Virtual PC for Mac used to emulate a Pentium MMX PC.
So at least from a compatibility point of view, this was alright for the whole 90s.

Photos of VPC 4 can be found here: Re: 1996-1999 emulation status in 2025?

I wouldn't use 95 for any new build, there's just too many missing features, and its general instability is not what you want.

Win98SE is fine - my main gaming machine (mostly 3D DOS FPS games) has been running fine with this OS for a long time.

Robbbert wrote on 2025-08-12, 10:38:

I wouldn't use 95 for any new build, there's just too many missing features, and its general instability is not what you want.

Win98SE is fine - my main gaming machine (mostly 3D DOS FPS games) has been running fine with this OS for a long time.

Can confirm, if you want a Win95 machine, you have to really want it. I set up a P233 with Win95, and it's a constant pain in my ass. With zero configuration changes, every now and again the NIC will cause the system to hang and I have to boot into safe mode and disable it. For reasons that are inexplicable to me, certain games that are supposed to be Win95 compatible (Diablo, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri) cause it to bluescreen. But not always? Actually Alpha Centauri's problems didn't begin until after I updated it from the 1.0 version on my physical copy. This machine has a Riva 128, and for whatever reason the latest reference Win95 drivers have bug in them that don't occur in Win98. The manufacturer drivers seem better? But I also suspect some of my bluescreen problems are related to the manufacturer drivers being older than the reference drivers?

If it were my only machine, I'd start over with Windows 98, no question. But it's not, and I really do want at least one Windows 95 machine in my stable, before the IE integration and the active desktop and all that stuff.

I use Win95a or Win95b if the PC is too low at speed and hard drive space!

I have Win95b with DX6.1 + Vga + Audio+ Network + some windows 95b updates all on 64MB HDD.
64MB HDD, not 64GB! All extra suff over 10/100 LAN Network or over USB 1.1, that USB is also slow.

I agree with the MMX and below your better off with Win95
MMX and above Win98 SE

Even WinME can makes sense for a late Win9x box

Its Win98 first edition that I struggle to find a use case for.

Win95 giving up out of the box after 350mhz should be a hint. 😀

chinny22 wrote on 2025-08-13, 00:03:

Its Win98 first edition that I struggle to find a use case for.

1998 period correct early adopter torture!

Back then I used Windows 98 on my Pentium 100 MHz and after an upgrade 200MMX with 32MB RAM. And a friend of mine 2 or so years later ran XP on a Celeron-333A with 64MB RAM. From a retro perspective it doesn't make much sense. I'd draw the line for W98 at the 200MMX

Windows 98 on everything for me. Fast 486 and up with 64mb of ram or more should have no issues with it.

I would also say 98 runs fine on 486-66 or higher with 32mb RAM or higher. I would go for 95 OSR 2.1 below one of these conditions only.

AncapDude wrote on 2025-08-13, 14:47:

I would also say 98 runs fine on 486-66 or higher with 32mb RAM or higher. I would go for 95 OSR 2.1 below one of these conditions only.

I would think same. As long as it's not a Compaq ProLinea 4/66.
Had one and installed Windows 98SE on it, nearly cried in tears.
Saying it was a "sluggish" experimence was an understatement.
I don’t know why, but Windows 98 was on its knees on this PC.

AncapDude wrote on 2025-08-13, 14:47:

I would also say 98 runs fine on 486-66 or higher with 32mb RAM or higher. I would go for 95 OSR 2.1 below one of these conditions only.

similar for me, it's the ram mostly - 32 or more seems about fine for 98se. 95 just seems a bit unnecessary and ME seems to restrictive (and a bit more demanding)

I'm like that with windows 2000, which is fine when ram is around 128-256 but after that xp is fine while vista 32bit is too demanding to be worth it and w7 32 bit likewise - except for some newer drivers etc

and vista 64 seems about the same as w7 64 bit in hardware demands so i'd prefer w7 on almost any 2core+ 64bit system, while w8 i dont much like and w10 is a bit 'heavy' and seems better on quads with 8+gbram

windows editions have these patterns for me 😀

I'll take Windows 95 on any hardware. Both operating systems are horribly unstable, but 95 at least runs significantly faster, even on a Pentium 4 system. I also have a soft spot for the underrated releases – I've skipped 32-bit Windows XP for 2000, XP x64 and Vista on several of my machines.

You are definitely a oddball GemCookie 😀 I do love Windows Vista I got it dual booted With Windows XP i7 3770K 32GB RAM and a 780TI. I was going to go for a 980TI but it really is pointless 😁 For my other retro PC I have Windows 98SE and Windows XP dual booted on a 440ZX PC with 256MB RAM . A Tualatin 1.4GHz 512KB and a Geforce 3 Original OC to TI 500 with a Voodoo 2 12MB. I am currently playing The Godfather on it. All the setting are set to low as its a 2006 game. I am actually really enjoying it 😀

GemCookie wrote on 2025-08-14, 09:25:

I'll take Windows 95 on any hardware. Both operating systems are horribly unstable, but 95 at least runs significantly faster, even on a Pentium 4 system. I also have a soft spot for the underrated releases – I've skipped 32-bit Windows XP for 2000, XP x64 and Vista on several of my machines.

It does, but memory managment of Windows 98SE is on a different level.

More information:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040410084807/ht … 4/a/memmgmt.php

"Memory management in Windows 98 and Windows Millennium Edition (WinME) is dramatically improved over what existed in Windows 95.
It is so much improved that, for nearly everyone, nearly all the time, the best recommendations on how best to optimize memory usage in Win98 is: Let Windows handle it."

https://www.informationweek.com/software-serv … ows-98-winalign

InfoWorld - Windows 98's WinAlign will load Microsoft apps more quickly

Edit: A copy of the batch file for walign can be found at wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210505023848/ht … les/WMALIGN.ZIP

Interesting article on memory management. Thanks.

Jo22 wrote on 2025-08-14, 10:32:

It does, but memory managment of Windows 98SE is on a different level. […]
Show full quote

It does, but memory managment of Windows 98SE is on a different level.

More information:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040410084807/ht … 4/a/memmgmt.php

"Memory management in Windows 98 and Windows Millennium Edition (WinME) is dramatically improved over what existed in Windows 95.
It is so much improved that, for nearly everyone, nearly all the time, the best recommendations on how best to optimize memory usage in Win98 is: Let Windows handle it."

The VCache bug described in the article sounds like a side effect of a common controls library update. As for WinAlign, the performance figures for it are seemingly lost to the sands of time. If I find a few hours to spare, I'll test both operating systems on my K6-2 build.

For anything Pentium and Pentium MMX, I'd go for Windows 95 if the size of the hard drive that I install it on is large enough. And if I have enough RAM installed, I'd go for either Windows NT 3.51 or Windows NT 4.0 for increased stability.

For 486-based PCs, I'd go for Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1x or OS/2 2.x. 😀