David Simpson wrote: > Win95 better than Win3.11. You'd have to be joking. The second release > did a few things better but it still crashed far more often than > Win3.0 ever did.
Win 95 was better (or less awful) than Win 3.11 in _some_ ways. In my opinion, one of them was the user interface, which I found more like X-windows (on Sun/Solaris) than on 3.11. I really hated the user interface of Win 3.x, where the desktop was cluttered with icons and group windows. But I don't quite see why a OS that utilizes the full 32-bit Intel architecture should run slower on a 486 than a 16-bit OS.
