I actually never ran into the automatic install of Win95C's Desktop Update. Had no clue it even existed until I browsed the CD for it. (And probably this thread a few years ago.) Then again, I always removed the CD after the final part of the initial install out of habit...

Admittedly I used an old torrented copy of a version of a supposed (dubious?) OSR2.5 CD for a long while. Now I have a legit copy of the Windows 95 OSR2.5 CD, which I have had since 2014 but I now finally looked into it just today, as it was a sealed CD. The main differences between the legit CD I have and the one mainly floating around on the 'Net:

On my legit CD:
burn date timestamp is 1997/11/26 12:16 PM (UTC)
all files have created and modified date of the burn date
image uses the ISO9660 and Joliet standard 64-character filename CD filesystem formats (same as the original Win95B disc)
the \autorun directory is entirely absent
the \win95 directory is untouched; the ohare.inf file is present
disc is NOT bootable
image size is larger (similar to Win95B image size, just 7MB smaller)
label is Win95_OSR25 and Application text is CDIMAGE 2.38 (08/27/97 TM)

The 'Net CD image:
creation date timestamp says 2008/03/18 4:11 PM (original burn date is gone...)
all files have a created and modified date of 1996/08/24 1:10 PM (Win95B, but timestamp is off...)
image uses only the ISO9660 CD filesystem format
the \autorun directory is present (same as Win95B)
the \win95 directory is the same as OSR2.5, but the ohare.inf file is entirely absent
disc is bootable (neither the original Win95B or Win95 OSR2.5 CDs are bootable)
image size is smaller; off by nearly 22MB compared to the legit Win95 OSR2.5 ISO image
label is WIN_95C and the Application text is CDIMAGE 2.47 (10/12/2000 TM)

I should do a comparison install of these two versions, as this intrigues me. I'm thinking my legit 1997 disc will automatically run the IE4 setup (which contains Desktop Update) after the Desktop is shown for the first time, as the 'Net CD image doesn't seem to do this at all. I do know for the 'Net CD, it does say 4.00.950 C after installing. Not sure of the actual origin of the WIN_95C image, however...

When I found out the Desktop Update was located in \win95 and the filename is ie4setup.exe, as Desktop Update is integrated into the IE4 setup... I installed it to see if the minimize window using the taskbar button works with the Desktop Update as it never worked without it (at least not on the 'Net CD install). It did, but then you have this weird color aesthetic on the side of every Explorer window by default. Personally never ran into any issues even while using it for a while. Odd.

Edit: The IE4 setup ran automatically after Windows 95C was installed from within Windows on the legit copy (though it actually hung on a test install and I had to End Task on R32msie4, wtf). I normally installed it through DOS straight from the CD. Doing that breaks its networking setup and install for me, however. But IE4 setup never runs afterward...
Edit 2: Running from the CD in DOS, the dubious copy never properly installs the network components regardless of setup mode, so it's technically broken. They have to be installed manually.
Edit 3: Dubious CD copy install after copying the files to the HDD never runs IE4 setup automatically at all, while the legit OSR2.5 copy will. For the legit copy, when Windows 95 Setup pops up, I do not hit Next, but Ctrl+Alt+Del instead, then End Task on: Welcome, Ie4Setup, Windows 95 Setup, and then Explorer in that order. From there, "Windows 95 Setup" crashes, then Explorer. It will never run again, even after a reboot. I also noticed the auto install installs more than just IE4 and the optional Desktop Update...

Anyways like other people said if you have 98lite, you can shell swap to use 95 explorer and you can remove internet explorer and just about everything which makes 98se+98lite superior to running 95. And makes running 95 pointless if that is what your goal is to do. There is also 98lite Micro which is windows 98se that is only like 16 MB in size.

There was wee free program called IEOff as well that allowed you to dissable certain fubctions of the IE desktop.

Win95 is better for 386. The only problem is that I can't update an installed driver, no "Have Disk" 😕

computergeek92 wrote:

Windows 95C had the IE4 update which caused system instability by updating system files with versions not 100% compatible. Was Windows 95B the best?

After many installations over the recent years (currently own 16 socket 7/super 7 systems), I personally hold the very original 4.00.950, not even the A version, as the best. My experiences:

95: Lightweight, clean and efficient, even on a 486 system. Hasn't been rock solid, but neither has 98.
95A: Pointless if not experiencing instability.
95B: Good if you need >2GB partitions. Also good in public opinion, that wants to tell you previous 95 versions can't be networked with Win7.
95B 2.1: Pointless since you'll need the nusb package anyway.
95C: Bloated, made a P200 struggle after installation of Plus!. Also have vague remembrance of 98SE-like BSOD's, but can't remember if that was hardware related or the OS.

This being said, 95 stability hasn't been a problem. But I guess it's down to who you're asking, what hardware they've used, etcetera.