Windows 95 on Pentium 3 hardware

[clueless_furball]

I was thinking of playing around with Windows 95 on my Pentium 3 box. Right now I run Windows 2000 SP4 on it. Can someone tell me how I will get Windows 95 to work on this box? Here is the hardware in it:

Pentium 3 1ghz

512 mb SD-ram

agp rage fury pro video card

sound blaster sound card(couldnt find drivers for it when I used 98, so I doubt for 95)

5 GB, 2 GB (Windows 2k is on this one), 4 GB hard drives

[Rjecina]

If I do not make mistake about instalation of Windows 95 (or 98) on computer with Windows 2000 (or XP) you are in trouble.

First you must install Windows 95 (or 98) and only after that Windows 2000 (or XP).

Second problem is your Windows 95 version. Only Windows 95 Release 2.1 and latter is having FAT 32, UDMA and AGP.

Without AGP support installation is not possible..........

Edited July 16, 2009 by Rjecina

[Guest wsxedcrfv]

> I was thinking of playing around with Windows 95 on my Pentium 3 box.

Why Windows 95?

If you're going to go to the trouble of installing another OS, I strongly suggest win-98, second edition.

If you want to keep your existing win-2k installation, then the easiest thing to do is to attach a second hard drive to your system and install 9x on it. Doesn't have to be a new drive - any 16 to 32 gb used drive will do fine.

In your BIOS setup, just set the drive you want to boot from when-ever you need to.

When you're setting up win-9x, you can deactivate your existing win-2k drive so the win-9x install won't even see it.

It's a lot of hassle to install both 9x and NT on the same drive, especially if 9x wasn't installed first. The easy option is keep them on separate drives and use your BIOS boot settings settings to determine which one you boot from.

[BenoitRen]

Why Windows 95?

If you're going to go to the trouble of installing another OS, I strongly suggest win-98, second edition.

As a Windows 95 users, I say: "Hush!". There are reasons to run Windows 95 instead of 98 SE.

[sp193]

What version of Windows 95 is it? (RTM, A, B, C, D or E?)

Windows 95 RTM and A are missing the following features:

FAT32 support and USB support, plus Win95 does not officially support >DirectX8.0b

Pentium 3 1ghz

You need to load the "350Mhz AMD K6-2" update" into your Win95 installation (Either slipstream it in, or install it through DOS manually or Windows(If it DOES load)), or you will get a "Windows Protection Error" at startup.

512 mb SD-ram

No problem here.

agp rage fury pro video card

You need to find Win95 drivers for this card though. I think that that model had Win95 drivers.

sound blaster sound card(couldnt find drivers for it when I used 98, so I doubt for 95)

Which model?

5 GB, 2 GB (Windows 2k is on this one), 4 GB hard drives

Windows 95/A(4.00.950, or 4.00.950A) does not support FAT32, but only FAT16, so you need to have OSR2.0 and above to install on partitions>2GB

You may need to install some "Bus master update" (Saw it in some Win95 installation guides).... anyone knows what this really is and what it does?

I did accomplish what you sought on my system 2 years ago, so good luck!

My specs at that time:

Pentium III 1.0Ghz

512MB PC-133 SD RAM

80GB HDD (95 only used 2GB of it)

Gigabyte GA-6OXM7E

Nvidia Geforce FX5200

Soundblaster PCI128 (Actually some other brand, but it identifies itself as a soundblaster)

Realtek RT8139 Ethernet

Edited July 18, 2009 by sp193

[EyesOfARaven]

I had 95 running on my "retro box" just a few days ago, I have since upgraded the proc and changed a few parts, but at the time it had:

650mhz PIII

ATI Rage II DVD

512MB RAM

Intel 810e Chipset

750GB HDD (one partition FAT32)

Kingston BT30 Network Card

(The box is an upgraded Dell Dimension L550 - now VERY upgraded, heh...)

I ran 95 over DOS 7.10 upgraded from WfW3.11.

Worked great, drivers are definitely available (they are even available for Win3.x )...

Edited July 18, 2009 by EyesOfARaven

[clueless_furball]

I wanted to run Windows 95 mostly for educational purposes and to just do it for fun. I dont use USB devices, and I only use my computer for basic stuff like internet. Though Id never use Windows 95 for my main OS. Just wanted to toy around with it since I havnt used windows 95 since like 1997.

The sound card I'm using is "Creative Sound Blaster PCI" I pulled it out of a old Pentium 2 HP box. Windows 2k had the drivers as soon as I installed it (a interesting thing about Windows 2k, always had the drivers for my sound right away)

I dont have a copy of Windows 95 right now. Though I was thinking of going and hopefully finding the osr2 (if that's what it's called) since that's the latest version of it before windows 95. That one would be most stable. I tried installing it on a 633 mhz celeron who's main OS was 98 and was shocked how fast it loaded(this was years ago though). I could imagine how fast it would run on this thing, considering it runs Windows 2k like it's nothing and runs Windows XP just fine.

I'm studying to be a computer service tech, so I always like to expand my knowledge on stuff like this. That and it's my hobby and I always found it fun. These days since I've been geting more skilled legacy OS's have became interesting.

[sp193]

The sound card I'm using is "Creative Sound Blaster PCI" I pulled it out of a old Pentium 2 HP box. Windows 2k had the drivers as soon as I installed it (a interesting thing about Windows 2k, always had the drivers for my sound right away)

A card that old should still be supported by Windows 95. What is it's exact model? (E.g Soundblaster 16, Soundblaster 32 PNP... or the card's model number: e.g. CT2940)

I dont have a copy of Windows 95 right now. Though I was thinking of going and hopefully finding the osr2 (if that's what it's called) since that's the latest version of it before windows 95.

There were 2 versions of Windows 95B (Or OSR2/Windows 4.00.950B, circa 1996). One was OSR 2.0, which only introduced FAT32 support, and OSR 2.1 which introduced primitive USB and FAT32 support.

Yes, 95B was the most stable, and revisions C-E were....bad (It had IE integrated!! ARGH!).

95-95B(OSR2.0) DO NOT SUPPORT USB KEYBOARDS/MICE WITHOUT BIOS USB LEGACY SUPPORT!!

However, Win95 doesn't necessarily have better performance than Win98 (With Win95 shell) on newer hardware though(Lack of performance drivers, so it may actually run slower than your 633MHZ celeron)... and does have large incompatibilities now (Out of the box). Good for fun and not serious work(Should not be a problem for you).

Offtopic: I installed a Jap Windows 98 on my 2GHz laptop, and it loaded slower than Windows XP. XD

It suffered from a lack of support from Compaq, and was stuck with Microsoft's generic drivers (Like Esdi_506.pdr), hence slowed down a lot.

I'm studying to be a computer service tech, so I always like to expand my knowledge on stuff like this. That and it's my hobby and I always found it fun. These days since I've been geting more skilled legacy OS's have became interesting.

So did I, but I intended it to be only as a hobby. All the best!

I tried all kinds of OSes on my box....DOS 3.3/5.00/6.22 and PC-DOS 2000, Windows 1.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95 (Build 58, 189 and 950), 95B(OSR2.0), Windows Nashville(aka Windows 96), Windows Memphis(Windows 98 build 1525), 98/98SE(With shutdown time of 2.7s...), ME and XP.......even LINUX!!!

BTW It's illegal to use Win95 without a valid license.

Edited July 20, 2009 by sp193

[EyesOfARaven]

sp193: Might you tell me a bit about Windows codename Nashville? I hadn't heard of it. I've heard of Neptune, Chicago, etc... but never Nashville. Is it a Late Win95 build? Early 98 build? Or something inbetween? Sounds interesting!

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Nashville

I gather it's somewhere inbetween. Got any screenshots - or can you describe it's UI?

Edit2: Shouldn't have bothered asking before searching...

http://www.pplware.com/2008/01/28/os-miste...2%2580%25A6-96/

Edited July 20, 2009 by EyesOfARaven

[BenoitRen]

Yes, 95B was the most stable, and revisions C-E were....bad (It had IE integrated!! ARGH!).

I have Windows 95C, and if you remove the CD-ROM before the first successful boot, IE4 never gets integrated. With some alterations in setuppp.inf, you can even prevent IE3, Microsoft Network, MS Mail and some advertising from getting installed.

Furthermore, 95C's USB support is even better than OSR 2.1's.

[sp193]

I have Windows 95C, and if you remove the CD-ROM before the first successful boot, IE4 never gets integrated. With some alterations in setuppp.inf, you can even prevent IE3, Microsoft Network, MS Mail and some advertising from getting installed.

Corrent me if I am wrong, but didn't Windows 95C(OSR2.5) have IE4 integrated into it's shell? (Like Windows 98)

Furthermore, 95C's USB support is even better than OSR 2.1's.

I never heard of such a statement before.... where did you get such information? I thought the USB support build into Windows 95 OSR versions were the same(After all updates) .....

sp193: Might you tell me a bit about Windows codename Nashville? I hadn't heard of it. I've heard of Neptune, Chicago, etc... but never Nashville. Is it a Late Win95 build? Early 98 build? Or something inbetween? Sounds interesting!

Nashville was a late Windows 95 build (Identifies itself as "Microsoft® Windows Nashville" in the command prompt and is Windows version 4.00.999) but was build before Windows Detroit (Windows 95B), also in 1996.

As stated somewhere else, Microsoft intended it to be a "bridge" between Windows 95 and Windows 98.

I also saw screenshots of a Windows Nashville version 4.00.1xxx, but I forgot where it came from, and what was it's actual version, but I DID see a version of IE(IE3?) bundled with it. It also possibly came with the same shell.

UI was mostly the same as Windows 95, but with some "web" features built into it (But still without internet explorer yet). Such features included:

-Underlined link-like filenames

-Single click to open feature

It also had a graphical bug with windows's scroll bars.

It was largely the same as Windows 95 vesion 4.00.950, but had a "dummy USB driver"(Stated below), and a different shell (As stated above).

I can't remember if it was bundled with a version of Internet Explorer though.... but I DID saw "USB device" or something like that under the device types list - possibly pre-Detroit (Windows 95B) USB support for Windows. It didn't have those USB drivers though, only it's name.

Like pre-OSR2.5 Windows 95 versions, it doesn't need IE to run. I stripped it apart before to ~4MB for my "Running Windows 95 on Thumbdrive" project....

BTW I also discovered that my Memphis build 1525 was not too much newer than the build used my Microsoft @ Comdex...to demonstrate their "Plug n Pray" capabilities... here -> Windows 98 crashes during Gates' Comdex demo - April 20, 1998

Edited July 21, 2009 by sp193

[JustinStacey.x]

I also had the same 'discussion' with BenoitRen in another thread about removing the CD-ROM and it allegedly not installing IE 4. I have heard very different; that IE 4 is silently installed *during* setup and that the Explorer interface in 95C is the one that comes bundled with IE 4.

BenoitRen may well be right, but I've never seen any proof of what he says about the removing the CD so I remain skeptical.

[BenoitRen]

Corrent me if I am wrong, but didn't Windows 95C(OSR2.5) have IE4 integrated into it's shell? (Like Windows 98)

No. The standard Windows 95 shell gets installed. It's only when IE4 gets installed that it is replaced by the IE4 shell.

I never heard of such a statement before.... where did you get such information? I thought the USB support build into Windows 95 OSR versions were the same(After all updates) .....

I thought so too, but cluberti informed me that WDM support was improved from OSR 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.5.

-Underlined link-like filenames

-Single click to open feature

These two features are one feature; single-click open, like on the web (where clickable text is underlined).

I have heard very different; that IE 4 is silently installed *during* setup

IE3 is silently during setup, just like in OSR 2.0 and 2.1.

BenoitRen may well be right, but I've never seen any proof of what he says about the removing the CD so I remain skeptical.

Would this screenshot of my Windows 95 prove anything?

[Sl@y3D for my n@me]

Upon installing 95C, a box will pop up at the end informing you that "Windows needs more information to continue setting up your computer". Simply cancelling this wizard will stop it (and a load more unnecessary junk, Realplayer anyone?) from installing.

[JustinStacey.x]

Thanks you two for clarifying. I believe you now.

What is with that resolution though, BenoitRen? How do you get any work done?