Andrew T.

My own Windows 95 system runs successfully with 128MB of RAM.

You'll get a number of different responses. Personally, I feel as though the performance advantages, workmanlike UI, and lack of IE integration in Windows 95 OSR2 make it the superior choice of the two. However, nowadays there are quite a few versions of applications and, yes, drivers out there that work on 98 yet break themselves (or stick up and refuse to run) on 95. There probably isn't any good reason for this (aside from developers going out of their way to add trivial 98-specific code, or using Microsoft development tools that did that for them), but it's a fact of life...

As long as we're talking about user agent statistics, these are the numbers from my website: Win95: 7.5% Win98: 0.5% WinME: 0.3% WinNT: 0.2% Win2000: 1.7% Of course, part of that is no doubt due to the fact that I look at my own site.

If anything, I think Windows 95 is notable for representing the last (and perhaps even only) time Microsoft Corporation engaged itself with serious usability research in developing an interface and system around. The development of the OS, when it was in its prototypical "Chicago" stages, is actually rather interesting to follow. Considering that I use it today, it's kind of ironic to note that I was actually rather resistant to Windows 95 when it was new: I resented how they effectively discontinued DOS as a standalone product and shoved its code under the carpet at a time when I was just beginning to fully grasp the potential of its command-line syntax; some of Windows 95's interface changes (such as new windowing controls) seemed to me to be arbitrary at best; and I disliked how it was resigned to the status of the only OS option available on most consumer-level PCs. Heh; I suppose the lastmost point was a sign of things to come...

Thanks. (In any case, if there's anything specifically worth staying away from due to incompatibilities or related inconveniences, I'm all ears.)

For various reasons, I've lately been mulling over the premise of purchasing a digital camera. Aside from narrowing down the sheer variety that exists, however, my major concern is the issue of OS compatibility. I'm aware that most cameras interface with computers through peripheral memory card readers or direct USB connections...although in either case, I'm not sure what device drivers they employ, whether or not they follow a standardized protocol, or if they simply rely on the same premise as flash memory drives that, indeed, work with a (relative) minimum of fuss. Would it be possible to use a digital camera in conjunction with a PC running Windows 95 OSR2.1?

So far I haven't had significant problems accessing YouTube with Flash 7 (although since some of the more recent upgrades to the site, embedded videos no longer work). I'm not sure why the site would be prompting for an upgrade yet, unless it's just a fluke...

Another piece of software bites the dust. Oh well... I've always had mixed feelings about AbiWord itself: I find it a more polished program than OpenOffice.org, but its lack of a proper MDI is awkward. As far as word processors go, I personally stick with WordPerfect 7 when I can get away with it...

Just another thought: Is there any upper limit to the capacity of flash drives that remain compatible with Windows 95?

Hi all, It seems that something had been borked up with my drivers. After fiddling with the Device Manager a bit, the computer started picking up the USB hardware and memory stick. Thanks for the tips, in any case: Things work like a charm now, and I can access files from the device.

How does one go about using a USB flash memory device on Windows 95 OSR2? Mainly to satisfy my own curiosity, I borrowed a 256MB SanDisk Cruzer today to see if I could bring it to life on my computer with Nathan's drivers. I haven't yet gotten it to work (or even be detected by the system), though. I do have the USB supplement installed. However, it wouldn't surprise me if something's improperly configured, or if I'm doing something wrong: I've never used USB devices on this system or any Windows system before. Any tips?

I'm stuck with Flash 7 on Windows 95. I suppose I'm satisfied as long as YouTube works, though...

Thanks...that did the trick! B) Fortunately I had the contents of my old \windows\system folder backed up, so finding the appropriate files was a snap.

Hi all, Recently (after a botched stint involving multiple hard drives and dual booting; although the story's beside the point), I reinstalled Windows 95 OSR2 on my computer system. After having restored most of the library updates and software titles I had on hand, I discovered that "Could not initialize the browser security component" dialogues and related errors appeared when running Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird, and SeaMonkey. After a bit of analysis and experimentation, I discovered that the errors appeared only when running Firefox 1.5.0.10 and subsequent versions, and their Gecko 1.8.0.10+ equivalents: Firefox 1.5.0.9 worked fine. The closest thing to a hint I've found is this: "If you're on Windows 98 or ME and SSL no longer works after updating to Firefox 2.0.0.2 or later, Firefox 1.5.0.10 or later 1.5 builds, and Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 and later 1.5 builds, you may be able to fix it by installing IE 6.0 SP1." Obviously, I won't be doing that...and not only because it involves 98+ only software. So: What exactly is keeping Firefox and its kin from working right, and why precisely would IE 6.0 SP1 supposedly rectify the problems? Before the reinstall I could run Firefox 1.5.0.10-12 and SeaMonkey 1.1 on Windows 95 OSR2 without incident, but I'm sure some extra DLLs had creeped on in the meantime when I wasn't looking...

Isn't Windows 98 already capable of displaying high-color icons out of the box? Just for the sake of expanding upon the topic, Windows 95 can display high-color icons by adding the string value "Shell Icon BPP"/"16" to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\desktop\WindowMetrics from the Registry Editor, or by going through the Display Properties dialogue from the Plus! pack (which appears when you install the font smoother, among other things) and checking the option. Technically that involves 16-bit color instead of 32, but there's hardly a practical difference in the context of pixelated desktop icons.

Mozilla Site Evangelism What to do if you have problems with a Site Frankly, my own Windows 95 installation runs well without IE at all! ActiveX by design gives websites full control over access to your computer. That alone is enough to make it unacceptable IMO. Not that they aren't relevant, but I'd say those problems lay chiefly in the server side. Frankly, I agree on that note: I put more trust in my own two eyes and computer knowledge than software packages from defending myself against viruses and malware. I sometimes keep a copy of AVG on hand to scan isolated download files, etc., but the tests always come up dry. Windows 9x is indeed more resistant to network intrusion by design than NT/2000/XP, given its lack of open ports with processes running. I get tired of the popularly-touted "insecurity" spiels myself. The "additional security" that Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista provide on that note consists largely of user-account and password schemes that for a single-user computer constitute inconvenience, not security. If I found Usenet easier to use than web-based forums (which I don't), I'd be posting there instead of here.

What browser do you recommend then? and one that's supported for 98 S.E Mozilla Firefox SeaMonkey Opera I'd recommend giving one or more of them a try: All run like a charm on Windows 98.

Congratulations! It doesn't totally surprise me that you got Windows 95 to boot: After all, at one point in time I got a minimal installation of Windows 3.11 running on my 600MHz P3 box (from within Windows 95's DOS, no less). Drivers are another matter, however: They are what separate a merely-bootable OS from a practically usable one, and tend to complicate things to the nth degree. Be sure to let us know what progress you make! It's a wonder why more purveyors of hardware and peripherals don't publish specifications and technical info for their products. Back in the olden days (circa 1980s), manufacturers published and publicized specs for devices as a matter of course: This way, software could be written that took advantage of their capabilities, thereby providing an incentive for consumers to buy the product. Doing so was in the best interests of everyone involved! I'm not sure when the trend of not publishing specifications became the norm rather than the exception, though I'd assume it was after Windows 3.x caught on...

This definitely represents a change of attitude on HP's part. My DeskJet 842C even came with drivers for Windows 3.1!

Please, please: IE 4 and its "enhancements" simply aren't worth bothering with, especially in this day and age. They add both bugs and bloat; more or less nullifying the advantages of using Windows 95 to begin with. While some people may like it, I believe it's fair to say that the vast majority don't: Remember the incessant criticism of the software that circulated ten years ago? Many a stable Windows 95 system met its unlucky demise with IE 4. Why not?It just makes navigating easier. Personally, I don't use active desktop, the back and forward buttons, the go button and the favorites menu either but unless you have a very, very old computer (like a 486 with 32MB RAM) it's a nice and handy feature. I'd have to think that if the features were indeed "nice and handy," they would have proved their value in productive use. In any case, in my experience the mere presence of web integration (let alone an enabled active desktop) is enough to bring even an early Pentium-era machine to a crawl. While BenoitRen has already elaborated on most of the specifics, the prospect of avoiding IE is the most compelling incentive for using Windows 95 in my opinion. If you like IE and don't mind it being part of your system lock, stock, and barrel, you might as well use Windows 98 or subsequent versions.

No. it's simple as that. Rats.

Hi nestul, My own inclination would be to go with Windows 95 OSR2 (out of personal preference), but all three would likely be capable of running in a pinch. Laptops can be finicky to get working, due to the variable and proprietary nature of their hardware. I'd scout out the manufacturer's website and elsewhere for the drivers you'd need first, and see which versions of Windows they're available for or compatible with.

A few additional thoughts, just to tie up loose ends: Website content rendering is indeed dependent upon browsers, not OSes and the versions thereof. Unless a site is (needlessly) doing user-agent sniffing, it is impossible for it to be incompatible specifically with Windows 98. DirectX is for games, and has no effect whatsoever on web browsers or web browsing. Glad you solved your "problem," though! FWIW, I access Facebook regularly myself from Mozilla Firefox 1.5 on Windows 95, and have no problems doing so.

Well, this started as a civil discussion. Reply time: I'm not here to debate whether people need native DOS program compatibility or should expect OSes to satisfy it; I'm simply making a point that still stands either way. Maybe you're right: I have used Windows NT 4.0 less often than I have other versions, and I seldom depend on Windows 9x to find drivers on its own as-is. However, I will mention that one of my friends claims to have spent twelve hours setting up NT4 drivers on a laptop, and considered it "a pain to configure." Obviously, you need to know exactly what drivers you'll need for the best of success. "NT5 and newer" are beside the point, in any case: My thread was started to gauge perceptions of NT 4. Indeed: My point was simply that NT administrative rights and user accounts could add complications that might not otherwise be there; not to nitpick the degree or necessity of the complications involved. One of my friends claims that Windows NT will crash on startup when incorrect drivers are installed, while Windows 2000 (by comparison) will simply prompt a dialog box in the same scenario. I mentioned that in the sentence you quoted. 9x's and NT4's lack of support for each others' large hard-drive file systems are setbacks for both, if you wish to dual-boot between the two. Personally, the hard-drive partitioning with either FAT32 or NTFS is efficient enough to hardly make the differences worth me caring about. As 888 said, "Windows 9x is DOS with Windows GUI plus some 32-bit patchwork on top of DOS;" emphasis mine. Certainly Windows 9x has a GUI and uses DOS as its core, but technologically it's a lot more than that. Although I primarily use Windows 95, I certainly don't hate NT 4.0; on the contrary, it's my second-favorite version of Windows. As I already mentioned Windows 9x and NT 4.0 have their own advantages and disadvantages, and I don't see why we can't just leave it at that. If anything, it's a good thing if some of my reservations against NT4 proved to be unfounded. It's quite tiring to hear people spit venom about it, though.

Using the installer from version 7.0 you can get version 7.1 to install, which will work fine. Details Ah, yes: I've seen that procedure before, although I've never tried it out. What are the differences between Media Player 7.0 and 7.1 that would warrant upgrading, other than that one is rigged not to install on 95 and NT4 while the other isn't?