Very nice! Well done!

Excellent guide! On the subject of Win95 OSR 2.5 I recently noticed something interesting. When you get to the "Setup will now install IE4" screen, you can press CRTL+ALT+DEL and use End Task to close that screen.

It won't prompt you to install IE4 or Desktop Update ever again, so you basically end up with OSR2.1.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2021-09-01, 04:53:

Excellent guide! On the subject of Win95 OSR 2.5 I recently noticed something interesting. When you get to the "Setup will now install IE4" screen, you can press CRTL+ALT+DEL and use End Task to close that screen.

It won't prompt you to install IE4 or Desktop Update ever again, so you basically end up with OSR2.1.

That is true. OSR 2.5 really, really is just OSR 2/2.1 but with IE4 tacked on top. Microsoft didn't even slipstream it into the installation packages, rather the setup is initiated right after Windows installation completes. If you cancel the installation (as you discovered you can do) you'll still end up with IE 3, without the option to uninstall it in the Add/Remove Software-applet. Hence, the only difference in the instructions for IE-removal is that for OSR 2.5 you have to delete all the IE4 setup files that are absent in earlier installation directories. There's no harm in leaving them there, but they take up unnecessary disk space.

Thanks.

Great news Win9xers!

I've been exchanging information with the PuTTY team and it looks like 0.77 will be the first release of PuTTY since 0.65 to work on Windows 95! The WinSock 2 update is required (this is included in the instructions anyway), but no dependency on IE.

Those of you relying on the app can help test the pre-release version which can be downloaded from here. My initial testing shows that all the utilities work as of today (2022-03-13.5d58931).

I will update the Essential Utilities-section once the final release rolls out.

edit: The new version of PuTTY is out for Windows 95. 😎

More news for Windows 95-fans:

It turns out there are some compatible beta drivers that enable us to use ATi Radeon series cards all the way up to the 9800-series (with a possible limitation of being only able to use Direct3D-rendering for games)! See this post from asdf53 for more details.

Previously if one wanted a higher-end graphics card for a very late Windows 95 setup, one was pretty much limited to GeForce 3/4/FX-series cards from nVidia. One might still prefer GeForce, see this post for why. However, if you've got a Radeon lying about and don't want to spend extra this might just be a workable solution.

I'm currently testing a system that I would have considered out-of-bounds for Windows 95 not long ago. It's based on the ViA KT600-chipset and an Athlon XP-processor. Windows 95 will likely not be able to use all the on-board features such as USB 2.0, SATA or built-in ethernet, BUT it does run stable and accelerate 3D-graphics with the Radeon 9600 Pro I'm also testing.

Ideally I would still recommend 98SE or XP for a system like this, though.

What about config file parameters to have it boot into DOS by default and then type “win” to have it boot into Win95 ?
What config file parameters do you need for this ? ( autoexec.bat and config.sys )

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2022-05-12, 11:38:

What about config file parameters to have it boot into DOS by default and then type “win” to have it boot into Win95 ?
What config file parameters do you need for this ? ( autoexec.bat and config.sys )

Good idea for an addendum! I have those notes somewhere... will post back soon.

Intel486dx33 wrote on 2022-05-12, 11:38:

What about config file parameters to have it boot into DOS by default and then type “win” to have it boot into Win95 ?
What config file parameters do you need for this ? ( autoexec.bat and config.sys )

I've now got your question covered in a new section called Tips & Tricks. See the appended original post for details. 😀

Great thread! Thanks for the info and links.

kingcake wrote on 2022-08-20, 21:28:

Great thread! Thanks for the info and links.

From one king to another, I appreciate your feedback. 😎 🍰

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-13, 09:36:

Great news Win9xers!

I've been exchanging information with the PuTTY team and it looks like 0.77 will be the first release of PuTTY since 0.65 to work on Windows 95! The WinSock 2 update is required (this is included in the instructions anyway), but no dependency on IE.

I just tried to install PuTTY 0.77 and I'm not that impressed.
The plain executable (putty.exe) won't even start on Windows 2000, much less on Windows 95. The installer is also broken; no matter which directory I choose, a dialog box pops up with the message "Installation directory must be on a local hard drive".

GemCookie wrote on 2022-09-25, 17:00:

***
I just tried to install PuTTY 0.77 and I'm not that impressed.
The plain executable (putty.exe) won't even start on Windows 2000, much less on Windows 95. The installer is also broken; no matter which directory I choose, a dialog box pops up with the message "Installation directory must be on a local hard drive".

There is a similar program (fork of Putty) Kitty
Although I don't know if it runs on old Windows.

GemCookie wrote on 2022-09-25, 17:00:

leonardo wrote on 2022-03-13, 09:36:

Great news Win9xers!

I've been exchanging information with the PuTTY team and it looks like 0.77 will be the first release of PuTTY since 0.65 to work on Windows 95! The WinSock 2 update is required (this is included in the instructions anyway), but no dependency on IE.

I just tried to install PuTTY 0.77 and I'm not that impressed.
The plain executable (putty.exe) won't even start on Windows 2000, much less on Windows 95. The installer is also broken; no matter which directory I choose, a dialog box pops up with the message "Installation directory must be on a local hard drive".

Hello!

You must have downloaded the build intended for modern operating systems. You can get the compatible build for PuTTY directly from this link, which is also included in the Essential Utilities-section of my guide on page 1.

😀

Greetings,
recently I bought a Tulip Vision Line xd 6/350 and I wanted to give a try the Windows 95 installation, because when this line released in January of 1998, Tulip was using the Windows 95c version and on summer of 1998 switched to Windows 98.
I have an issue, I'm using the Windows 95c CD for installation, but the USB supplement patch refuses to be installed, both the official files and the unofficial XUSBSUPP, because scandisk gives me an error for not enough memory. Very strange, never had this issue on some vintage laptops I installed the patches a couple of years ago. Anyone knows what causing it?

JSO wrote on 2022-09-28, 21:06:

Greetings,
recently I bought a Tulip Vision Line xd 6/350 and I wanted to give a try the Windows 95 installation, because when this line released in January of 1998, Tulip was using the Windows 95c version and on summer of 1998 switched to Windows 98.
I have an issue, I'm using the Windows 95c CD for installation, but the USB supplement patch refuses to be installed, both the official files and the unofficial XUSBSUPP, because scandisk gives me an error for not enough memory. Very strange, never had this issue on some vintage laptops I installed the patches a couple of years ago. Anyone knows what causing it?

I read somewhere that your hard disk being nearly full may cause out-of-memory errors, because Windows cannot increase the size of the virtual memory (swap) file on the hard disk.

If this is not the case, one thing you could try (that reportedly works sometimes) is to restart your system in Safe Mode (hit F8 right as Windows bootup begins to select the Safe Mode-option) and try installing the eXtended USB Supplement once there. ScanDisk may complete in Safe Mode allowing the installation to complete.

edit: Just to warn - you DO NOT want to install both updates. Only install the original USBSUPP.exe or the eXtended USB Supplement, never both! I recommend the latter because it gives you mass storage drivers and the ability to safely eject a connected USB-storage device.

Thanks. I found the culprit for this behavior.

The maximum size of the HDD, was 127GB, scandiskw needs less than 32GB to work under Windows 95.

I made some tests, it runssss!

But I have an issue now. I used Ontrack Disk Manager 10.46 to create the partition and now I cannot revert the total size of the 1TB HDD. I tested every single tool for HDDs to revert the small partition but I couldn't. Strange. Is there any way to fix it?

JSO wrote on 2022-09-29, 19:46:

Thanks. I found the culprit for this behavior. […]
Show full quote

Thanks. I found the culprit for this behavior.

The maximum size of the HDD, was 127GB, scandiskw needs less than 32GB to work under Windows 95.

I made some tests, it runssss!

But I have an issue now. I used Ontrack Disk Manager 10.46 to create the partition and now I cannot revert the total size of the 1TB HDD. I tested every single tool for HDDs to revert the small partition but I couldn't. Strange. Is there any way to fix it?

Hmm... it's been a while since I've had to play with disks this way - I just stick to volumes smaller than 32 GB most of the time for Windows 95 (and use something other than Microsoft's own fdisk to partition them).

Maybe you need something like this?

USBUPD2 is a critical update to fix a severe memory leak itroduced in USBSUPP and it doesn't run scandisk. Without it the system is unstable but usb flash drives work with 95usbflash11.exe, in fact i copied the update from usb.

dondiego wrote on 2022-09-30, 08:03:

USBUPD2 is a critical update to fix a severe memory leak itroduced in USBSUPP and it doesn't run scandisk. Without it the system is unstable but usb flash drives work with 95usbflash11.exe, in fact i copied the update from usb.

Thanks for the reminder - if one decides to install USBSUPP, USBUPD2 should also be installed.

However in the updated guide I have moved to recommend the eXtended USB Supplement instead of the aforementioned, since it incorporates all the previous updates and also includes a tray utility and mass storage drivers for completeness.