I disagree. For it’s time, Windows 95 was really good. So was 98, 2000, XP, and 7. Sure there were some duds in there (like Me and Vista) each release brought something new and improved to the table.
With respect to customizability, 8 and 10 was a gigantic step backwards. I hate this trend toward 1 pixel wide window borders, lack of ability to tweak many aspects of the UI, transparency, disappearing scroll bars, putting superfluous shit into my title bar, and so on. 10 is pretty rock solid in stability but god damn does its UX make it hard for me to love it.
I had a laptop running 3.1(1?), and as it only had a black and white LCD, the different themes were just different shades.
I seem to remember once plugging it into a proper monitor and realising what horrible combination of colours I’d been using.
It’s funny: every time we’re shown a new OS, we’re excited by all the things it can do. But we pine for the (perceived?) simplicity of the ancient software at the same time.
Windows 95 was great. It was much better than 3.1 and in some ways even than Mac OS 7.5 with it’s poor memory management. I spent $150 on a copy of OS/2 Warp 3 in 1994 in the vain hopes of avoiding Microsoft, but I had to admit that Windows 95 was far easir to use and configure than anything else on the PC to that point.
Okay, so I’m a heretic. I loved WinME on a Vaio mini-laptop. Fast, never failed, a great platform for my word, image, and data work. Of course that was 2002. Tech evolved since then. More nags.
OS/2 Warp was the best. IBM handed it out for free to every incoming fresher in computer science at my school. I ran it as my primary OS for two years before switching to a Mac.
IMO, Windows hit a pinnacle with 2000. I ran that on my secondary machines, and at work, until I couldn’t run it anymore. That thing was rock solid, and ran equally well on low- and high-end hardware.