>It wasn’t truly a full 32-bit operating system, because there was still MS-DOS at the core if you dug deep enough.

Yes it wasn't truly 32-bit but the core was not MS-DOS. It was a hybrid. The Win95 kernel was 32-bit and drove almost all of the system, including memory. 16-bit DOS was used as a launching pad and then it's job shifted to handle 16-bit graphics and other hardware that was unable to work with the new 32-bit kernel. So you booted 16-bit DOS, and as WIN.EXE executed, the system transmorphed from 16-bit into a 32-bit (kernel) OS but some of that core 16-bit driver code was designed to remain welded onto it. Even more impressive is how you could dissolve this 32-bit level and return the system to 16-bit DOS. That remains a very impressive achievement 30 years later. Happy anniversary Windows 95!

The way Windows 95 could use DOS device drivers despite being 32-bit was fairly incredible. I think that fooled a lot of people into thinking it really was running on top of DOS, when in reality, once it has booted, the reverse is the case. https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071224-00/?p=24...

It's WIN.COM, by the way.

When Windows didn't have a driver for some hardware, it would tell you it's "using 16-bit driver" (or was it DOS driver?). So it's all 32-bit.

Hah, this reminds me of Win32s on Windows 3.1x...