The pressure to not fuck up windows 95 was immense. You have to appreciate the landscape then.
You had os/2 not doing that well, Amiga not doing great, NeXT hurting, riscos kinda floundering and the failures of Windows 1 and 2.
The risk of it not slapping was immensely high. A huge amount of the company was bet on it.
They were risk adverse all over the place with the design, it's clear to see when you do a deep dive.
And even then, people balked at things like the 8MB ram "recommendation", which was seen as expensive at the time.
Even after the release and into 1996, large vendors were still shipping some computers with windows 3.1 - it was an option.
It was really both a risky product and had to be done.
You had os/2 not doing that well, Amiga not doing great, NeXT hurting, riscos kinda floundering and the failures of Windows 1 and 2.
The risk of it not slapping was immensely high. A huge amount of the company was bet on it.
They were risk adverse all over the place with the design, it's clear to see when you do a deep dive.
And even then, people balked at things like the 8MB ram "recommendation", which was seen as expensive at the time.
Even after the release and into 1996, large vendors were still shipping some computers with windows 3.1 - it was an option.
It was really both a risky product and had to be done.