Reply 20 of 42, by leonardo
Jo22 wrote on 2022-08-10, 08:57: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. 😁
I would just remove "95" and say "works great" and "Windows" can't fit in the same sentence, but in all honesty I do understand where you are coming from and why this sentiment is so widely shared.
...and you are absolutely right in that the DOS/Windows 9x-lineage is held together with bubblegum and dark sorcery. It really shouldn't work even as well as it does - but people tend to go with trends rather than realities most of the time and so Windows 98 was to Windows 95 what Windows 7 was to Vista. Surface dressing with a better reputation. Except in my opinion (and everyone is entitled to theirs, I'm fine with you disagreeing) while Windows 98 did take a few steps forward in the hardware support department (namely ACPI/USB/WDM) - it took a major step backwards with the shell upgrade - mostly because Microsoft's sales dept was hell-bent on beating Netscape out of existence... which is a real shame - because I would probably like Windows 98 better if it weren't for that god-awful bloated shell.
A lot of people also bought the original Windows 95 retail release to run on hardware that had no business running it (your memories of those awful dog-slow 386/486 machines... or even early Pentiums with 8 - 16 MB of RAM are all real!). By the time you bought a new more powerful machine, it was already being bundled with Windows 98, even though Windows 95 (pre-IE4-shell update) would have been a much better fit on such systems.
So to the OP, from a "period correctness perspective", - there were a heck of a lot of Socket 7 AMD K6-II / K6-III systems as well as Pentium II/Celeron systems that ran Windows 95. Not everyone went straight to Windows 98 and Windows 95 did not only ship on 486/early-Pentium systems. That's why the OSR2 releases exist! Because OEMs did ship Windows 95 alongside 98 for a good while and on systems that had AGP, 3D-acceleration and even reasonable amounts of memory and hard disk space.
On a system like yours, Windows 98 offers next to no benefit because the system is too slow to run any DX8 / DX9 era games anyway, probably does not have USB peripherals and you can't browse the web with the bundled IE any more anyway. A properly tuned Windows 95 installation is the way to go - don't let the other equally well meaning community members tell you any different. 😉