My personal/playpen Linux box at work is Slackware. It uses LILO. Of course.
There is always a place for software that works. Software that does one thing, does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it well.
In many countries, it is illegal for a company to unfairly exploit its dominance in one market to gain advantage in another market.
But Google aren't doing that.
The argument of these complaining companies boils down to "our business is so crappy and generic that we have no customer loyalty at all, and as such our customers simply click on whatever result comes first when they search". Therefore they argue "we should be first because otherwise it's not faaaaaaaair".
If the only justification for your existence is that hapless customers end up at your website due to an accident of ranking, why should anyone care about your business? Facebook, for most of its history, wasn't crawlable at all - the entire site was behind the login screen. Literally the only search term they showed up for was Facebook. Guess what - it didn't hurt them at all, because their customers wanted to go there.
The only "tech" things I ever seem to use in a car are cruise control and the entertainment system. On a recent trip I had a rental car with all the in-car controls on a touch screen. I appreciated the convenience of being able to adjust the cruise control and climate control, play tunes, tune the radio and so on, all from a common interface. This is a car, dammit, not a mobile computer laboratory. Techie toys must do more than be cool. They must solve problems.
I'm reminded of airplane glass cockpits. Pilots rarely need exact numbers, most of the time they just need a glance at an analogue display. "Full power...confirmed! Gauges green...airspeed alive...rotate..."
Yeah, but that instability was not entirely Win95's fault.
Back then computers had almost no resources. NT had a "proper", academically correct OS design with a microkernel architecture (until NT4). It paid for it dearly: resource consumption was nearly double that of Chicago. Additionally, app and hardware compatibility was crap. Many, many apps, devices and especially games would not run on Windows NT. Microsoft spent the next 6-7 years trying to make NT acceptable to the consumer market and only achieved it starting with Windows XP.
So Win95 was hobbled by the need for DOS and Win3.1 compatibility, but that is why it was such a huge commercial success.
Making things worse, tools for writing reliable software were crap back then. Most software was written in C or C++ except often without any kind of STL. Static analysis was piss poor to non-existent. If you wanted garbage collection, Visual Basic was all you had (actually it used reference counting). Unit testing existed as a concept but was barely known: it was extremely common for programs to have no unit tests at all, and testing frameworks like JUnit also didn't exist. Drivers were routinely written by hardware engineers who only had a basic grasp of software engineering, so they were frequently very buggy. Hardware itself was often quite unreliable. Computers didn't have the same kinds of reliability technologies they have today.
Most importantly nobody had the internet, so apps couldn't report crash dumps back to the developers, so most developers never heard about their app crashes and had no way to fix them except by doing exhaustive, human based testing. Basically that's what distinguished stable software from unstable software: how much money you paid to professional software testers.
Everyone who used computers back then remembers the "save every few minutes" advice being drilled into people's heads. And it was needed, but that wasn't entirely Microsoft's fault. It was just that computing sucked back then, even more than it does today
I think the last time I used a Windows 95 system was in the 2000/2001 timeframe. It's been a while.
I used Windows 95 a lot. It worked, but when USB started to become important I upgraded to Windows 98. Some people claim there is a USB implementation for Windows 95 but after careful study I have come to the conclusion that they are mistaken.
I worked for the Evil Empire in the early '90s and had access to early versions of Windows 95 (still codenamed Chicago). One memorable early build crashed and corrupted my hard drive after I attempted to adjust the mouse settings.
Virtually nobody had 32mb of RAM back then. 8mb was pretty typical for new, nice computers. You couldn't have twenty browser windows open, that's for sure, but people managed OK with lots of swapping and patience.
Win95 pioneered the start button and taskbar UI. NT adopted the same UI later on.
Chrome extensions generally can't break the browser in the same way Firefox extensions can. They're also sandboxed, so can be used with less trust.
.... the Briefcase!
I just can't remember what it was for.
Win95 was such a huge upgrade. We forget now, but it packed an astonishing amount of stuff into just 4mb of RAM (8mb recommended). If someone produced it today in some kind of hackathon it'd be praised as a wonder of tightly written code. They even optimised it by making sure the dots in the clock didn't blink, as the animation would have increased the memory usage of the OS!
It's surprising how little Windows has changed over the years, in some ways. Not because MS didn't want to change it but because the Win95 UI design was basically very effective and people still like it, even today.
Web browser makers are incentivised to make everyone use HTML5, regardless of whether it's a better fit than Flash or not.
Website developers are incentivised to add new features, rather than rewrite their existing codebase from scratch for no gain.
What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake