Jump to content

Windows 95C OSR 2.5 MSBATCH.INF


LoneCrusader

Recommended Posts

Ive been trying to make a MSBATCH.INF file for Win 95C OSR 2.5, and not having any luck. I have successfully created them for 98SE and ME, but Win95 setup seems to completely ignore my file.

I've read the articles in the Microsoft TechNet Library on automating Windows 95 installs, searched several pages on the net, and I searched 25+ pages deep in these forums for msbatch.inf "Windows 95" :o

So I thought I would see if anyone here knows what the problem is, or has a working msbatch.inf for 95 that they wouldn't mind to let me take a look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


if u have windows 98 why bother with windows 95 man? Windows 98 beta was much better than crappy '95

Um, because Windows 95 looks and behaves like this; whereas Windows 98 looks and behaves like this?

Windows 95 OSR2 was a far more stable and robust operating system than any IE 4/Windows 98 beta. In my experience, Windows 98 wasn't even usable until after the Second Edition came out; and even then only if you had a faster system and didn't mind mandatorily viewing your files in Internet Explorer windows. (I've had nightmares working on Windows 98FE systems.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i used to do tech support for microsoft. I supported both windows 95 and windows 98 for microsoft. I have a lot of experience in both. under the hood windows 98 has a lot of improvements over windows 95. Once of the biggest is the registry. In windows 95 there was only 1 backup of the registry - once you booted to the desktop if was overwritten. That means if u had a corrupt registry but could boot do the desktop you were screwed.

Add to that Dllhell, memory limitations, and u got problems. One of the biggest was IE. When you reinstalled windows 95 it tried to reinstall IE 3 that came with windows 95. The result would be a ton of errors and a hybrie IE that was half ie3 and half ie 5.5. Windows 98 fixed this issue. Most people never knew this, but windows 98 used migration dll's. When you installed ie 5.5 and reinstalled windows 98, ie was NOT reinstalled because it saw the migration dll. You had to delete the migration dll's to reinstall ie. No one knew this so many people reinstalled without realising that nothing would happen....

Edited by gosh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if u have windows 98 why bother with windows 95 man? Windows 98 beta was much better than crappy '95

You can't be serious.

First, if you didn't have some information relevant to my question, why did you post in my thread?

Second, Windows 95 is not and never has been "crappy." 95C is so far ahead of 98FE it's not even funny.

Third, whether you or the idiots at Microsoft like it or not, Windows 95 put Microsoft at the top of the OS market. They owe a lot of the success they have to the Windows 9X family. They'd like to forget that Windows 95/98/ME ever existed, because they were more popular and generated more success for them than their pet Windows NT.

Windows 95, like it or not, is a very important piece of computer history, and deserves a LOT of respect.

So, unless you have some information relevant to my question, blunder back to the XP\Vista\7 forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I thought I would see if anyone here knows what the problem is, or has a working msbatch.inf for 95 that they wouldn't mind to let me take a look at.

I'm no expert at this, but did you edit layout.inf to reflect the correct file size of msbatch.inf?

If I remember correctly, the Windows 95 setups will reject any setup information file as corrupt if it's actual file size did not match what was stated in layout.inf.

Windows 95, like it or not, is a very important piece of computer history, and deserves a LOT of respect.

I agree. Windows 95 (Or Windows 4.0) was the first version of Windows that managed to get a huge user base. It's also the base which Windows 98 was built on.

I would have used Windows 95B (OSR2.0/2.1), but it's limited USB support and FAT32 support isn't too good for my system (Although I believe that there are solutions for these problems), especially the large incompatibility it would have with my programs (KernelEx does not support Win95, so neither will some of my programs).

Otherwise, I have to say that it's much faster (Smaller too!) and stabler on old PCs than Windows 98 or Windows ME (Unless you really modify it).

At any rate, my Pentium III PC is really dying fast. Today, the USB 2.0 adaptor is now not properly detected (Hence not working).

Windows 98 beta was much better than crappy '95

You really got to be kidding. Windows 98 BETAs were mostly unstable (Not to mention incomplete)! You don't know about the incident at the Microsoft demonstration at Comdex in 1998?

I have Windows 98 build 1535, but it will not run on my PC unless I set my system clock to 1997/1998 due to a check in it that prevents booting once the beta testing date has passed.

Edited by sp193
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my experience that as you go from DOS to Windows 3, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP, Vista and finally 7 the following happens:

1. New features and capabilites are added.

2. Some older capabilites are removed, often useful ones.

3. Size and resource usage increase.

4. Speed tends to decrease.

5. Portability is reduced.

6. DRM and licensing hassles increase.

Generally the oldest system that does what you want it to do is the best. There is no best system. So arguing about 95 versus 98 is a waste of time.

I still use DOS for a number of things that Windows does not do well such as Disk Management. With a few mods, DOS can handle over a PetaByte of Hard Disk space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In windows 95 there was only 1 backup of the registry - once you booted to the desktop if was overwritten. That means if u had a corrupt registry but could boot do the desktop you were screwed.

Since when is an extra back-up copy known as a big improvement? Instead of fixing the registry, they provided multiple fail-safes, and this is one of them.

Add to that Dllhell, memory limitations, and u got problems.

Because those aren't problems in Windows 98, right?

One of the biggest was IE.

Which had nothing to do with Windows 95 as a product, but had everything to do with IE, and Microsoft shoehorning it into the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been trying to make a MSBATCH.INF file for Win 95C OSR 2.5, and not having any luck. I have successfully created them for 98SE and ME, but Win95 setup seems to completely ignore my file.

Well, welcome Andrew T. and BenoitRen! :thumbup It's great to have you here in this thread! :yes:

But, now, can either or both of you answer the originally posited question? To me it's a mystery why MSBATCH.INF isn't working as intended by LoneCrusader... can you perhaps enlighten us, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no expert at this, but did you edit layout.inf to reflect the correct file size of msbatch.inf?

If I remember correctly, the Windows 95 setups will reject any setup information file as corrupt if it's actual file size did not match what was stated in layout.inf.

I extracted layout.inf from precopy2.cab and took a look at it, there is no listing in it for msbatch.inf. Some Google searches regarding this returned a lot of irrelevant data, mostly dealing with using a 95B/C disk to upgrade 95A. Do you remember how it was supposed to be referenced?

I have noticed a small inconsistency between the sample .inf files provided on the 95 CD (95 Resource Kit) and the msbatch.inf that I generated with Batch98 (on the 98SE CD, which worked for 98/ME). I've not had time to investigate further, but Ill post the results as soon as I can.

A bit off topic, but for the record, I once managed to get 95 running on a 3.06 GHz P4 machine. :w00t: Used the AMDK6UPD patch to get by the 350MHz+ processor bug, and then deleting 2 files will get you around the 2.1 GHz processor limit that's referenced at the Microsoft KB. I haven't played around with it in a long time, I might have to try it again just for the heck of it.

Edited by LoneCrusader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem derives by using the win98 tool to create a win95 file?

Possibly the info here:

http://support.novell.com/techcenter/artic...nc1998_03f.html

http://www.hermit.cc/teach/ho/win/hoBatSet.htm

helps.

I would try using the netsetup program that comes with Win95. :unsure:

Direct from the mouth of the wolf:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library...ion124121120120

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the problem derives by using the win98 tool to create a win95 file?

I actually assumed this would be an issue from the start. So while I created the initial file with 98, I hand-edited it for 95 and ME. The main differences are the Optional Components, and 95 uses "ProductID" instead of "ProductKey."

I ran the 95 version of BATCH, and it created a file named BSETUP.INF which SHOULD have worked, but it doesn't, even when called specifically as an option. ( SETUP -s BSETUP.INF ) The 95 Setup program crashes with an error saying "Unable to find section" or something like that. I looked over the contents of the file, and it seemed to contain everything that was relevant.

I actually had already checked out those pages :thumbup except for the netsetup one, Ill have to look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another attempt. :unsure:

Try using this example file (editing of course the setting you wish to have BUT without adding any section - and commenting out the ISA card entries):

http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapt...b/cs-008268.htm

and or double and triple check with this FULLY COMMENTED Windows 95 MSBATCH.INF:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rjnoe/0/pc/soft/win/setup/msbt95a.txt

Double check these, too:

http://www.uv.tietgen.dk/Staff/Mlha/PC/Soft/WIN/95/setup.htm

http://www.uv.tietgen.dk/Staff/Mlha/PC/Sof.../95/msbatch.htm

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...