Most of you have probably seen pictures of Windows 95 running with an EGA video driver.
Windows 95 doesn't ship with an EGA driver, however it is able to use an EGA driver from Windows 3.1, similarly to how Windows 3.1 could use a CGA driver from Windows 3.0.

A good question is whether Win 95 can use the CGA driver from Win 3.0 (which was the last version to provide one). Running Windows on a 640x200 resolution MONO has always been painful, and one can expect Win95 to be close to impossible to operate. That is, assuming that you can manage to load the CGA driver: however, Win95 RTM stoichally resists all attempts of being used with a CGA driver, showing an error message and defaulting to VGA.

Today, I found myself wondering whether the same happened with beta versions of Chicago. The oldest beta I could install is build 189 (the previous ones complain about media corruption when I try to install them, I wonder why). The result has been surprising: that beta DOES run at this resolution, albeit with all sorts of glitches (including an unavailable Start menu, no DOS prompt, several dialog boxes reduced to a width of a few pixels).
Here's what it looks like:

I keep looking at the screenshot and I'm struggling between "wow this is cool" and "OH MY GOD WHY???"

Finally, Windows 95 for my Deskpro 386/16 with amber CGA graphics

Might just have to try that out sometime..

You're using the wrong Beta Site ID/Password.

Yeah, that's what the various threads on Chicago said.
Maybe I'll dedicate more time to it in the future, but it's frustrating because it takes quite some time between when you enter the Beta ID/Password and when Setup complains about the installation media.
And every time you have to start from the beginning...

*nevermind, I completely misread...*

Yes, I know that CGA is color, but the OP screenshots are monochrome(or so they look).

That's not VGA mono, but CGA "high" resolution. CGA only provides colours at a resolution of 320x200, which was never adequate for running to run a GUI: not even in 1985, when Windows 1.0 was released.
Thus Windows CGA drivers used the monochrome CGA mode, which provides a resolution of 640x200 with a decidedly rectangular pixel aspect ratio.
That's why the graphics in the picture looks distorted.

I beg to differ. Have you ever heard of GEOS or TOS?

OP shows 189 using CGA, RTM+ using Monochrome is way different. Reading is hard, I see.

Yeah, I made an unnecessarily strong statement, but it was a hyperbole. Doing real work at a 320x200 resolution is quite painful.

(Why do you think that "running a graphical user interface" is not proper English?)

Edit: nevermind, I now see what I really wrote...