Windows 95 or Windows 98 SE?

[Ludwig Von Cookie Koopa]

Well I would go with Win95 ertl ( maybe that is SE ) . I heard it is Windows 98 without all the garbage ( like the IE. )

In fact along with downgrading to Windows 1.0 or 2.0 I also would go with the 95SE. 98 for the longest has been my operating system choice and has not failed me yet. However in use of heavy downloading ( like big 50gig files ) or High end usage programs ( CAD/Quark/Paintshop ) 98 will slow up.

Playing games have been great on the 98 machine also and 95 is kinda way back there. However in all the work places, schools, and such nobody use 98 for the fact that 95 can run all the same programs.

However I long for Win 3.0 or something earlier.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

However in all the work places, schools, and such nobody use 98 for the fact that 95 can run all the same programs.

I have 3 kids in school and untill recently (Like the past 2 years) all of the PC's they ever used were 98SE. Now I am seeing XP and a couple of Vista one!

[G8YMW]

I might be wrong in saying this but I thought Win95 could only handle 64 Mb of RAM?

Eidenk said

"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"

No it isnt . The Win 9x family are ALL Windows on top of DOS. By changing 3 files in WinME you can get the native DOS back

All Microsoft have done is stop you tweaking the DOS but underneath (This is the same for 95 and 98 without Config.sys and Autoexec.bat) Dos loads with Himem.sys (Needed for extended memory management)

Look in "tipsme.txt" in W95-11D.exe from MDGX.COM

Ive since had another play with the 98SE and now have 1024*768 at 32bit colour . The newer version of VBEMP works.

Thanks lads

[Kelsenellenelvian]

I would take 98SE anyday over 95. Never WinME though uggghhhh.

[Andrew T.]

I might be wrong in saying this but I thought Win95 could only handle 64 Mb of RAM?

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

[eidenk]

The Win 9x family are ALL Windows on top of DOS. By changing 3 files in WinME you can get the native DOS back

All Microsoft have done is stop you tweaking the DOS but underneath (This is the same for 95 and 98 without Config.sys and Autoexec.bat) Dos loads with Himem.sys (Needed for extended memory management)

Look in "tipsme.txt" in W95-11D.exe from MDGX.COM

There has been a heated debate about that subject already and it has been conclusively proven that you are wrong on that.

Windows ME can boot and operate normally without any DOS file being present at all. I have tested that running ME in a virtual machine (QEMU) during that debate.

If you have a conclusive proof that ME runs in fact on top of a hidden DOS layer, please let us know what it is.

[G8YMW]

Eidenk

Where is this debate?? I've been hunting and found nothing to back up your claim that ME is not a Windows on top of DOS.

HOWEVER in MDGX's tipsme.txt I saw this (I've seen this same thing before XP came out and before I saw MDGX's site)

3. "Normal" AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files still canNOT be used [WinME

overwrites/deletes them upon EVERY (re)boot ], unless one applies the DOS

Patch:

http://www.mdgx.com/dos.htm#ME

which modifies COMMAND.COM + IO.SYS (from C:\Windows\Command\EBD) and

REGENV32.EXE (from C:\Windows\System) to allow Windows ME to boot to

native/real/true/pure MS-DOS and use DOS mode startup files (AUTOEXEC.BAT +

CONFIG.SYS), Windows 95/98 style, to be able to use your (old) MS-DOS based

apps/games that do NOT work from within a Windows DOS session/box, and tweak

your CUSTOM AUTOEXEC.BAT + CONFIG.SYS files to free MAXimum conventional DOS

Besides Windows ME is DOS 8.0

You said that

"Windows ME can boot and operate normally without any DOS file being present at all"

Which DOS files are you talking about?

Command.com

msdos.sys

io.sys?

OK I only had ME on for a short while before reverting back to 98SE (and later SE2ME)

Ive just looked in the root of my WinXP disk and guess what? no "command.com", "IO.sys" or "MSDOS.sys"

[eidenk]

You can't get rid of io.sys as this is the operating system loader. So if there is a hidden DOS it is entirely in there but I highly doubt that. 2K and XP have a a loader whose name is not io.sys so you won't find one on those systems.

The "debate" was in another thread some time ago. I don't have a link for it unfortunately. Sorry about that.

Edited May 24, 2009 by eidenk

[cluberti]

Windows ME can boot and operate normally without any DOS file being present at all. I have tested that running ME in a virtual machine (QEMU) during that debate.

Windows ME runs on DOS, regardless of what the folks who think otherwise have said. Look at the Windows ME filesystem after install with a boot CD and notice things like command.com, autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc. Windows ME hides the DOS shell, but it's still there and it's still used to bootstrap Windows.

[dencorso]

Windows ME runs on top of DOS 8.00. IO.SYS is the DOS kernel (hence, much more than a simple OS loader), and the ME version of IO.SYS contains an embedded HIMEM.SYS, and loads IFSHLP.SYS by itself. That's DOS. It, however, can load Win ME (viz.: VMM.VxD) without ever loading COMMAND.COM. So you can say Win ME runs without the DOS *shell*. That's the main difference it has, when compared to 98SE. HTH.

Edited May 24, 2009 by dencorso

[BenoitRen]

And the better underpinnings.

Not really.

You're also still wrong about the shell thing.

Looks like I was. I looked at the page again closely, and chubby removes Active Desktop and View as a Web Page.

Hey, notice my OpSys says "none"; why do you think that is

Because, like me, you didn't want to confirm your birth date just for that?

I never really noticed a big difference between 95 & 98 on any given pc

I did. I used to run Win98 FE. When DOS programs switched to 320x240 resolution, the screen would remain black and freeze. No such problem with Win95.

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.

http://toastytech.com/guis/medos.gif

The above screen shot shows the system monitor indicating that two virtual DOS machines are open even though only one DOS box is open. This shows that Windows ME runs on top of MS-DOS just like Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 95 and 98(...)

I might be wrong in saying this but I thought Win95 could only handle 64 Mb of RAM?

Definitely wrong! Running happily with 160 MB of RAM here with no tweaks needed.

[JustinStacey.x]

My own thoughts about WinME is that hiding the DOS was a major mistake because I firmly believe (Contrary to what MS say) get the DOS right and the Windows will behave. Hiding DOS takes control away from me which is why I prefer Win98 to XP (Alright on THIS machine I have to use XP) and I will NEVER use NTFS. I still have Win98 but 640*480 in 16 colours is painful but at least if XP throws a wobbly at least I can use DOS/Win98 to sort things out besides XP's defragger is SSSLLLOOOOWWWW

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...

Edited May 24, 2009 by JustinStacey

[JustinStacey.x]

*SNIP*

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.

Edited May 24, 2009 by JustinStacey

[G8YMW]

The RAM-ability of Win95, no probs, I stand corrected

[eidenk]

Windows ME can boot and operate normally without any DOS file being present at all. I have tested that running ME in a virtual machine (QEMU) during that debate.

Windows ME runs on DOS, regardless of what the folks who think otherwise have said. Look at the Windows ME filesystem after install with a boot CD and notice things like command.com, autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc. Windows ME hides the DOS shell, but it's still there and it's still used to bootstrap Windows.

All the files you mention aren't needed to boot and run ME as I have stated in what you quote and I don't need a boot CD to see that those files are present after installing ME as I can just boot into ME and see them as well.

As I have said the only place where this DOS could be, if one, is entirely embeded in io.sys.