I still need to change the case badge on this.

I suppose you could do that. But IMO it's more amusing as it is. What looks like an old Athlon XP system on the outside actually hides... an even older computer inside it. You have the exact opposite of a sleeper rig. 🤣

ReeseRiverson wrote:

maybe changing the HDD out for a Compact Flash card in an IDE adapter, or finding a decent SSD I could stuff in there with more space that the motherboard could support. Decisions decisions. 😵

Don't go for CF card when you're are going to use Windows. The performance is really bad. CF works best in DOS and on 486 and below machines. Get a first gen 32GB SSD SATA drive. They are quite cheap (I've seen them often for 20-30 dollars here in Norway), as people can't use them for Windows 7/8 installations and are getting rid of them as they upgrade.

Old Thrashbarg wrote:

I still need to change the case badge on this.

I suppose you could do that. But IMO it's more amusing as it is. What looks like an old Athlon XP system on the outside actually hides... an even older computer inside it. You have the exact opposite of a sleeper rig. 🤣

Haha, I didn't think of it that way. Good point! 🤣

vetz wrote:

Don't go for CF card when you're are going to use Windows. The performance is really bad. CF works best in DOS and on 486 and below machines. Get a first gen 32GB SSD SATA drive. They are quite cheap (I've seen them often for 20-30 dollars here in Norway), as people can't use them for Windows 7/8 installations and are getting rid of them as they upgrade.

So is there any reason why it must be a first gen SSD SATA drive? I'm curious to ask, and can I just get an IDE to SATA adapter of sorts, or must I use a SATA PCI controller? (I have one somewhere, actually... but I don't think it has drivers for Windows 9x, if that matters...)

Don't have to be a first gen SSD. The reason why I mentioned this is because these are getting pretty cheap to buy 2nd hand as people are upgrading as we speak. IDE to SATA adapter works, but uses more CPU power and are slower.

My belief is that when you first are going for S-ATA you might as well go for SSD. Else there are plenty of quick, silent IDE drives out there.

Have you experienced the P6 bug, which Wikipedia says wasn't fixed until OSR2.5?

vetz wrote:

Don't have to be a first gen SSD. The reason why I mentioned this is because these are getting pretty cheap to buy 2nd hand as people are upgrading as we speak. IDE to SATA adapter works, but uses more CPU power and are slower.

My belief is that when you first are going for S-ATA you might as well go for SSD. Else there are plenty of quick, silent IDE drives out there.

Alrighty, thanks! 😀

I wouldn't mind trying that route for the system.

STX wrote:

Have you experienced the P6 bug, which Wikipedia says wasn't fixed until OSR2.5?

I'm not sure what the P6 bug is. 😦

ReeseRiverson wrote:

I'm not sure what the P6 bug is. 😦

I have not experienced the P6 bug personally, but I have read about it on other forums e.g.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/236337-48-w … r-setup#8972868

STX wrote:

ReeseRiverson wrote:

I'm not sure what the P6 bug is. 😦

I have not experienced the P6 bug personally, but I have read about it on other forums e.g.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/236337-48-w … r-setup#8972868

Well, I can't be sure what might have caused a Windows Protection Error, but with my other Windows 95 disc, before trying different RAM, Harddrive, still having the SoundBlaster 16 in, and not resetting the BIOS settings for a clean slate, I have gotten that error. Not every time, but it was during my troubleshooting period, such as this: Windows 95 Nightmare?

From your screenshot (which shows a "The Internet" icon instead of an Internet Explorer 4 icon), I'm guessing that you have an early version of Windows 95. Support for the P6 architecture (a.k.a. Pentium Pro, Pentium II) was added in late 1997 as Windows 95 OSR2.5 (a.k.a. Windows 95C).

According to Microsoft Knowledge Base Article ID 179897, "When you run multiple programs (especially MS-DOS-based programs) on a Windows-based computer that has insufficient system memory (RAM) and contains an Intel Pentium Pro or Pentium II processor, information in memory may become unavailable or damaged, leading to unpredictable results. For example, copy and compare operations may not work consistently." You could interpret "multiple programs" to mean the kernel plus the shell (i.e. even a fresh installation). You could interpret "insufficient system memory" to mean any amount of RAM that isn't being managed properly by Windows. You could interpret "unpredictable results" to mean any hard-to-explain error.

Sources:
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/misc1/PEROPSYS/WINDOW … B/Q178/9/72.TXT
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/179897

STX wrote:

From your screenshot (which shows a "The Internet" icon instead of an Internet Explorer 4 icon), I'm guessing that you have an early version of Windows 95.

Or he could've just aborted the IE4 install on first bootup (which leaves IE3 on in OSR 2.5)

System Properties tells me, that this is version 4.00.950 B. (This is the install from the disc that says USB Support.) Which it's copy write date is 1981-1997. My other disc is 1981-1996 that doesn't state USB support.

I don't know what version it is, since I don't have it installed, but I could run a virtual machine to check...

leileilol wrote:

STX wrote:

From your screenshot (which shows a "The Internet" icon instead of an Internet Explorer 4 icon), I'm guessing that you have an early version of Windows 95.

Or he could've just aborted the IE4 install on first bootup (which leaves IE3 on in OSR 2.5)

I spent eons trying to find out what I was doing wrong, because you always say that when someone brings up OSR 2.5 . I don't know how, but my copy of OSR 2.5, does not even attempt to install IE4.0 . It only comes with IE 3.0. And yes, I have checked, this is Windows 95 C, 4.00.950 C!

This is something I have downloaded though, my original copy of Windows 95 OSR 2.5 is localized and I hate those, so it may have been modified to never launch the IE4.0 setup. It is quite snappy too 😀

I finished repairing a Pentium II Win95 machine. Slapped a Voodoo 2 in there and called it a day.

Hmm, how does one make Windows 95 install on an 80GB harddrive? According to this post, someone supposedly, with out much detail, has gotten Windows 95 on a 500GB drive: Windows 98SE and Large Hard Drives

What I've done is installed my Syba SY-PCI40010 PCI SATA controller, and a 80GB Western Digital Caviar SE Harddrive. I've used FDISK on Windows 98SE boot disk to use the fullest space, and even Windows ME boot disk to partition the drive to 31GB...

However, Windows 95 just will not finish the setup. The install does well, it copies all the files over, but when the system begins to start for the first time, Windows 95 begins running windows for the first time, the screen blanks out, comes back... blanks out again, and text displays it is safe to shut down or press ALT-CTRL and Delete. When I do reboot, it has tried loading but it ends up not being able to find command.com or something. 😦

I was really hoping to use a bigger modern drive for reliability and space, but I'm stumped.

Oh, and the version I was using is Windows 95C.

Never seen white ISA slots before! 😮

ReeseRiverson wrote:

...
I was really hoping to use a bigger modern drive for reliability and space, but I'm stumped.
...

A 32 GB drive is the max, I'd say. You'll encounter unexpected hard-coded limitations beyond that e.g. https://support.microsoft.com/kb/246818/EN-US.

ReeseRiverson wrote:

...
Oh, and the version I was using was Windows 95C.

Bummer. I thought I was on to something. Sorry.

STX wrote:

A 32 GB drive is the max, I'd say. You'll encounter unexpected hard-coded limitations beyond that e.g. https://support.microsoft.com/kb/246818/EN-US.

Ah, well then I best find a smaller drive then. Thanks!

STX wrote:

Bummer. I thought I was on to something. Sorry.

Oh no no, my previous install IS Windows 95B. I meant I tried Windows 95C with the 80GB drive. Sorry about that.

It is not the drive that is the issue, it is the partition size. Just split the 80GB into partitions below 32GB and you'll be fine.

Large 32gb+ drives often had floppies with special partition tools to allow you to make large partitions for Win9x