# I want to get windows 95



## Guest (Oct 16, 2002)

I was wondering about getting windows 95, because it might be fun to mess around with. I've only used it once and always wanted to see what it's like. Plus I could get much better performance out of it since I have 320 MB of RAM and a 64 MB video card!!! So, it would be fun. Is it much different than windows 98, and why is it worse? People say it's worse because it's older, but I think it may be better. What do you think?


----------



## monted (Jun 23, 2002)

I've never worked with 98,so I don't know. But I did buy an OEM version of win95 at www.pricewatch.com for about $28 + S&H ! 
I think the vendor name was "SR Sources" or something like that.


----------



## buckaroo (Mar 25, 2001)

Win 95 lacked the good support for USB that WIN 98 improved upon, especially 98SE. if you use your USB, you may, or may not, have some issues with 95.


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2002)

i don't use usb at all. what else is different? thank you


----------



## MacFromOK (Mar 19, 2001)

____________________________________________
Video support from Microsoft. WMP 7 or later
does NOT run on Windows 95, and the WMV
video codecs won't work with WMP 6x...

Cheers, Mac


----------



## deh (Sep 6, 2002)

Windows 98 supports more hardware. Windows 98 was made after the thousands and thousands of issues (i.e. customer complaints) were addressed. Therefore it is more stable and provides better performance.---That is MS's take. While slightly true they said that was why ME as well but I would recommend 98SE over ME anyday.

Personally I bunch 9x into just that most of the time:"9x" as I jumped my desktop from 95 to NT (then to 2000) and NT technology is that much better.

I do indeed still have a 98 laptop which I am totally happy with for what I do with it. As said I need the better USB support and suport of my digital camera software, which 95 doesn't have. I know first hand of problems with 95B and USB.

Software support as well is a real thing. For example System requirements for Internet Explorer 6 are Windows 98 and above. 
That is just one example.

Same holds true for drivers. Again know personally of someone who had to send a printer back because no 95 drivers were available for it, even online at manufacturer's site. Thier stance was No longer support 95.

Now with 2000 (Nt technology) you need the hardware but once you have that then you bunch 95 and 98 right into the same category, yes it is that much better, thus the infamous 9x references all the time, but there are slight differences and advantages 98 has. BTW- Interface is basically the same.

In a nutshell if you get 95 you won't notice much of a difference so if you are looking for a completely different look and feel that's not gonna happen; and if anything you will say it is worse than 98.



Have a good day!


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Ilusha2:

Windows 98SE looks identical to Windows 95, but it has many more enhancements and system tools to keep you out of trouble and recover from a problem.

It will run fine on 64 MB of RAM, but 128 - 256 MB is much better. Since you already have 320 MB of RAM, you are in good shape.

Regardless of whether you use USB or not, go for 98SE.

Frank's Windows 95/98 Tips


----------



## Brooks (Oct 31, 2001)

Don't forget Directx support. 95 is limited to 8.0a and will not be updated in the future. Support in general, Microsoft is no longer supporting the OS and will not be releasing anymore security patches for it. IE is also limited to 5.5 and there will be no more upgrades there either. (since I am not an IE fan, this would not stop me at all )


It also had some stability issues that were supposedly fixed with 98, but both have thier moments of program crashes. (just stay away from ME, I bought a Dell with it factory installed and it was a nightmare. I installed 2000 to get my system stable. toward the end, it was crashing about every 30 minutes)


The memory thing, 95 is more primitive with its memory managing, so 320 will not really be that big of a boost except with regards to programs that like a lot of memory or when working with large graphics. You will still wind up getting resources low messages when having a lot of programs open at one time due to the way the 9.x architecture is designed. 

If you want something in the 9.x line, then get 98se. If not then go with 2000 or XP for greater gaming compatability, because it sure does look like you have the hardware for it.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Ilusha2:

More and more software and hardware now require Windows 98 or newer. They will not work with Windows 95. You are fighting a losing battle.

Frank's Windows 95/98 Tips


----------



## rugrat (Dec 17, 2001)

Just another 95 reminder, the FAT16 file system limited the hard drive size to 2GB. A 20GB drive would have to be split into 10 partitions to be used. Also FAT16 wastes alot more space in those partitions.
Not worth the effort overall.

SeeYa


----------



## john1 (Nov 25, 2000)

Hi ilusha2,

Windows 95b ....

Ive used 95 original from floppies, it will install with about 50MB
of Hard drive, or even less, but no browser for the internet.
And will work with smallish ram, 4MB or so, slow, but it works.

Later versions of 95 on CD included a browser, IE 3
unfortunately, ways of writing html have varied slightly
since IE 3, and a lot of stuff wont display properly.

I had to update my browser to IE3.2 which i found by chance
on a free CD from somewhere, just to get it to read most web
pages properly. But not all.

To use a slower machine W95b with IE 4 is probably going to
give you the best speed, so long as you have at least 32MB of
ram. 

To improve speed on my 60MZ machine, i would run with no
pictures, that gave about the best speed i could, on the net.

On machines that are a bit slow with 98, they usually run
a good bit faster with 95b, go for 95b because of the FAT
tables. there are sites where you download Win 95b now
that its practically been dropped by Microsoft.

If the machine you intend to try 95b on is 160Mz or more, then
you will get quite acceptable speed. 

Win95b may not be comfortable with that much RAM, you might
find, curiously, that reducing it may improve matters.
Also Win95b cannot handle hard drives larger than 2 Gigabytes
without help from various drive managing software programs.

It was first introduced when memories and hard drives were
nowhere near the sizes that are available now. 

Most ordinary programs will run on 95b with no problem.

I have a 20Mz Zenith PC with 4MB of ram running windows 95b
and after solitaire, you can see the cards display slowly work
through the whole pack, and read the number of each card.

Frank is right, lots of new stuff needs USB, and won't run on
95, but not all of it, lots of stuff is fine on 95b.

Best of luck with it,
John


----------



## plschwartz (Nov 15, 2000)

Found this on e-bay. maybe too good to be true
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?query=windows+95&newu=1
States it win95 with usb support!
LOL


----------



## Jtoast (Oct 3, 2002)

dont remember but i think win95 suffers from a 256mb RAM limitation also(doesnt correctly use anything over that).

its a LOT less stable(read many more crashes than 98)

you will get tons of scripting errors using that old of a browser unless you update it 


a lot of software requires win 98 or better now to run

2gb limitation on hd 

if your just doing it for kicks, don't waste your time. It looks pretty much the same as 98 but performs worse.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2002)

thanks guys. thanks for all the information. it's been really helpful.


----------



## john1 (Nov 25, 2000)

Hi plschwartz,

i looked at that 'auction lot' from ebay,
it does say win 95, it also says OSR2,
which i think means the last of the W95
series, which was 95c.
95c was never very popular, i thought
it was badly bloated, it incorporated an
option for 'web-view' and desktop
'enhancements' which i thought were a
waste of space.

I also found that it ran slower than 95b.

Yes, its only saving grace was the USB port.

But if you want that, get W98se, much better.

Some earlier laptops actually work OK on
95b, but arent fast enough to be satisfactory
on 98 or 98se.

I have a couple of Compaq Elites running on
95b they are 66Mz and would be hopeless
on 98 or any more recent OS.

Regards, John


----------



## cybergum (Oct 24, 2001)

If you still want Windows 95, just take a visit to your local Goodwill. Ours had a stack of a dozen or so, for $1 each!  And each CD is labeled "Not for individual sale under penalty of law"  

Finally, a M$ that has been properly priced!


----------



## MacFromOK (Mar 19, 2001)

______________________________________________
Some of the drive support information posted here
is not correct for later versions of Windows 95...

Here's an excerpt from my Windows 95B (OSR2) help:
*
Large drive support
Windows now supports the use of drives greater than 2 GB (gigabytes) in capacity. The maximum supported drive size is 2 TB (terabytes). Large drive support can help you dramatically reduce the amount of wasted space on your computer's hard disk.
*

I also had the option of FAT16 or FAT32 at installation.

Cheers, Mac


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2002)

hmm, yes, it seems like windows 95 isn't a good idea. i just read in Smart Computing Magazine yesterday that FAT is a very bad file system because it uses bigger clusters, up to 32KB, and that wastes disk space. FAT32 uses 8kb clusters, i think, and NTFS uses 4kb clusters.


----------



## john1 (Nov 25, 2000)

Cheers Mac,
I didnt know that later versions could handle 2000GB.
Does that apply to all versions of W95b ?
or just the later ones?

I think all versions of W95b give the option of
16 or 32 bit FAT

John


----------



## MacFromOK (Mar 19, 2001)

> _Originally posted by john1:_
> *Cheers Mac,
> I didnt know that later versions could handle 2000GB.
> Does that apply to all versions of W95b ?
> ...


Hiya John, 

I have no idea. My version is all I'm familiar with.

Also, I used FAT16 because of some older drive
utilites I had. But since larger partitions use larger
clusters, I have drives C thru M on a 20 gig hard
drive...

Cheers, Mac


----------



## deuce (May 26, 2001)

Well I stumbled upon this thread when I was looking through "who's online".........so maybe this is too late but I thought I would add my two cents anyway...you never know who might benefit from it.


Just a few things about Win95...

The cluster sizes don't depend on the file system...they depend on drive size. You want as small of clusters as possible, obviously, but have to keep it managable since the more clusters you have the more time it takes to access data. So basically, the cluster sizes aren't the distinguishers between FAT16, FAT32 and NTFS. As mentioned, later verisons of 95b allowed FAT32 so you should go that route.

Win95 has a ram limitation of 256 MB...so you would want to stay at that, or even lower with 64 or 128.

As mentioned no directx past 8.0a and no IE past 3.0.....so this wouldn't be great for gaming or internet.




There are other things to note, but I won't list them. Basically, you wouldn't want to make a Win95 machine your main computer. However, you mentioned that you are interested in poking around with it. You might want to build a system to use with 95.......or even 3.x if you want. This is actually a great exercise if you have the time. You can learn from actually building it, and can learn from playing around with older OS. I would just build either a 486 or an early pentium.......search around re-sellers or what not and look for like 166 mhz or something (since 166 is the first to have MMX...so you might want that). Go get a copy of Win95b or Win3.1 (can find it off the internet if you want), 2 or 3 GB HD, like 32 MB of ram, a mobo with onboard video and audio and go pick up a 56k modem if you want also...and like a 16x cdrom or something like that. You can get all this stuff for maybe $20 or so at the most.....and if you are into it, it can be an interesting and education experience.


----------



## brushmaster1 (Jun 15, 2002)

Win 95B will work with FAT32. Earlier versions of 95 will only work with FAT16.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

I've got 95 OSR2 on a P90 laptop.
IE 5.0 was a requirement for one of my apps(I've forgotten which one)
IE 5.0 does instal and work correctly, IE6 won't.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

If I recall, Internet Explorer 6.0 won't install on Windows 95.

Frank's Windows 95/98 Tips


----------



## *aussie_blondie (Nov 29, 2002)

That's right.......i.e. gives a message that it needs Win 98 or higher. Lots of programmes do now. I'd switch to 98se tomorrow but I think it needs even more hd space than 95, and I only have 2gigs.


----------



## deuce (May 26, 2001)

Looks like you're due for an overhaul...


----------



## jcroix2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I have used both 95 and 98.98 for me crashed more frequently,hence they came out with 98 se which i haven't used at all.I have 2000nt at the office and that's worth getting.

Have you thought of Linux which will run on a dime and is rock solid?


----------



## Panther746 (Apr 25, 2003)

Some people say that Win95 is not as fast as win98, But on my computer - AMD Athlon XP 2000+ - 512MB DDR - Nvidia G4ti4200 128Mb- Win95 is very very fast. After installing 95 on my computer as you may know it wont boot up, you must go in to bios and turn off the cpu internal cache to slow the processor down then you can boot up, after booting up then i install the AMd K6 2 update. Then i restart and turn my cpu internal cache back on and i am running at full speed. The only reason that i dont run win95 now is, i love games and i play all different kinds but on win95 you cant install internet explorer 6.0 or any version of directx higher then 8.0 so that was the end of win95 for me, to bad no one will make updates for win95.


----------



## websurfer (Jun 24, 2002)

If you want a good ex[erience wait until the end of the year aand get the preview of MS's new OS. Or try XP, just make sure you DO NOT TRY ME! ME is the worst system on the market, and people wonder why MS stopped making it. As of now Windows XP Professional is the best Windows OS. It is built on Windows 2000 technology so it is secure. It should run smooth because it manages its ram, where you will not have to restart every 3 or 4 hours. You should only have to restart every week or so, unless you are an extreme memory hog and use it all at once. XP Pro has a few more features than home does. Windows 95 is not as secure, or stable, as 98SE, 2000, or XP. But I would save my spare change and buy Windows Longhorn at about mid '04. But of course it is your choice. Windows 95 isn't AS BAD as everyone thinks, but its compatablity is horrible. You won't be able to use any new programs.


----------



## buckaroo (Mar 25, 2001)

We all may want to stay where we are with our current OS's or go to Linux. If you have time, take a peek at the Orwellian future MS has in store for their OS's:

http://www.notcpa.org/faq.html?PHPSESSID=5b5d562aa46732c0aaaddb4ebc2f7169


----------



## 104456 (Dec 17, 2001)

You might consider installing an emulator such as VMWare to run your other OS`s on within your present setup,It lets you install and run multiple systems with ease.

Confuses the hell out of other people when you have Win 3x running full screen............."wheres the start button gone?....."


----------



## sobayexe (Jun 15, 2004)

I can't see my USB port in the device manager on hardware on my computer. I check the Bios and is enable, but I can't see it on my system. Furthermore, when I tried to connect a printer the plug and play do not recognize the USB port or the printer. Can you help me?


----------



## buckaroo (Mar 25, 2001)

sobayexe, welcome to TSG.

You really should start a new post in the Hardware Forum for this problem. This thread hasn't been active in over a year.


----------



## sobayexe (Jun 15, 2004)

Trouble with my wireless mouse kensington 72117. Stop working


----------



## buckaroo (Mar 25, 2001)

sobayexe

Sheeesh, I hate to sound like a broken record, but............



buckaroo said:


> You really should start a new post in the Hardware Forum for this problem. This thread hasn't been active in over a year.


You don't want to piggy-back onto an existing thread as you'll have a greater chance of replies if you start a new thread yourself.


----------

