Wow! It runs as well as Win95 did around 2000! The first computer I ever used was an HP Pavilion with Windows 95 that was used from about 96-03. That thing was in its last legs when we finally replaced it!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Developer Gets Apple Watch to Run Windows 95
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windows 95 was a well designed piece of system software in terms of user interface. It was a complete rethink of Windows and was simple to use. Clearly security and stability were issues. But 95 seriously highlighted how Mac OS was dated at the time. Incredible it is running on the Watch. Wonder why it is so slow though considering the Watch's internals meet the minimum requirements.
True. Furthermore, you'll have a better chance at finding a Linux OS that has support (even limited support) for touch screens.
virus to replace hijack ware....I'd call that a fair trade off.
Virus writers want you to at least have an open and working system to give them something to work with. Bothered to make a botnet. with viral code payload release..kind of helps if the bots actually work in a timely manner.
hijack ware writers...gimp your system and say pay me to make it work better or again. Sort of like apple who I am sure will fix performance issues in watch 2 but whose code optimizations will not be 100% applicable to watch 1.
So, you're saying it booted in real time, just as Win95 did back then?
Because it's running in software emulation on top of WatchOS. So it both needs to create an x86 computer in software on a RISC ARM chip and also contend with WatchOS overhead.
If you were to somehow get a native version of Win95 compiled for the S1 that entirely replaced WatchOS, the Apple Watch would probably run it extremely well. Win95's recommended specs are a 486, 8MB RAM, and maybe 120MB HD. Even a top-of-the-line 1996 workstation was all of a 200MHz Pentium Pro with 128MB RAM, 4GB HD, and a 4MB graphics card. A more realistic high-end computer was a 166MHz Pentium with maybe 32MB RAM and a 2GB HD.
I'm actually a bit surprised it runs this slowly, all things considered--might have more to do with an inefficient emulator.
Of course, that's an entirely hypothetical, since a version of Win95 for ARM doesn't exist. WinNT 3.5 or 4 would be a bit more realistic if for some reason Microsoft got the itch to start building ancient OSes for watches, since it had versions on multiple architectures, some of them RISC, and also more impressive due to its more modern architecture.
Great explanation. Thanks for that! I had Windows 95 on a 133MHz Pentium 16MB RAM--in a world of 486s, that was considered top of the line!
Remember what Gates said about Win95?
It could run on 386 with 4MB of RAM.
Well, W95 COULD run run on 386 with 4MB of RAM, but took longer than the AW running an emulated W95
It could run on 386 with 4MB of RAM.
Well, W95 COULD run run on 386 with 4MB of RAM, but took longer than the AW running an emulated W95