Osr2 Windows 95

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Destini Armstrong

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 5:58:14 PM8/3/24

to giafunkbenon

I was trying out both Windows 95 OSR2.5 and Windows 98 SE on my latest 486 build with a Pentium Overdrive 83Mhz and 32MB of ram on a 486 PCI motherboard with a SIS 496 chipset. I ended up using Windows 95 OSR2.5 as it ran smoother than Windows 98 SE. I was just curious if anyone else had a different experience on this type of configuration.

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.

I am aroused about any X86 motherboard that has full functional ISA slot. I think i have problem. Not really into that original (Turbo) XT,286,386 and CGA/EGA stuff. So just a DOS nut.
PS. If I upload RAR, it is a 16-bit DOS RAR Version 2.50.

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.

Nie tylko, jak widzicie, w tym trudność, że nie zdołacie wejść na moją grę, lecz i w tym, że ja do was cały zejść nie mogę, gdyż schodząc, gubię po drodze to, co miałem donieść.

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.

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.

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.

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). ?

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.

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.

I just wanted to say a big Thankyou for developing this and making it available. It's an absolute godsend to someone like me who's just rebuilt an old P233 from bits & pieces to run some old music software on W95, and who completely forgot USB wasn't supported. Transferring files via CDRWs wasn't an inspiring prospect.

As warned, my USB MIDI keyboard won't work but it can at least be powered via the USB lead while using a different MIDI cable. Windows uses the supplied drivers but installs it as a USB control device rather than a Sound, Video & Game controller (which I think is the case under W98). I tried doing it manually but I expect you could've told me that would be a waste of time too!

I went the way down till 32MB. The strange thing is that at some settings under 768 it works whereas if you lower it it doesn't. And then you go more down and it works and then more and it doesn't... This doesn't make sense. There must be something else there besides the MaxPhysPage barrier.

Also SB (CT4750) 'worked' even though installations crashed (first due to insuf. memory) then due to lack of internet-I suppose it affected only update. '' > because DOS mode legacy device doesn't: aka you cannot configure it because resources conflict with PCI bridge resources-here is the missing mobo drivers for W95 we were talking before-another time I will try with those infs and see if I can do something.

virtual memory shouldn't be disabled in any circumstance in win95 / 98, from what i gathered, every build i had that i disabled virtual memory to see if it would fix anything would actually mess up everything and crash almost anything i ran. if your using 2 GB of ram, regardless of limiting the maxphyspage and min/maxfilecache will probably still give you a malfunctioning computer or insufficient memory errors because for some reason, even though the extra ram is limited, it still seems to interfere within the operating system. try to see if you can run only one stick of ram if your using 2 sticks of 1 GB so you only have a max of 1 GB, although every windows 95 i worked with would not boot with more than 512 MB ram from the start, only windows 98SE would. all my recent windows 95 builds had the ram limited to 384 MB with one 512 MB stick of ram ( which is how much you would have to begin with in the first place ), any more than 384 MB, like 392 MB or higher would make the computer malfunction / give out of memory errors, and i think virtual memory even got disabled.

Thank you - we had a win95 computer that was tied to specific manufacturing hardware that needed to be able to move large-ish amounts of data during a test. This worked great (we needed to turn the hardware on in the BIOS as the final step), looking at old floppies or even a CD burner would have been much more difficult.

I am following the XUSBSUPP readme.txt instructions for machines in which Win95 is already installed. In my case it is a refurbished Dell C600 laptop. We bought this computer to gain access to some old book manuscripts written in the 90s on DOS word processors and stored on 3.5 inch floppies..

There are no "other" devices listed, but there are some listed under USB. In each case, when I remove the device, it asks me to reboot. Catch 22. Upon reboot Windows of course rediscovers the "new" USB port hardware and tries to install it. Naturally, the USB device reappears in the device manager listing. It cannot find a driver, by the way, and always appears along with a yellow exclamation point. . .

Rarely, however, do I get to the reboot stage. It is possible to remove the USB devices, but only in Safe Mode. In Window's normal mode, in most cases the system freezes up solid as soon as I click "remove." The only way out is to cycle power.

In the \OTHER folder it may have a different name such as "MicrosoftUSB.INF" (INF's are sometimes copied and recopied here each time a device is installed) - just be sure you eliminate any and all copies before you reboot.

This should clear out the problem and the USB devices should not be automatically reinstalled on each boot. When you reboot you should be able to simply cancel the driver install requests and get to the Desktop in order to install XUSBSUPP.