Well, if you disable Active Desktop and the other web integration in Explorer, it's not all that bad really 😀
If you still think it's too heavy, you can always install the W95 OSR2.2 version of Explorer with 98Lite. It also have some halfway options that still lets you use the W98 Explorer, but disables some background resource hogs.
Thanks for the tips! I was using Win98SE since I had a Pentium 75, with a similar config you describe (Active Desktop disabled).
Except for the alternate explorer, of course. Back then, I did not read many computer magazines, so I wasn't aware of this.
Around the time, I was quite behind the actual technology, I guess. Windows 98 was brand new and so I expected it
to be superior to all the old stuff I knew before. My father also got a new Pentium III machine with an NVidia Geforce card.
This was around the year 2000, I believe. Back then, I still had my 286-12 with the Pro Audio Spectrum 16.
I later moved it into the P75 that ran Windows 98SE and it worked fine with the default drivers and with the old W3.1 drivers.
In another PC, a Pentium 166, I later installed a Sound Blaster 16 CT1740, which also worked very good on Windows 98SE.
And in DOS, since there were no extra drivers necessary (all jumper configurable).
I guess this about the time I realized how valuable good soundcards are.
I never threw away one of these soundcards.
When my father boxed up his old 386DX40 along with Win95, I slowly realized how many years had passed and
how behind we were in regards of technology. A 486 was still a power horse to us, so we exptected it to run well on
Windows 98SE, too.
I had no clue how slow it would run on a 486 platform, actually. A Compaq desktop PC w/ 486DX2-66 and 16MiB
proved me how wrong I was. It was dog slow on such a machine, were Windows 3.10 was fast as a rocket.
On the other hand, 98SE supported old ISA ctuff quite well, most of which I had got no Win95 or 3.1 drivers for.
In that respect, Windows 98SE was really great. It shipped with a large driver database, even bigger than ME's.
And to be fair, Windows 98SE ran fine on any 586 I installed it on. Much better than Linuxes of the day.
I guess this was because of 586's better FPUs and pipeliining and bigger caches.
And because of their (586 PCs) newer 16550AF UARTs, PCI graphics and PCI IDE controllers.
On the other hand, my father's 386DX40 w/ 16MiB of RAM and with Win95 RTM was the most stable PC I ever saw.
It never crashed or showed instability. Strange how things are different sometimes.
Speaking of strange things, Windows ME was more compatible with some late 586 machines than Win98SE.
Still have got that Gigabyte GA586-something PC that runs Win95 badly, Win98 not at all, and Win ME just fine. 😁
Edit: Sorry for the long posting, I got taken away again. 😊
Windows 98SE also has another nice feature DMA support for Hard Disks.
If it works, it speeds up overall performance quite a bit.
Edit: @Intel486dx33 Just try, that's the best way to find out. Either on real hardware or PCem, 86Box or Virtual PC 2007.
It really depends on your needs, Windows 98SE supports AGP, MMX, SSE and such things.
Maybe Win95c can be patched for same compatibilty, not sure.
I'd recommend finding all the upgrades for Win95c and see how it performs.
If it runs well enough, leave it that way. Personally, I had no negative experience on a friends old Pentium.
He wasn't a gamer, though. Win95c misses the WDM driver model and comes with less drivers than 98SE.
But if you've got them already, there's no reason not to give Win95c a try.
Just make a backup (HDD image) once it works. Use Win32Disk Imager, Acronis True Image
(v.7 to 9,10 boot on old Pentiums). This way, you have it much easier if an "upgrade" to 98SE fails.
or any other tool.
"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//