I remember this being the case even on a Pentium 133 machine back in the day.

If you don't mind losing the Quicklaunch bar, I would suggest going with Win95 OSR 2.1 and not installing IE4 and the Windows Desktop Update. The older Windows Explorer shell should run even better.

95 for sure. 98 SE felt sluggish even on a P200MMX last I tried. I wouldn't fathom using it on anything under a fast Pentium II.

Yes, Win95 seems to be the minimalist choice.
Due to being a creature of habit I had used w98 for a long time, even on 486s, but w95 is more than enough.

I have 98se on a P1 166mmx with 64md ram and find it to be fine. less ram or lower down the pentium line and I'd probably stick to w95, for a 486 with overdrive and 32mb ram as the OP has i think 95 is the right choice

98lite is another option - It's Win98 without IE and IE integration (So Win95 shell while allowing you to run software that wouldn't run on Win95). I used to run it on a 486DX4-75 with 24MB ram, that was my daily driver laptop for a while.

I only use Windows 98SE in every computer, you just have to download 98lite INF files to the setup directory, so you can add/remove all the components, and if install is finished, just replace explorer.exe with a Windows 95 one, pre osr2/IE4.

Original 95 is a nice piece of history, but not something that you can use mutch everyday. But 98SE and even ME are quite useful.

Usually I only put WfWG 3.11 on anything slower than a Pentium 166 — but that's because I only play games on my rigs. I don't think there are many Win9x games I would play on a 486 or a Pentium 60-83, so the sole purpose of Windows for me is to use Total Commander (for FTP transfers) and WinImage — and both are available for Win3.11.

If I absolutely had to use Win9x on such an early machine (for loading soundfonts in AWE32, maybe?), I guess it would have to be Win95 RTM. I just don't see the point in using a newer version of Win95.

As a general rule, I avoid using an OS that was released later than the given hardware platform...

Windows 98 was released together with some Pentium II
Windows 95 was released together with Pentium 133

So, 486 machines are better off with DOS+Windows 3.1x, or maybe OS/2 2.xx

Grzyb wrote on 2020-09-02, 15:18:

As a general rule, I avoid using an OS that was released later than the given hardware platform... […]
Show full quote

As a general rule, I avoid using an OS that was released later than the given hardware platform...

Windows 98 was released together with some Pentium II
Windows 95 was released together with Pentium 133

So, 486 machines are better off with DOS+Windows 3.1x, or maybe OS/2 2.xx

I patched the versions of Windows 3.11 and Windows 95 to be able to run Windows 3.11 under FAT32 and DOS 7.x. So I've got both bases covered depending on what I need to run.

Windows 95 will run better.

But do not use OSR 2.5. It has Internet Explorer 4 and the associated bloated Shell Update (in which there is no shell, only Internet Explorer in file manager mode) which is 90% of what makes Win98 slower.

Use OSR2 which has the USB update but no shell update. It is blazing fast.

The POD83 came out in late ´95, after Win95 release, same for the Am5x86 which was titled with „designed for Windows 95“. And Diablo, released in the end of ´96, ran well on P60 but needed Win95.

The fluidity of Win95 was mostly depended on RAM. With a DX2/66 and 16MB RAM it runs very decent. So yes, Win95 on a 486 makes sense, because it was partially designed for. I use a OSR 2.1 and i runs very well on my socket 3.

Now, 25 years later, there is for some of us another focus. WfW3.11 gives more nostalgic feelings and Win95 is overruled by a Win98SE on a PII. its a individual decision.

keenmaster486 wrote on 2020-09-02, 20:27:

Windows 95 will run better.

But do not use OSR 2.5. It has Internet Explorer 4 and the associated bloated Shell Update (in which there is no shell, only Internet Explorer in file manager mode) which is 90% of what makes Win98 slower.

Use OSR2 which has the USB update but no shell update. It is blazing fast.

AFAIK switching to the Classic View in the folder settings uses Windows Explorer for the Desktop UI without having to remove the Desktop Update.

Yeah. Windows 95 was designed to be usable on a 386DX and run nicely on a basic non-overdrive 486 with 8MB of RAM -- especially the RTM version. Even a fully updated OSR 2.5 install is happy in 16MB of RAM running real software, and without OSR2 many later programs will not run. You can avoid installing IE 4.0 by immediately Xing out of the IE installer that Windows launches the first time it hits the desktop. I think some relatively modern Windows 95 software might need OSR 2.5s updated files.

Windows 98 really needs 32MB to be of much use, and is still liable to be swappy unless you have more. And while it supports 486 CPUs, the IE integration is heavy and it runs better on a Pentium. You could Nlite Windows 98, but stomping on the OS like that can and does create compatibility issues, especially if you do an aggressive Nlite that actually makes 98 run as fast as 95. I don't think 98 makes much sense anyway, because most software which has any business running on a 486 or early Pentium supports Windows 95. And the newer the OS you pick, the more likely early Windows software that targeted Windows 3.1 and 95 RTM is to break.

One caveat is, with 95 you'll have to do more tracking down of drivers.

jasa1063 wrote on 2020-09-03, 00:44:

keenmaster486 wrote on 2020-09-02, 20:27:

Windows 95 will run better.

But do not use OSR 2.5. It has Internet Explorer 4 and the associated bloated Shell Update (in which there is no shell, only Internet Explorer in file manager mode) which is 90% of what makes Win98 slower.

Use OSR2 which has the USB update but no shell update. It is blazing fast.

AFAIK switching to the Classic View in the folder settings uses Windows Explorer for the Desktop UI without having to remove the Desktop Update.

Or simply remove the CD (or delete the IE*.cab files if installing from a folder) and setup skips the IE install altogether.

But agree out of the Win9x Win95 makes the most sense on a 486.
98lite may be an option but meh, not like 486 is doing much gaming in windows anyway.

There is no option that removes the IE shell. The best option is to not install it to begin with.

You can install IE 5.5 on Win95B without including the shell update, believe it or not.

chinny22 wrote on 2020-09-03, 08:48:

But agree out of the Win9x Win95 makes the most sense on a 486.
98lite may be an option but meh, not like 486 is doing much gaming in windows anyway.

At least it did in the year 2000.
I could be wrong, but Win95 does neither support KernelEx, nor VDM drivers.
And its API support compares to Win98 like NT 3.50 compares NT4.. Or Windows 2000 to Vista (okay, bad example). 😉

Edit: What about Win2k? It supports the 486 still, if memory serves. 🙂

Edit: Win95 is a memory hog, too.
And its memory management is awful.

Jo22 wrote on 2020-09-03, 15:48:

Edit: What about Win2k? It supports the 486 still, if memory serves. 🙂

Yes, it does work on the 486.

But... most people here agree that Windows 98 is too heavy for 486.
Windows 2000 is even heavier.
Windows 98 at least can be lightened using 98lite or something, Windows 2000 - not a chance.

Yes, back in the era, people were often forced to experiment with the latest software on much earlier hardware.
But it's 2020, you can find Pentium 1/2/3 machines for pennies, so why torment a poor 486 with software designed for 686?

Grzyb wrote on 2020-09-03, 16:33:

Jo22 wrote on 2020-09-03, 15:48:

Edit: What about Win2k? It supports the 486 still, if memory serves. 🙂

Yes, back in the era, people were often forced to experiment with the latest software on much earlier hardware.
But it's 2020, you can find Pentium 1/2/3 machines for pennies, so why torment a poor 486 with software designed for 686?

The whole point of putting my 486 system together was pure nostalgia. I had one back in the day with a Pentium Overdrive 83MHz. Just reliving some fond memories. I guess it boils down to what an individual wants and for what purpose. To each his own.

jasa1063 wrote on 2020-09-03, 17:14:

The whole point of putting my 486 system together was pure nostalgia. I had one back in the day with a Pentium Overdrive 83MHz. Just reliving some fond memories. I guess it boils down to what an individual wants and for what purpose. To each his own.

Of course.
BTW, it may be a good idea to add more RAM.
Late 486 boards with PCI usually have 4 x 72-pin SIMM sockets, so even 128 MB seems possible - though probably with only 64 MB cachable.
With 64 MB of RAM Windows 98SE might run pretty well even on a 486, and there are even good chances for Windows NT.