Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2022-08-10, 06:37:
Alistar1776 wrote on 2022-08-10, 05:39:
So, my take away here, is that if im gonna build a dedicated win95 system, btw, likely OSR 2.5, then a 386 or 486 based machine is best, instead of the 586 on hand? Maybe a... Pentium MMX provided i could find one?
Win95 OSR 2.x versions work great on a Pentium MMX system. They are also period correct, as the first MMX processors were released in early 1997.
I would recommend using OSR 2.1 instead of 2.5 since the latter brings the Desktop Update and IE4 bloat, which you may want to avoid, as Leonardo previously mentioned. You lose Quicklaunch and some other shell enhancements, but get more speed and that original Win95 feel.
Uhm, I wouldn't use the words "works great" and "Windows 95" in the same sentence, though. :D
Please everyone don't get me wrong, Windows 95 (code name Chicago) was a big thing in pop culture, but it never was good or stable.
It was a hack, an interesting one, sure, but a hack nevertheless.
It was planned as an intermediate step for a real OS based on Windows NT.
The whole Windows 9x line is an ill mutant or a zombie. 🧟♀️
Ok, Windows 98SE is more like a mutant, less of an undead/zombie, perhaps.
There's that story about Netscape devs, which were said to have described Windows 95 as a "set of poorly debugged device drivers" . Which, essentially, is true.
Windows 9x is based on a bunch of VXDs (previously *.386 in Windows 3.x).
With Windows 98SE/Me less so (they tried to switch to WDM).
Anyway, nothing against Windows 9x. It's fun to tinker with (fiddling with hardware directly works).
And it used to save many jobs in the PC repair sector.. ;)
Edit: I agree that there are/were different Windows 95 versions for different hardware generations.
The original Windows 95 wasn't exactly finished and more like a Windows 3.1 on sugar.
Like a Windows 3.1 that was encapsulated by a monstrous Win32s.
It also stored most files in SYSTEM directory still, just like Windows 3.x.
Windows 98, at least, switched to System32 directory foe that purpose.
That's why Windows 95 RTM was so Windows 3.1 era hardware friendly, still, I think.
Many system components were still very Windows 3.1x like.
It's not unfair to say that Windows 95 wasn't finished when it shipped. It was more of a beta still.
That'swhy so many revisions of Windows 95 exist.
Microsoft still tried to fix things after Windows 95 had hit the shelves.
It did it quietly through the OEM channels, since a successor to Windows 95 was expected soon.
Which unfortunately didn't show up for three years in practice.
Windows 96 and 97 never made it.
That being said, Windows 95 RTM does run well on the same kind of hardware that's Windows 3.1 friendly feom what I can tell.
So 586/Pentium systems that are using classic system components and not so much exotic extra hardware, are suitable.
A system that uses, say, APM instead of ACPI for power savings, may also has less stability issues.
And that's one of the stumbling stones, I think.
ACPI implementations in the 90s were incomplete, not to say buggy.
Windows 98SE was most compatible here, maybe, since it was aware of different ACPI revisions (knew workarounds).
Windows Me, on the other hand, started to throw out legacy components (most famously old VXD drivers in favor of WDM drivers;
except that there weren't much shipped with Me).
Linux and Windows NT had their problems because of these ACPI implementations that didn't follow the specifications, from what I remember.
(The different power states of CPUs still cause trouble to this day, strictly speaking.)
That's why some recommended switching things off, if not needed.
CMOS settings like "Plug&Play aware OS=yes/no" were also still important at the time.
Not all OSes were correctly able to configure the Plug&Play hardware at the time.
- Neither were the Plug&Play enabled BIOSes..
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//