation can be so small; you just trap the DOS hardware interrupts and translate them into Unix syscalls.
Windows 95 was something between an operating system and w
Re: (Score:2)
In a properly-running Windows 95, DOS was hardly used at all. There's a blog post [microsoft.com] that was even on Slashdot awhile back talking about it. It didn't really do any "heavy lifting" unless there was a legacy driver installed.
Windows 95 also supported APM just fine. I believe Win95C supported ACPI, but I'd have to double check that - but Windows 98 did support ACPI just fine. I had a couple Win95 laptops back in the day that did PC Card hot swapping just fine, although I didn't use it super extensively. So anec
Re: (Score:2)
I think ACPI came in in Win 98. Win 95 did have hot swapping, but it wasn't autoconfigured; you had to manage it in the installer program.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it sad that an OS from 95 offered roughly the same functionality offered today but took much less space. Our tech is degrading.
(And yes, I know about faster internet and better security, that is still not a good enough excuse)
Wait, what? "Faster internet" is a feature of more recent operating systems? And you "know" about this "faster internet?" Haha. Wow, you really know about operating systems, don't you? Better mod you right the hell up.
The only thing that Windows 95 has in common with Windows 7 or 10 is that they both let you install and run programs. Turns out that's a major part of being an operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not like that. Windows 95 runs on top of DOS. That died with Windows ME. Everything after ME, including XP, is built on NT, not DOS.
The API is not the same either, there are many things to point to in more recent Windows APIs that are not present in Windows 95. The Windows 95 API is, at best, a subset of the current Windows API. Trying to suggest that the OS or API hasn't changed much in the past 23 years is a bit disingenuous.
The most obvious example is the fact that filenames on DOS-based sy
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if by DOS-based you mean literally just DOS or Win9x/ME, but Windows 95 supports long file names. It was one of the big new features for it, although it did (as Windows still does by default) autogenerate a short file name such as the infamous c:\Progra~1.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that's what I was referring to. It does show long names in the GUI, but if you look at the filesystem they're all 8.3.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, it ran faster too.
Re:Sad (Score:4, Interesting)
I've got a Mac Powerbook 180c ... the first colour screen laptop in the world ... which runs Photoshop v2.5 and Microsoft Word v4 with 2.5 MB of installed RAM, running System 7.5, a contemporary OS to Win95. Everything works except the batteries (NiCads) so it has to be plugged into AC all the time. It networks with my contemporary laptop and desktop ... making things like access to Floppy Disks on modern hardware and software possible.
But, yeah, two and a half megabytes of RAM is enough for a pretty modern OS ... MacOS didn't change much from System7.5 to OS9, save for new hard disk formats that better supported larger drives.
Use a hypervisor (Score:2)
If your hypervisor can translate between USB on the host and whatever Windows 95 expects on the guest, there shouldn't be a problem with using USB peripherals with Windows 95. It could present keyboard and mouse as PS/2 and present USB mass storage as a network drive.
(Yes, I'm aware hypervisors didn't exist back then, but they do now.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
He should get off our lawn... As soon as I can reboot my Windows 95 lawnmower, I'll get him for sure.
Re: (Score:1)
I would be given how things are bloated with modern apps and applications because of resource glut. He obviously could do better but given the tools he had that might not be the case to support the thing properly because of the toolkit he used to build everything.
Re: (Score:1)
The whole thing appears to be a collection of Java scripts. Taking that into account 200MB memory footprint isn't half bad.
Re: (Score:1)
OK, so let me get this right. Windows-95 ran fine on real hardware with 4MB of memory, and 16MB on a high-end system. And now this guy is delighted to have the same stuff running in 'only 200MB'??
You've clearly never dealt with "electron app developers". Logic has no place in their world, they're almost as fanatic as ruby devs talking about sharding.
Calling something an "electron app" is like saying RPM app or deb app. It's piggybacking your ad (in this case hype) - onto something else. I don't necessarily blame the dev here as it's a neat idea but there is an entire generation that has no clue what the difference is nor the legal ramifications.
Re:".. only 200MB" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Running fine is subjective. But to emulate there is overhead... A lot of overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3.1 could just about work in 4Mb but it was barely usable with that little RAM.
That depends on what you were doing in 3.1. I had a 386 (SX, no less) with only 2mb and it ran 3.1 just fine. Word and Excel 5.0 worked fine in there, we dialed up (originally with a 2400 baud modem) using Prodigy for windows and that worked too. With 4mb I could load win32s and winG to really extend what it was capable of (though by then I upgraded to a 486DX2).
(windows 95) In practice, while 4Mb was the official memory floor, it definitely needed a hell of a lot more than 4Mb. 16Mb in practice was the absolute minimum.
I disagree with that as well. There was plenty you could do in 95 with 4mb, even if some of it may have been a little unpleasant unless you h
Re: (Score:2)
I ran Windows '95 on a machine with 8 MB RAM for many years. No problems. It didn't even crash much, probably because it didn't have internet or much else complicated to do.
Red Hat Linux 6, on the other hand, was unable to run a GUI due to the lack of RAM on that machine.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a computer at the time of its release with 8Mb and didn't install '95 because I knew it wouldn't work.
Then you knew wrong. It had ran happily in 4MB, too. And with 8MB it would not swap, unless you had strong requirements. I developed in C++ and later in Java on it (16MB). There never was any problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Emulation has costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get a damn clue.
It is written in JavaScript.
No one is forcing you to use it ...
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 95 NEVER "ran fine".
Seriously. Windows 95 is probably the single greatest contributor to people asking "well, did you reboot it?" when something isn't working.
Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for the crappy coverage slashdot. What are we talking about here, is it a full-blown x86 machine emulation with Windows 95 installed? Is it a ReactOS style Windows 95-compatible environment packaged as an app? Is it just a toy app that looks like Win95 with some default apps? Is the selling point of this just that it's easier to install than setting up a Windows 95 VM? ISTR someone already did a browser-based Win95 emulation years ago. Is it legal?
Come on, give me *something*.
Details (Score:5, Informative)
Details are in the Github repo which is linked in the slashdot summary.
What are we talking about here, is it a full-blown x86 machine emulation with Windows 95 installed?
Yes, as explained on the README, it's based on https://github.com/copy/v86 [github.com]
Is the selling point of this just that it's easier to install than setting up a Windows 95 VM? ISTR someone already did a browser-based Win95 emulation years ago.
Yup, this basically takes the in-browser emulators written in JS (as you can find many of these to emulate older machine),
but instead of being a webpage you load into your browser, it uses Electron to make an app out of it.
Is it legal?
In theory Microsoft is still around and they still owns the copyright on Win95.
In practice, Microsoft probably barely gives a fuck about such an old OS that they have themselves deprecated so long ago,
and I'm quite sure that over the decades, you've probably ended up owning some license to run it legally (e.g.: as part of a pre-installed laptop, as some MSDN license through your university/your employer, whatever...)
Might even qualify under the "comedy" exception of whatever serves the equivalent of Fair use in your local jurisdiction.
Plus the whole thing is smaller than the giant katamari of javascript libraries loaded by any modern web page any way~~~
Re: (Score:1)
Can we get you to write the article summaries instead? :)
Re: (Score:1)
We as readers come here to RTFS and spend our time in the comments.
That's not what Slashdot wants, nor the marketing companies that submit most of the summaries.
Re: (Score:1)
No need, it just doesn't boot. Hangs there forever, probably mining bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, I couldn't make heads or tail out of that summary. This was egregiously low effort, even for a Slashdot editor.
256 colors!!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it let you relive the glory of 256 colors?
Yes, but if you want to stretch it out to its full hi-res 800x600 glory you have to stick with 16 to avoid running out of memory on the emulated VESA graphics card.
Re: (Score:2)
Get off the my Lawn you new age Hippy!
Back in my day, I had CGA on one of these fancy RGB displays, This gave me 16 colors in Text mode, and 4 Colors in Graphics mode. These 4 colors wern't even good 4 colors.
Default Pallet:
Cyan Magenta White Black*
Secondary Pallet:
Green Red Brown Black*
*Well black can be swapped with 1 of 16 background colors
We can have brighter versions where the Magenta became a light red. and Brown become Yellow.
But you rarely ever had any good color combinations.
And I was the lucky one
Missing the best part (Score:5, Funny)
The Buddy Holly video from Weezer was far and away the best part of the windows 95 install CD (or was it Plus pack?)
Re: Missing the best part (Score:1)
It was in the standard installer CD, along with an Edie Brickell video and Hover.
Re: (Score:2)
The Buddy Holly video from Weezer was far and away the best part of the windows 95 install CD (or was it Plus pack?)
Heh, that was the first video I ever ripped from a disc (of any kind), & transcoded to Divx 3.11alpha. Good times.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's a GREAT emulator (Score:5, Funny)
So, just like the Win95 Real Thing then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, just like the Win95 Real Thing then.
Hey now, in the late 90s IE was the king of browsers, and was for many years. There's a reason IE had grown to market dominance by the time IE6 came out, and it wasn't just bundling - IE3 (1995) was good for its time. IE4 (1997) was just better than the competition, and knocked Netscape Navigator off it's throne.
Remember, early versions of Netscape Navigator weren't free, and had their own embarrassing security holes. It's advantage was "not Microsoft", not actually being better. It wasn't until Firefox
Re: (Score:3)
Why would anyone do that? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
progress! (Score:3)
only 129MB large and only 200MB of ram needed... for windows 95.
that's more then 20 years of progress for you, right there!
Re: (Score:1)
only 129MB large and only 200MB of ram needed... for windows 95.
that's more then 20 years of progress for you, right there!
i hear you never run win95 from a ramdisk on your newer computer just for kicks
Re: (Score:2)
And can run on any hardware without any drivers and on top of another OS using portable Javascript. Yes that IS progress.
Easter Eggs (Score:3)
Do the Windows 95 Easter Eggs work? That's about all I'd be interested in checking out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see Bill Gates dead
Running Windows on Windows? (Score:1)
Yo dawg, I head you like Windows, so we put Windows in your Windows so you can Window while you Wi...{{{BSOD}}}
Standards (Score:2)
It won't load nowadays css and html compliant pages. You have to find one of these old made-for-IE crappy pages.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the biggest problem (and this is problem even on XP VMs if you build them from sp2 or older media) is that it does not support current TLS protocols. Now that practically everything is HTTPS and everyone has disabled SSL3.x and older because of POODLE and in a lot of cases even TLS1.0 you can't connect to most HTTPS servers
Re: (Score:2)
then a proxy should fix that problem.... hmm, win 95 did support https proxies right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes that should work provided you configure your HTTPS proxy to speak those broken protocols. It has to be an HTTPS proxy too can't be HTTP because using the CONNECT method means you are still doing HTTPS directly with the foreign peer.
That's nothing, Maniac Mansion was a game you... (Score:2)
What "memory lane"? (Score:2)
What "memory lane"? I for one have switched to FreeBSD in 1993 — and never looked back...
Ooo Yeah Electron (Score:2)
Unless that app is a VM in disguise
Also, fuck electron and the bad design chooses that allows.
WHY? (Score:2)
Complete waste of time.
Nothing nostalgic about running an OS that crashed every 15 minutes with the infamous BSD.
It's very faithful (Score:2)
I tried to open a command prompt and it crashed. Just like the old days....
StarCraft ... (Score:2)
Funny,
I was thinking this morning what hooks I have to make to install my old StarCraft again.
Re: (Score:2)