VOGONS


486 DX 2 66 What OS

Topic actions

Reply 21 of 36, by ibm5150pc

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Yes that's what I got when I tired it, I went with MSCDX and Oaksys and it's working flawless. In DOS 6.22 and WFW 3.11. Thanks everyone for your input!

F2bnp wrote:

QCDROM and SHCDX33 have never worked well for me. I always end up with an Access Denied error!

Reply 22 of 36, by Old Thrashbarg

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

But OSR2 has Internet Explorer 4 integrated in the shell, and works slower because of that.

Only OSR2.5/Win95C has IE4. The earlier two releases of it, OSR2 and OSR2.1 (aka Win95B), come with IE3, which doesn't include the shell update.

Reply 24 of 36, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Old Thrashbarg wrote:

But OSR2 has Internet Explorer 4 integrated in the shell, and works slower because of that.

Only OSR2.5/Win95C has IE4. The earlier two releases of it, OSR2 and OSR2.1 (aka Win95B), come with IE3, which doesn't include the shell update.

Is there a way of knowing which is which if you are buying a copy on ebay?

Reply 25 of 36, by Old Thrashbarg

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

There are some ways to differentiate them, markings on the CD and copyright dates and such, but I would expect it to be quite difficult to tell given the quality of the pictures and cluelessness of the sellers on the average eBay auction.

You should be OK even if you do get OSR2.5, though. As leileilol said, it's not hard to get rid of IE4... you can even make a custom install disc with IE removed completely.

Reply 26 of 36, by gerwin

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Old Thrashbarg wrote:

But OSR2 has Internet Explorer 4 integrated in the shell, and works slower because of that.

Only OSR2.5/Win95C has IE4. The earlier two releases of it, OSR2 and OSR2.1 (aka Win95B), come with IE3, which doesn't include the shell update.

My mistake, I see OSR2 is still fine. Winimize advises to obtain version 4.00.950 of explorer.exe, and 3 other files for shell transplantation.
And 98Lite has this article:

http://www.litepc.com/swap.html 98lite extends the possibilities for configuring your system to suit your needs. Configure your […]
Show full quote

http://www.litepc.com/swap.html 98lite extends the possibilities for configuring your system to suit your needs. Configure your desktop in four ways to suit YOU. With 98lite you can swap from one shell configuration to the other in little more time than it takes to reboot! SLEEK and CHUBBY dis-integrate your web browser from your desktop if you decide to keep Internet Explorer for web browsing.
SLEEK - lean and very fast

Installing the ultra-fast Windows95 Explorer into Windows98 is the desktop modification that 98lite is famous for. If you have a copy of Windows95 prior to OSR2.5 (ie. before IE 4.0 was integrated into Windows95), then 98lite can install the SLEEK Windows95 Explorer into Windows98. The Windows95 Explorer (Pre OSR2.5) does not include all the "webification" that slows down the Windows98 interface, and so it simply lightens the load on your CPU and memory, and allows your computer to realise it full potential.

Explorer95 is simply much faster for browsing the hard drive. On a slow computer (Pentium I Systems) with the windows98, you can literally see each window be re-drawn, there is a considerable delay in opening and closing explorer windows, even with all "webification" deactivated using using tweakUI or using a utility from from Windows Annoyances. In contrast, Explorer95 simply snaps open and closed.

You do have to trade some features for SPEED (e.g. quick-launch toolbars, in-situ start menu editing)

--> ISA Soundcard Overview // Doom MBF 2.04 // SetMul

Reply 27 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
sliderider wrote:
Old Thrashbarg wrote:

But OSR2 has Internet Explorer 4 integrated in the shell, and works slower because of that.

Only OSR2.5/Win95C has IE4. The earlier two releases of it, OSR2 and OSR2.1 (aka Win95B), come with IE3, which doesn't include the shell update.

Is there a way of knowing which is which if you are buying a copy on ebay?

Pulled from the internet:

OEM versions: 0196 Part no. 000-37080 US OSR1 (sometimes OSR2, Gateway) 0796 Part no. 000-45234 US OSR2 0796 Part no. 000-452 […]
Show full quote

OEM versions:
0196 Part no. 000-37080 US OSR1 (sometimes OSR2, Gateway)
0796 Part no. 000-45234 US OSR2
0796 Part no. 000-45236 US OSR2 (+ Plus! pack)
0197 Part no. 000-59944 US OSR2.1 (+ USB patch)
1297 Part no. X03-52599 US OSR2.5 (+ USB patch + IE4.01)
1297 Part no. X03-56265 US OSR2.5 (+ USB patch + IE4.01 + Plus!
pack

If you look at the Windows 95 CD, look if you can see the part number (For instance, X03-56265 will be an English OSR2.5, like you can see from the list I posted above).

If the part number is not in the list, try if you can read the part number and google it 😉

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 28 of 36, by leileilol

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

You shouldn't be worried about accidentally getting IE4 - it'll only install if you encounter the dialog after the first welcome, in which it wants to 'install' something. You can say "NO!!!!" and happily live with IE3 installed, no desktop 'enhancements' on OSR2.5. Unlike Windows 98, Microsoft actually gives you a freaking choice here 😀

apsosig.png
long live PCem

Reply 29 of 36, by sliderider

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
leileilol wrote:

You shouldn't be worried about accidentally getting IE4 - it'll only install if you encounter the dialog after the first welcome, in which it wants to 'install' something. You can say "NO!!!!" and happily live with IE3 installed, no desktop 'enhancements' on OSR2.5. Unlike Windows 98, Microsoft actually gives you a freaking choice here 😀

Yeah, I remember the big Netscape anti-trust case where Microsoft execs testified that IE could not be removed from Windows without destroying it's functionality only to have a software engineer demonstrate for the court a modified copy of Windows that he made running without it. 🤣

Reply 30 of 36, by Malik

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
F2bnp wrote:

QCDROM and SHCDX33 have never worked well for me. I always end up with an Access Denied error!

Hmmm..that's good to know.

I haven't encountered this problem before.

I did notice some problems before but all were related to much older drives - 2x CDROM drives and 4x CDROM Drives.

QCDROM was not able to recognize some of these and in others, some CDs cannot be read (gives data read error), while others were fine.
(I'm using original drivers for these drives now.)

But these were with older drives, so that didn't cross my mind during the recommendation.

Anyway, I'll keep this in mind when I face a similar Access Denied error in the future.

5476332566_7480a12517_t.jpgSB Dos Drivers

Reply 31 of 36, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
ibm5150pc wrote:

On my Gateway 2000 486DX2 66Mhz, 16mb ram, 700MB HD. I installed Windows 95. Is that the correct OS or should I have gone with Windows 3.11 and true DOS? My thought is 95 is to much for a 486 and don't leave much for games? What's your view's? I know for sure I should up my memory to at least 32MB.

I don't get it. If you want to run Windows 95 games on your 486, stick with Windows 95. If you think Windows 95 is too slow, use something else. If you can get a 32 MB upgrade for a good price, then you should probably do that unless you want to save your money.

It's entirely up to you and whatever you want to do.

Reply 32 of 36, by Iris030380

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Call me a purist (I wouldn't install Windows 95 on my AMD K5-100 for almost a year until I saw a preview of an upcoming game called Diablo which was Windows 95 only), but the only OS to install on a 486 DX2 is DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS

What good is Win 3.11 anyways? Make Tie Fighter way more sluggish than it should be.

You NEVER get the frrame rates you get on a DOS4GW game under Windows 95 that you do when booting straight into DOS. Take your ferrari to silverstone not the M1.

I5-2500K @ 4.0Ghz + R9 290 + 8GB DDR3 1333 :: I3-540 @ 4.2 GHZ + 6870 4GB DDR3 2000 :: E6300 @ 2.7 GHZ + 1950XTX 2GB DDR2 800 :: A64 3700 + 1950PRO AGP 2GB DDR400 :: K63+ @ 550MHZ + V2 SLI 256 PC133:: P200 + MYSTIQUE / 3Dfx 128 PC66

Reply 33 of 36, by Tetrium

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

[quote="Iris030380"][/quote]
but but but Windows has all those pretty colors!
And it has windows! 😁
And you can click stuff 😊
and you can put a pretty background on it 😀

Whats missing in your collections?
My retro rigs (old topic)
Interesting Vogons threads (links to Vogonswiki)
Report spammers here!

Reply 34 of 36, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Way back in the day, I remember trying to play a particular Megazeux board on my 8 MB 486 (the classic Bernard the Bard), and it seemed that I just didn't have enough RAM to get past a certain section in DOS. It worked in Windows 95, though, apparently because I could start an MS-DOS prompt that (through virtual memory) could provide additional RAM - but I couldn't get sound working.

Of course, getting more RAM would have been a much better idea, but RAM was a lot more expensive then.

Iris030380 wrote:

What good is Win 3.11 anyways?

It runs Windows 3.11 games. Some people like those, I guess.

Reply 35 of 36, by Iris030380

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I hear what you're saying. Call me a bare faced liar but I swear I actually got DOOM 1, Raptor : Call of the Shadows AND Tie Fighter all working with 2mb ram on my PC under windows by using PIF editor and playing with settings. All those games needed 4mb to run.

I got them working with 2, but the loading times were so long it was too frustrating after a week or so. I bought 2mb ram for £125 and had done with it.

But yeah, DOS DOS DOS DOS DOS 😉

I5-2500K @ 4.0Ghz + R9 290 + 8GB DDR3 1333 :: I3-540 @ 4.2 GHZ + 6870 4GB DDR3 2000 :: E6300 @ 2.7 GHZ + 1950XTX 2GB DDR2 800 :: A64 3700 + 1950PRO AGP 2GB DDR400 :: K63+ @ 550MHZ + V2 SLI 256 PC133:: P200 + MYSTIQUE / 3Dfx 128 PC66

Reply 36 of 36, by DonutKing

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
ibm5150pc wrote:

Yes that's what I got when I tired it, I went with MSCDX and Oaksys and it's working flawless. In DOS 6.22 and WFW 3.11. Thanks everyone for your input!

F2bnp wrote:

QCDROM and SHCDX33 have never worked well for me. I always end up with an Access Denied error!

Yep I had no luck with SHCDX either.

I used the vide-cdd combined with MSCDEX because its MUCH smaller in memory than OAKCDROM.SYS, and I haven't run into any compatibility problems yet.

I did try UIDEJR.SYS as it was even smaller in memory, but again there was compatibility problems with some games.