JustinStacey.x

Well, I think given the fact that it's no secret that Windows has a history of containing megs of legacy DLLs and other such junk that are never used, this is a pretty good step forward!

Can you ping www.google.com? What happens if you try another browser on there. Sounds to me like it's just Internet Explorer that's not working. Might need a reinstall - opportunity to upgrade to IE 8?

If I were to get a Dell Mini 9 the first thing I'd do would be to put Mac OS X on it Macs are nice too but I don't think the price is justified all that much and in all honesty they don't suit my usage.

Unless the registry gets to an insanely huge size then probably not. But, a registry that is overly bloated will likely be related to far too many startups and what not, so the actual slowdown will be coming from other things not directly related to the registry. I don't even think Vista/XP loads the entire registry into memory so it's even more circumstancial whether or not it will affect you.

First off I'd like to say that I don't hate Vista, but have admittedly lost a good bit of faith in it recently after certain happenings that I shall explain here. This isn't a question, more a short tale of how my experiences with Vista varied wildly from one machine to another and how I came to that conclusion. I run Windows Vista (upgraded from XP) on my work PC (Pentium 4 3.0GHz HT, 2GB of RAM) and I have pretty much no problems. It's faster than XP on here and just great. However... my personal experiences with it haven't been so great. Around 6 months ago I got a HP 2133 mini note netbook preloaded with Vista. My initial thought was 'isn't that system rather underpowered for Vista?' and I was pretty much right. (VIA C7 1200MHz processor, 1GB RAM, 667MHz FSB) Although I did use it for the last 6 months with Vista on it as my main computer I can't say that it was without frequent headache. Not only that, but even doing very basic tasks on the computer would often result in the CPU usage to plateau at 100% for long periods of time. The bottlekneck of the system was in fact, the processor. To be honest I was quite happy using it this way, I had pretty much gotten used to the fact that to play music stutter-free I'd have to increase the player's process priority, or to watch a Youtube I'd have to increase the browser's priority. I'd lived with the noisy fan and the fact that the computer is an ergonomic disaster for long enough to become used to it. Until on Monday, I rebooted and the computer would no longer boot. An endless 'Windows Error Recovery' loop. So I thought 'ah bugger it' and decided to put on Windows XP Pro. I personally dislike XP when compared with Windows 2000. The interface is rubbish, and it seems slower at doing things like opening Explorer Windows (I'm able to spot things like that...) However, I can't fault the OS tbh. Looking back, during periods where I've been using XP, I've had the least problems. Even my die hard favourite, Windows 2000, still seems more problematic than XP. I also decided to chuck in a spare 7200 RPM hard drive that I had hanging around. Well, with XP installed and up and running, I can safely say it was the best decision for that computer I've made yet. I don't know how much difference the hard drive has made, but it's FAST. The processor isn't so much of a bottlekneck anymore, in fact I'd say it's 1/2 and 1/2 with the hard drive depending on the task. bootup from 'ON' to the desktop is probably around 45 seconds, the BIOS screen probably taking around 10 seconds to clear. Once I'm in, browsing the web using Opera and listening to music *at the same time* don't immediately drive the CPU usage up to 100%. In fact, the CPU usage plateauing at 100% is now a fairly rare sight. I've made three partitions: My system/program files partition, then a large partition for all my files, and then a 4GB partition at the end of the disk for the swap file. So, that's pretty much my story. The gist of the whole message is: don't run Vista on anything slower than a Pentium 4 1.5GHz otherwise expect issues present that wouldn't be in XP. On the flip side, expect faster computers to be given a breath of fresh air with Vista. Due to the ergonomics of netbooks and me being tall (gave me back pain) I have also had to resign the machine to basically acting as a PC, hooked up permanently to the CRT monitor, external keyboard and mouse. Hell it doesn't even have an internal keyboard anymore, I couldn't be arsed putting it back on after changing the hard drive. The second moral of the story: netbooks are nothing than just hype. an iPod touch is probably more useful than one... but I still have 1.5 year left on my contract so I'm milking that machine for all its worth.

You want a cookie for that?

Nope, it's not. I had this on Windows 98SE as well. Thanks for the info.

One thing I must declare that Windows 98 does horribly is standby. On any machine yet that I've tried it on, the computer never wakes up from standby. And the proposed 'hibernate' function is exactly the same?! Windows 95's 'suspend' feature, however, seems to work perfectly. Placing the Windows 95 shell on top of 98 gives a 'suspend' option in the start menu that may crash the machine. It can be removed from the registry, this info can be found in the 98lite faq.

95 and 98 have in fact two different operating systems, DOS ans Windows. ME has just one, Windows. I would not think that the absence of real DOS in ME affects its stabilty negatively. You seem to have the belief that Windows of the 9x series run on top of DOS which is erroneous. 95 and 98 allow you to boot into either operating system and switch from one to another. ME does not as there is no real DOS in ME. Actually, Windows ME is just like 95 and 98 in the fact that it is still fundamentally propped up by DOS. Your statement that 9x does not run on top of DOS, or that there is no real DOS in ME is incredibly wrong, too. What really boggled my mind about ME- was the fact that despite it still being very much DOS based, MS decided to try and hide that from us as much as possible, as well as pretty much killing some DOS apps. Duke Nukem would sometimes have no sound on the last ME machine I tried, and given there is no boot to DOS mode, a DOS based operating system has trouble running DOS apps? Only Microsoft...

And the better underpinnings. You're also still wrong about the shell thing. [recalling from memory here] 98lite: "Micro" removes the Windows 98 shell completely and replaces it with 95s. "Sleek" removes the web integration from the shell while still leaving it as Win98s shell. I *think* quicklaunch is still there, but the web view and other junk is not. Both of the above can be done and IE can be left untouched. Or, it can be removed.

LOL. That's why when I reccommend Windows 98 I also mention 98liting. The IE has to go to make it a half-decent OS. Nathan Lineback is cool and all but his anti-IE site is a little excessive. I get the idea that he's a guy in his 30s, 40s, 50s, and I wouldn't even expect a child to behave like he does, 'specially towards Bill Gates. I mean, I didn't even behave like that when I was 12.

Because it was a fluffed up extension to Windows 98 that didn't do much except disable 'reboot into DOS mode', add a ton of useless features, take up even more resources, crash on request, and make Windows 2000 look bad??

Really? I think it's time we did some Googling. The shell does NOT need to be changed to get rid of IE. Changing the shell is an optional step which can be done regardless of IE's presence on the system or not. Good for you. But since you won't show me any proof of what you say, I'll not bother to provide proof that Windows 98 can actually perform some functions faster than 95, where the hardware is fast enough. (i.e., on a 486, Windows 98 will be slower than Windows 95, but on a PIII 1000, 98 will perform some tasks a hair faster). Again, the web crap I was meaning was such that is installed in Windows 95C, along with IE4, basically making it the same as 98 on the frontend. Again, you state that 95C won't install IE4 if you take the CD out but since you've gone to no efforts to actually prove that instead simply stating 'that you've done it' I will continue to assume what I have been. It was a figure of speech, and shows how much fundamental knowledge of Windows you lack. Windows 98, lite'd with IE removed and with the 95 shell on top of it doesn't run a great deal more than 95, because you've removed a lot of the differences between 98 and 95 by pulling out IE and the new shell. I still do plenty on the system, but I can also enjoy the advantages that Windows 98 are bringing to my computer that 95 wouldn't. Countered. By advocating Windows 95C for this computer instead of Windows 98 you're essentially advocating a low end Mercedes with a slower engine and less features than the higher end Mercedes, while forgetting to explain to the customer that she won't be able to go as fast, listen to CDs or have heated seats. In other words; you let personal opinion cloud your judgement and think it's better for everyone. I personally hate Windows 98. Despise it. But I still have the bloody willpower to admit where it overtakes Windows 95, which it will on a computer of the OP's spec. End of.

Well dang, that's a real headscratcher. I couldn't *possibly* think what your problem might be. .

Windows 98, 95, NT etc don't treat ethernet-type connections as 'connections', like Windows 2000 and upwards do. There is a 'network' icon I believe in the control panel which is where you configure the ethernet 'connection'. It's a complete pain in the proverbial to setup and when you're used to the simplicity of how Windows 2000 and up deals with 'connections' it can create quite a headache.

Nice observations - you have the mind of a hacker Many people will miss all of that. I don't think the computer got used much, though.

That can't be real...

The 32 GB size limit in 95 is nothing to do with the BIOS. It's a 95 limitation, although I am sure it is not too hard to bypass. In Windows 95's time, 32GB Hard Drives were tremendously large. Herbalist has once again made another great post, and basically echoed what I have said. Stick 98 on there, and for maximum speed, 98lite it. ^I think that's probably pushing it a bit. I'm betting it's not highspeed. ^But of course. What we have to realise though, is there is only so far back you can go before any performance gains plateau, and then actually drop again due to limitations in software. For instance, DOS *will* run apps slower than 95 or 98 on that machine. Sure, DOS drivers talk directly to the hardware and so on paper, it should run faster... but it's not as black and white as that. NT based OSs will always run slower than the non- NT based OSs due to what I call 'NT lag' - the kernel design and features like SFC for instance. Due to optimization and hardware improvements these problems are often overcome. If the OP puts/keeps 95 on there, the computer will be less useful and not be able to do as much as with Win98. Any speed increase from 95 is negated because as I have said until I am nearly blue in the face, 98lite will make 98 just about as fast as 95 and still have the advantages of 98's underpinnings. Thus, running Windows 95 on this computer will bring NO ADVANTAGE. I don't see how this is so hard to understand, people.

Windows 95s USB support is even worse than Windows 98s, and that's saying something. There's also likely to be other hardware on that computer which runs better under Windows 98 than 95. As far as I am aware, Windows 95C does not optionally install Internet Explorer. It's a silent installer, and if you can show me definite proof that removing the CD means you will 'never see IE4' without it throwing up a load of errors, I'd love to see. Regarding speed, web enhancements and other junk, 98lite can get rid of that while still maintaining the 98 core. On a machine as fast as the OPs, 98 will run some programs faster and also a slightly faster shutdown time. It also has various utilities such as a registry checker which can help keep the system healthy. And, it supports (and I mean fully supports) WDM specified drivers. It will support bigger hard drives, too. EDIT: Oh, yeah, my point about not installing 95C but installing 98. Why install 95, which has smaller hard drive support, less USB support etc and still have the web crap? If you're gonna go that route you might as well do 98 which brings along some advantages. Another EDIT: Going back to the top of this thread, the OP states that computer comes with 95B. That makes upgrading to 95C even less sensible? If we're going to upgrade at all we might as well make a measurable upgrade, one that will at least bring some change to the computer. Seriously, once you use 98lite or similar to get rid of the junk, Windows 98s underpinnings make it actually a fairly decent platform. As I've also said, Windows 2000 might be quite nice for that, and will really bring out its potential. Sometimes, getting the smallest, slimmest, fastest, leanest OS isn't always the most viable, if all you can do is run notepad. I'd rather run something that was a fraction slower, but more enjoyable, more useful and more stable. Afterall, those three points are what makes an operating system viable.

Wow, OP, that's a not bad computer you have there. I was expecting much less than that. I would actually be inclined to run Windows 98. While 95 will be a little faster, it won't be much, but you won't get as much out of the hardware. Also, I would go against the advice of install 95 OSR 2.5 © plainly because of the internet explorer 4 integration (way to ruin Windows 95, Microsoft) - but that's just because I'm not a fan of the whole 'internet on your desktop' thing. Even Windows 2000 will see happy days on that computer, specially if you put another 256MB of RAM in.

Hmm, interesting observations. Have you done comparisons on the same computer (same hard drive) without the partitioning and then with. There is a school of thought that agrees with you and also a completely different school of thought that says splitting up your drive like that DECREASES speed. Would almost definitely be a bad idea do it with different hard drives as you are then talking about splitting the OS over various hard disk controllers. I've never really tried it and I only tend to partition to split up the disk for different OSes rather than try for performance gain. Because my computers are slow anyway (I seem to be attracted to computers with VIA processors, which, while great for their passive cooling, turn about to be about as fast as a midrange Pentium III) and so quite often my bottlekneck is actually in the processor, and not the hard disk. Your theory sounds excellent on paper but I am skeptical until we can see actual comparisons. Like a lot of things that look good on paper, it doesn't always produce the same reliable results for real. Case in point: Windows Vista's Superfetch. Works great on fast computers, and yet it pretty much kills slower computers. I also tend to be leaning towards FAT32 lately. Although it doesn't have journalling, permissions and supposedly isn't as reliable, I believe it to be faster. An advantage of FAT32 not having permissions means that malware which destroys your OS by altering permissions is largely useless.

I have a Medion MIM 2080 cheapie laptop, with mostly VIA components, and I run Windows 98 stably with drivers for sound, LAN, modem, VGA, and everything. One or two ?s in Device Manager but as far as I can see everything does work. And to make it even faster, I ripped out all the webby 'enhancements'. When I can get the exact hardware spec I will edit here. I bought it in 2006.

I agree with Queue about the hard drive thing. Here's how it pretty much works: If the hard drive is having no activity whatsoever (no i/o at all) it will eventually spin down to save power. If you do something in the OS that isn't totally loaded into RAM, such as opening a program, the computer will wait for a second for the drive to spin up, and seek for the needed data, then load it. This normally takes no more than a second or two and you can hear the drive spin up and make a few sounds as it does this. It's similar to stopping at a red light in your car and waiting for it to turn green. If the hard drive is dying and has trouble spinning up/seeking for the data, it's like being stuck at a red light for ever, going nowhere. Windows 98 on a SATA drive? Please share the recipe; I am unaware of Windows 98 and SATA drives getting on well.