Upgrading to OEM Service Release 2.1 or 2.5
Aaron
(4.00.950B). I want to upgrade to OEM Service Release 2.1
or 2.5 so that I can install the Win95 USB Supplement. I
already downloaded the Usbsupp.exe file.
I know that I could just upgrade to Windows 98 and have
USB support, but Windows 95 is much stabler, at least on
this system (PII-266, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD).
Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Please
send replies to my E-mail address (splas...@yahoo.com)
if possible.
glee
Most USB devices made today do not work with the limited support available with OSR 2.1 and 2.5....unless the package specifically states it will work with it, it usually won't.
Why do you think Win95 is more stable on your machine, if you haven't tried 98 on it? What are you basing that on?
...glen
Aaron wrote in message <244001c1f90f$346451e0$b1e62ecf@tkmsftngxa04>...
Aaron
>-----Original Message-----
>If you have the Win95B CD, the USB Supplement is on it.
Installing the USB Supplement *is* what makes it OSR 2.1.
All you have to do is install the Supplement. There is no
upgrade to OSR 2.5, only clean install.
I installed the USB supplement. Is the version number in
Control Panel > System supposed to change? It didn't,
and "PCI Univeral Serial Bus" is still an "other device"
in Device Manager.
>Most USB devices made today do not work with the limited
support available with OSR 2.1 and 2.5....unless the
package specifically states it will work with it, it
usually won't.
Ahhh. Maybe that's the problem.
>Why do you think Win95 is more stable on your machine, if
you haven't tried 98 on it? What are you basing that on?
>
>....glen
I'll admit I'm not a great fan of Microsoft (did I just
post that on a MS message board?), but I did want to use
Windows because I'm most familiar with it. If I had to
pick a Windows, I'd pick 95 because there are fewer frills
and things like that that I don't use. The other thing
is, I only have one Win98 CD which is already installed on
another computer, and I'm pushing it with licenses as it
is. I'll just use that computer for USB.
Thanks for the help though.
>Aaron wrote in message <244001c1f90f$346451e0
$b1e62ecf@tkmsftngxa04>...
>>I currently have Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2
>>(4.00.950B). I want to upgrade to OEM Service Release
2.1
>>or 2.5 so that I can install the Win95 USB Supplement.
I
>>already downloaded the Usbsupp.exe file.
>>
>>I know that I could just upgrade to Windows 98 and have
>>USB support, but Windows 95 is much stabler, at least on
>>this system (PII-266, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD).
>>
>>Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Please
>>send replies to my E-mail address (splas...@yahoo.com)
>>if possible.
>
>.
>
Ron Martell
>
>I'll admit I'm not a great fan of Microsoft (did I just
>post that on a MS message board?), but I did want to use
>Windows because I'm most familiar with it. If I had to
>pick a Windows, I'd pick 95 because there are fewer frills
>and things like that that I don't use. The other thing
>is, I only have one Win98 CD which is already installed on
>another computer, and I'm pushing it with licenses as it
>is. I'll just use that computer for USB.
>
>Thanks for the help though.
>
Windows 98 is a great version of Windows, very much improved over Windows
95 in the areas of memory management and included utilities.
The Scanreg function alone is worth upgrading for.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
glee
You will find most of the info you need here:
http://www.aesystems.com/usb_install.html
To test your USB set-up:
ftp://ftp.aesystems.com/pub/outgoing/usbready.exe
Here are my links re:USB and Win95:
http://www.aesystems.com/usb_install.html
http://members.tripod.com/spdrcr5/usbhelp.htm
http://www.lvr.com/
http://www2.emj.ca/usbfaq.htm
http://www.usbman.com/
See Notes 31, 43, & 49 at Walbeehm's Win95 System Updates:
http://www.walbeehm.com/win95upd.html
http://www.graphic-locomotion.com/win95upd.html
usb supplement:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q179/1/30.asp
You can find the USB Supplement here:
ftp://ftp.pc.ibm.com/pub/pccbbs/aptiva/usbupdus.exe
ftp://ftp.pathcom.com/clients/qdi/drivers
ftp://ftp.usf.uni-kassel.de/pub/win95/microsoft/update.us
...glen
Aaron wrote in message <261e01c1f962$b743a720$b1e62ecf@tkmsftngxa04>...
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
wrote:
>I currently have Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2
>(4.00.950B). I want to upgrade to OEM Service Release 2.1
>or 2.5 so that I can install the Win95 USB Supplement. I
>already downloaded the Usbsupp.exe file.
You don't need to; SR2 and SR2.1 are indentical except that the first
doesn't include the USBsupp.exe file you downloaded. By downloading
that file, you have upgraded from SR2 to SR2.1 :-)
>I know that I could just upgrade to Windows 98 and have
>USB support, but Windows 95 is much stabler, at least on
>this system (PII-266, 128MB RAM, 10GB HDD).
Caveats:
1) Win95 SR2 USB support is not as stable etc. as Win98+
2) Modern USB vendors typically don't write drivers for Win95 SR2.x
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Geeks aren't into in politics because government
doesn't double efficiency and speed every 18 months
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
wrote:
>There is no upgrade to OSR 2.5, only clean install.
BTW - if choosing Win95 SR2.x over Win98 on basis of stability, avoid
SR2.5 like the plague! Having IE4 "integrated" into Win95 is less
likely to be bug-free than Win98's more polished integration.
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
>"Aaron" <splas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I'd pick 95 because there are fewer frills and things like
>>that that I don't use.
Win95 SR2 is the best/cleanest Win9x if you are forced at gunpoint to
live with the duh-fault install. No drooling "animated" UI, no "View
As Web Page" or active desktop crap, no WSH support for stand-alone
malware script files, no automatic running of scripts embedded in HTML
email "messages", and no dumb-ass "let's just avoid those pesky
support calls, to hell with the user's data" kill-and-bury
auto-ScanDisk settings in Scandisk.ini
In fact, the only MS stupidities you have to fix are:
1) De-lamering Explorer so it shows you all files, "all" file
extensions and the full path of where you are (hint:
\\BossesPC\Windows\System is not the same place as C:\Windows\System,
and is something to bear in mind if clearing "unused" .dll files etc.)
2) Set NoDriveTypeAutoRun from 95 to 9D so that HD volumes are not
exposed to \Autorun.inf dropper attack
>Windows 98 is a great version of Windows, very much improved over Windows
>95 in the areas of memory management and included utilities.
Agreed. But in slow PCs it is worth remembering that all those "Win98
is faster than Win95!" claims assumed the Win95 user was dumb enough
to install IE4 with desktop (dis)integration on Win95.
On an elderly PC with 16M RAM, I'd expect Win95SR2 to be faster than
Win98, even if IE has been leapfrogged to IE 5.5 with the requisite
patches... as long as you never install IE 4's "integration".
Reasons to like Win98:
1) IE integration that works (but extra RAM requirements etc.)
2) The convenience of MSConfig and QuickLaunch
3) Inclusion of the Tasks facility - the killer benefit IMO
4) As at 2002, still MS-supported, FWIW
5) Working USB that USB vendors actually write drivers for
6) Defrag and memory-management opts (best with 4k clusters)
7) Better registry auto-backup protection (multiple copies)
8) Internet Connection Sharing host (Win98SE required)
9) More clueful DUN defaults (TCP/IP only, etc.)
Reasons to stay Win95 SR2:
1) Old PC especially if only 16M RAM
2) The cost of licensing
The risk and mindset issues I mentioned in the first paragraph are not
deciding factors at all, because you can (and IMO should) fix them.
Just factor in the time and shlep (including having to redo this if
re-installing from scratch in the future) into the cost of Win98.
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -
Drugs are usually safe. Inject? (Y/n)
>------------ ----- --- -- - - - -