Windows 95 or Windows 98 SE?

[awergh]

95 would work fine on that, but I would prefer to run 98se on something like that

[JustinStacey.x]

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.

[BenoitRen]

JustinStacey, I find it contradicting that you would recommend Windows 98 for that computer, but not Win95C because of web integration. As you know, Windows 98 comes with web integration out of the box. At least in Win95C it's possible to not install IE at all. In fact, if you don't leave the CD-ROM in the drive on the full boot, you'll never see IE4.

Win95 will not only be faster, it will be pretty much clutter-free. No giant toolbars and web integration. No Start Menu with a mind of its own to confuse you. It'll be more stable to as well.

[JustinStacey.x]

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.

Edited May 21, 2009 by JustinStacey

[rloew]

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.

I don't have a Windows 95 Setup to test USB on, but I have found that Windows 98 FE (not SE) has flawed USB Drivers. Copying large amounts of data between an IDE Drive and an USB Drive sometimes results in serious corruption of either or both Drives. Since Windows 95 is older than Windows 98 FE, this problem may exist in Windows 95 also.

[herbalist]

When you said it came with Win95, I was expecting much lower specs than those. 98SE will run very well and quite fast on that system. If it were mine, I'd set it up as a dual or multi-boot with Win98(FE or SE) and Win2K, and maybe a lightweight linux version if it interests you. Both 98 and 2K will run well on those specs. Given the specs you listed, I'd have to assume that the USB hardware is 2.0 ready. 95 and 98FE would be slightly faster than 98SE or 2K, but the difference wouldn't be much.

If the reason you were considering Win95 was the extreme lightness and the potential speed you could get from it, you might also consider using 98lite to strip it down. Even the free preview version can give a substantial performance increase. You might want to make a backup of the 95 system. 98lite can use the 95 shell if you want. On a PC with those specs, a 98lite system would fly.

Rick

[awergh]

It will support bigger hard drives, too.

im wondering about this you dont believe that 95 has a 32GB HDD limit do you?

this was a bios problem not a problem with 95, however im not bothered at the moment to find you the post about it

[JustinStacey.x]

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.

given the specs you listed, I'd have to assume that the USB hardware is 2.0 ready.

^I think that's probably pushing it a bit. I'm betting it's not highspeed.

95 and 98FE would be slightly faster than 98SE or 2K, but the difference wouldn't be much.

^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.

[BenoitRen]

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.

What kind of proof are you looking for? I reinstalled Windows 95C many times years ago, and I never had IE4. But one time I left the CD-ROM in the drive, and then I saw the horror.

What the installer does silently install is IE3, and you can prevent that by editing the setup ini file without any side-effects.

Regarding speed, web enhancements and other junk, 98lite can get rid of that while still maintaining the 98 core.

IE is integrated into Win98's shell. You can't get rid of all of IE unless you change the shell, in which case most use Win95's shell. So why not just use Win95 instead?

98 will run some programs faster and also a slightly faster shutdown time

Considering the bloat that each Windows release brings with it, I find that hard to believe. My Win95 PC shuts down in only 2-3 seconds.

Why install 95, which has smaller hard drive support, less USB support etc and still have the web crap?

There is no smaller hard drive support. With LLXX's patch it can even support HDDs larger than 137 GB. There is no web crap.

Sometimes, getting the smallest, slimmest, fastest, leanest OS isn't always the most viable, if all you can do is run notepad.

Windows 95 can still be quite useful.

Thus, running Windows 95 on this computer will bring NO ADVANTAGE.

This is a lie, as evidenced above.

[cluberti]

IE is integrated into Win98's shell. You can't get rid of all of IE unless you change the shell, in which case most use Win95's shell. So why not just use Win95 instead?

Well, WDM driver support is one reason, if you plan on using a lot of newer hardware. Can't think of too many other reasons (similar kernel, etc), as long as one doesn't choose WinME..

[submix8c]

Wow! Battle royale!

OP, take your pick, select your browser (or not) as has been suggested, and be aware of the potential USB limitations (depending on what you use it for, e.g. hardware hooked into it). The only potential problems you may have are all of the MS "patches" (found all over the place on MSFN - look in the appropriate forums) and any drivers (easily found - look in the Device Manager for them or use AIDA32).

Basically, your specs indicate that any of Win9x, WinME, Win2k, or WinXP will be just fine. And setting up a multi-boot ain't a bad idea (you can "test" the differences and select the one that makes you happy). Google on Grub4DOS for an easy way to multi-boot (thx to Jaclaz for info I got on that) - search on MSFN for more info on Grub4DOS.

Also, be aware that IF you want to play DOS games, you would be better off with a 9x system.

Have fun...

edit - as cluberti says, WinME does have a modicum of "glitches" one must overcome (and they can, just not as easily).

Edited May 22, 2009 by submix8c

[eidenk]

Well Windows Me is the OS I am rather hapilly using since years now. What is so wrong with it ?

I have never really understood why people diss it that much.

[submix8c]

I have never really understood why people diss it that much.

C'mon, eidenk...

modicum definition - a limited quantity; a small portion

I used to use WinME and never really had any probs with it except finding the correct drivers for some oddball hardware. Usually, the Win98 WDM's worked fine.

I currently use (nunya) and (nunya).

Again, the OP's choice...

[JustinStacey.x]

IE is integrated into Win98's shell. You can't get rid of all of IE unless you change the shell

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.

Considering the bloat that each Windows release brings with it, I find that hard to believe. My Win95 PC shuts down in only 2-3 seconds.

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).

There is no smaller hard drive support. With LLXX's patch it can even support HDDs larger than 137 GB. There is no web crap.

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.

Windows 95 can still be quite useful.

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.

This is a lie, as evidenced above.

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.

Edited May 22, 2009 by JustinStacey

[JustinStacey.x]

I have never really understood why people diss it that much.

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??