 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows 95 / January 2004No one get offended.... Win 95 question
It is just an observation.... It amazes me how many people still are running Windows 95 after all these years. Actually I would never recommend Windows 95 or Windows 98 to anyone. If you MUST run a Win 9X system run Windows 98 Second Edition. Win ME was crap. Windows XP is what I run. I would never go back to as 9x kernel OS. I have never once gotten a blue screen of death on Windows 2000 or Windows XP. With Windows 95 or 98 first edition the blue screen of death was a daily occurrence. Or so it seems thinking back now. I know there are still lots of PCs out there with good hardware that won't run Windows 2000 or XP because of older CPU, ect. However looking at the requirements for Windows 95 as compared to Windows 98 there is not much difference. Are there really so many 386DX systems still out there being used? I still have my OLD 8088. ( Hehehee MS Dos 3.3 ) But it hasn't been powered up in years. System Requirements for Installing Windows 95: Personal computer with a 386DX or higher processor (486 recommended) 4 megabytes (MB) of memory (8 MB recommended) Typical hard disk space required to upgrade to Windows 95: 35-40 MB The actual requirement varies depending on the features you choose to install. Typical hard disk space required to install Windows 95 on a clean system: 50-55 MB The actual requirement varies depending on the features you choose to install. One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive VGA or higher resolution (256-color SVGA recommended) System Requirements for Installing Windows 98: A personal computer with a 486DX 66 megahertz (MHz) or faster processor (Pentium central processing unit recommended). 16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended). A typical upgrade from Windows 95 requires approximately 195 MB of free hard disk space, but the hard disk space may range from between 120 MB and 295 MB, depending on your computer configuration and the options that you choose to install. A full install of Windows 98 on a FAT16 drive requires 225 MB of free hard disk space, but may range from between 165 MB and 355 MB, depending on your computer configuration and that options that you choose to install. A full install of Windows 98 on a FAT32 drive requires 175 MB of free hard disk space, but may range from between 140 MB and 255 MB, depending on your computer configuration and the options that you choose to install. One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive. VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit color SVGA recommended). System Requirements for Installing Windows ME: Pentium 150-MHz processor or better ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 32 megabytes (MB) of RAM or better Minimum 320 MB of free hard-disk space CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device Video adapter and monitor that support VGA or higher resolution System Requirements for Installing Windows 2000: Computer/Processor 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU. Memory At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM; more memory generally improves responsiveness. Hard Disk 2 GB with 650 MB free space. CPU Support Windows 2000 Professional supports single and dual CPU systems. Drive CD-ROM or DVD drive. Display VGA or higher resolution monitor. Keyboard Required. System Requirements for Installing Windows XP: Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended) At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended) At least 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available space on the hard disk CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drive Keyboard and a Microsoft Mouse or some other compatible pointing device Video adapter and monitor with Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher resolution Sound card Speakers or headphones In microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion, "Nate Dawg" <no@spam.org> wrote: Your question: >Are there really so many 386DX systems still out there being used? Probably not. ...Alan  SignatureAlan Edwards, MS MVP W95/98 Systems http://dts-l.org/index.html I'm not offended in the least, nor should anyone else be. You are entitled to your opinion, right or wrong. The rest is inline. | It is just an observation.... | | It amazes me how many people still are running Windows 95 after all these | years. Actually I would never recommend Windows 95 or Windows 98 to anyone. | If you MUST run a Win 9X system run Windows 98 Second Edition. Win ME was | crap. People should run the OS that best suits there computing needs. In many cases Win 95 will run beautifully and do all the person requires. WinME was only problematic on systems that were not designed to run ME on and people have a tendency to push the envelope with Operating Systems in an attempt to get more out of them than what they were deigned to do. | Windows XP is what I run. I would never go back to as 9x kernel OS. I have | never once gotten a blue screen of death on Windows 2000 or Windows XP. | With Windows 95 or 98 first edition the blue screen of death was a daily | occurrence. Or so it seems thinking back now. Until I recently had a motherboard go out on me, I had not seen a BSOD in so long I forgot what they looked like. I have both 98 SE and XP installed and when the motherboard went down I was able to, fairly quickly, get 98 back up. The XP partition is still down but I use XP so little that I'm not concerned in the least about when (if ever) I get it running again. Also I don't really like the inflexability of the XP install. There are many components that I would have prefered to see as options at install time. I also have a hard time finding a real "comfort zone" in XP but that's just me. There is nothing wrong with it and indeed it's a great operating system if you need what it has to offer. | I know there are still lots of PCs out there with good hardware that won't | run Windows 2000 or XP because of older CPU, ect. Far more than you probably realize and Win 2000 is almost useless for the average home computer but it is good in an office environment where you don't usually have the need for things like multi-media. | However looking at the requirements for Windows 95 as compared to Windows 98 | there is not much difference. A fair amount if you are talking about what it takes to have a stable system. | Are there really so many 386DX systems still out there being used? I still | have my OLD 8088. ( Hehehee MS Dos 3.3 ) But it hasn't been powered up in | years. I agree that there are not many of them still out there but there are some. I still have an old MAC Classic II sitting here in operational condition and looking like it just came from the factory. SignatureGeorge (Bindar Dundat ©) MS-MVP For Windows Troubleshooting Tips see; http://aumha.org/win4/a/tshoot.htm "George (Bindar Dundat)" <JustMe@nothome.net> wrote in message news:OFQIkKq0DHA.2752@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl > Far more than you probably realize and Win 2000 is almost useless for the > average home computer but it is good in an office environment where you > don't usually have the need for things like multi-media. George, I was just curious here what you mean by W2k being useless for multi-media? Could you point me to all the details about this comparison cause I'm very interested? I have it and boot to it occasionally, but really don't see any limitation with multi-media although again I don't often use it much except for play; same with WXP, although sometime soon I will decide that it's time to boot to one or the other and start using it for my mainstay. Rick > -- > George (Bindar Dundat ?) MS-MVP > > For Windows Troubleshooting Tips see; > http://aumha.org/win4/a/tshoot.htm Windows 2000 has only fair to poor support for some multimedia applications and many games. There's no real "reference" we can point you to because none exists, but if you check packaging you'll find that many games and serious multimedia programs support only Windows 98, SE, Me or XP. The situation is much improved with the latest service packs and DX9 availability but you'll still find some programs and games that just won't run on it. SignatureRichard G. Harper (rgharper@email.com) MVP Win9x * Please post all messages and replies in the newsgroup so that * all may benefit. Private mail is usually not replied to. * Help US Help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm > George, I was just curious here what you mean by W2k being useless for > multi-media? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > same with WXP, although sometime soon I will decide that it's time to boot > to one or the other and start using it for my mainstay. > Windows 2000 has only fair to poor support for some multimedia > applications and many games. There's no real "reference" we can point [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and DX9 availability but you'll still find some programs and games that > just won't run on it. Maybe I just haven't noticed that yet then since I don't use any games at all, but also I've not personally come across any previous programs of my many that won't install of W2K either... I see you mention serious multimedia programs though, would you please off hand list a few programs that you are referring to so I can get an idea please? thanks Also Richard, beside the serious multimedia programs then, is that the only 'less' that W2K has to offer as compared to 98SE? thank you, Rick, > -- > Richard G. Harper (rgharper@email.com) MVP Win9x [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> that it's time to boot to one or the other and start using it for my >> mainstay. > Maybe I just haven't noticed that yet then since I don't use any > games at all, but also I've not personally come across any previous > programs of my many that won't install of W2K either... There were quite a few programs that wouldn't install on Win 2K, especially when it first came out (and to a signfiicant extent today). In fact, the installation was often the issue -- in the case of an upgrade, the software would remain and work just fine, but the install routines failed. And I have to agree with George about 2K's limitations on multimedia -- it just isn't what it was designed for. Even Win ME (yuchh!) was significantly better in this regard, and it came of age in Win XP. -- JAE >> Maybe I just haven't noticed that yet then since I don't use any >> games at all, but also I've not personally come across any previous >> programs of my many that won't install of W2K either... > > There were quite a few programs that wouldn't install on Win 2K, > especially when it first came out (and to a signfiicant extent today). Thanks Jim, I did not realize that this issue existed with W2K and I must of missed this along the line. I wish I had a fuller article to read about it though with more details besides what has been discussed here in this thread.. if anyone has any links and./or more info then it would be appreciative if you'd post it, thanks, Rick > In fact, the installation was often the issue -- in the case of an > upgrade, the software would remain and work just fine, but the install [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > JAE Describing W2K as "Almost useless for the average home computer" is not appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, "almost useless" is far too harsh a judgement of the limitations on W2K multimedia limitations. A very large proportion of home users won't notice that anything is lacking in W2K support for games and gaming devices or other multimedia applications. I haven't yet found a single application that I use with W9x that won't also run just fine with W2K, although I know they are out there. In many cases, the failure to mention W2K in the list of supported OS simply reflects an assumption on the part of the vendor that W2K is not used in the home, and the game or device actually installs and runs just fine. There are some specific issues with specific products, where the manufacturer never created a W2K version and for some reason the W9x version doesn't work on W2K, but it's a small list. Remember that some important business applications, such as design and drawing software, requires a solid 'multimedia' base in the OS to use it, and W2K is fine for most of these industrial strength multimedia applications. But even if it didn't support multimedia applications at all, that wouldn't make it 'almost useless' for the home user - you are assuming that games etc define the home-use machine, whereas most home use is for internet access, which W2K does particularly well. W2K is very useful where the user wants to run a small home network and starts to run into the networking limitations of W9x. They can get all the features they need without the complexity and hardware demands of XP. With second-hand W2K OEM machines now available at very good prices, it's actually an excellent choice for the home user, especially if it's a second system. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP W95/W98 > I'm not offended in the least, nor should anyone else be. You are entitled to > your opinion, right or wrong. The rest is inline. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > For Windows Troubleshooting Tips see; > http://aumha.org/win4/a/tshoot.htm Thanks for your post Jeff, and besides what you said I suspect there is even more good points to be made in the W2K favor. Rick > Describing W2K as "Almost useless for the average home computer" is not > appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, "almost useless" is far too harsh [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Jeff Richards > MS MVP W95/W98 On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:00:35 +1100, "Jeff Richards" >Describing W2K as "Almost useless for the average home computer" is not >appropriate for two reasons. Firstly, "almost useless" is far too harsh a >judgement of the limitations on W2K multimedia limitations. In fact, ongoing support for Win2000 may make it better in the long haul than Win9x, even for multimedia. Thinking of: - native support for USB and other removable drives - USB 2.0 support - support for new Windows Media Player and DirectX subsystems (?) It is less able to run old DOS and Win3.yuk apps than XP, and shares the same limitations and risks if NTFS is used. >...most home use is for internet access, which W2K does particularly well. Right down to the same exploitable RPC holes, yes :-) >W2K is very useful where the user wants to run a small home network and >starts to run into the networking limitations of W9x. They can get all the >features they need without the complexity and hardware demands of XP. Um, I think the complexity factor will be the same, if not worse, than XP. Once you get under the skin (even to the shallow depths of Control Panel), you can no longer pretend it's another Win9x, and have to start learning the NT way of doing things. Expect less wizard hand-holding in Win2k than XP, and no built-in firewall. Hardware demands; somewhere between the Win9x of the time, and today's XP. In a nutshell, a Win98SE-era PC with XP amount of RAM is OK. As to peer to peer networking: - Win2k works with IPX and NetBEUI, unlike XP - Win95xx, Win98xx, Win2k and XP Pro allow 9 incoming connects - WinME and XP Home allow only 4 incoming connects - those limits are supposed to be 10 and 5, but buggy! - the lower limit in ME and Home can bite small LANs When I refer to peer to peer networking, I'm not talking p2p file sharing utilities. Those can be expected to run equally badly on Win9x, Win2k or XP :-) >--------------- ---- --- -- - - - - "We have captured lightning and used it to teach sand how to think." >--------------- ---- --- -- - - - - > It is just an observation.... > > It amazes me how many people still are running Windows 95 after all these > years. Actually I would never recommend Windows 95 or Windows 98 to anyone. Win95? Heck there are still people using win3x. I was even at someone's house that was still using dos beleive it or not. Some people still believe that "if it works...don't "fix" it !" > Win95? Heck there are still people using win3x. I was even at someone's > house that was still using dos beleive it or not. > > Some people still believe that "if it works...don't "fix" it !" I can see the "if it works...don't "fix" it !" point. However after a period of time you simply cannot install any newer software. I can't imagine still using my 8088 with MS-Dos 3.3 nowadays. Even though as I remember it worked great. All applications on that HUGE 21 meg hard drive were working flawlessly. I suppose if someone still has an old system running with the software they have always had and everything is still working well then more power to them. But I know with me I like to try new software packages every now and then. Plus there are reasons to upgrade hardware. I would never go back to a Dial up ISP. I have used ADSL, SDSL and Cable. My current cable modem is hooked up to this PC via USB. My old 8088 or 80486 or Pentium classic would not work with this modem as they all did not have USB ports. It is my personal opinion that you need to upgrade your PC hardware every 3.5 to 4.5 years so you can have reasonably up to date software. At least it has worked out that way for me. After about 3.5 or 4 years I start seeing software that won't run well on my current hardware. Especially games. I am almost 30 but I still like to dabble in a FEW games. lol The 13 year olds online kick my a.s though. lol Anyway... long babble just to say personally I see the need to upgrade every 3.5 or 4 years. Wouldn't it be interesting to play Diablo 2 on an 8088 with a Hercules monochrome monitor? Hmmmmmmmmmm ;) > > Win95? Heck there are still people using win3x. I was even at someone's > > house that was still using dos beleive it or not. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > them. But I know with me I like to try new software packages every now and > then. Well the guy I know who still uses dos just has one or two apps that he's always used...and does not use the machine for anything else... so I doubt he will ever upgrade I'm sure there are quite a few others in a similar situation with win95 >> It amazes me how many people still are running Windows 95 after all these >> years. Actually I would never recommend Windows 95 or Windows 98 to >anyone. >Win95? Heck there are still people using win3x. I was even at someone's >house that was still using dos beleive it or not. > >Some people still believe that "if it works...don't "fix" it !" Drat! I was going to say that. There are still quite a few Win3.0 posts and message boards out there that are still very active. Rose's Web Page Designs http://members.aol.com/Roseb44170/designs.htm >It amazes me how many people still are running Windows 95 after all these >years. Actually I would never recommend Windows 95 or Windows 98 to anyone. Well, why not? If you are still running a Win95xx-vintage PC, especially one with with 8M or 16M RAM, why switch? Even if you are talking piracy to remove the cost-of-OS factor, there's still the downside of potentially converting a stable and fast Win95xx system to a buggy and slow Win98xx system. >If you MUST run a Win 9X system run Windows 98 Second Edition. Win ME was >crap. I agree that Win98SE is the best exposition of the Win9x design brief for hardware with the muscle to run it (I'd like 32M RAM for starters) >Windows XP is what I run. I would never go back to as 9x kernel OS. I have >never once gotten a blue screen of death on Windows 2000 or Windows XP. I've never had problems with Lovesan/Blaster on Win9x :-) XP Home also has a lower incoming connection limit than Win9x older than the generally whiffy WinME, and doesn't work well with voice message bundleware that comes with most modems. >With Windows 95 or 98 first edition the blue screen of death was a daily >occurrence. Or so it seems thinking back now. For you, maybe. What I see is heap-related issues if uptime is longer than a day or so, and even that depends on what I'm running. If I avoid certain known-crappy sware, that improves to a week, maybe. >I know there are still lots of PCs out there with good hardware that won't >run Windows 2000 or XP because of older CPU, ect. >However looking at the requirements for Windows 95 as compared to Windows 98 >there is not much difference. That is true; it's mainly the RAM thing, though puny HDs suck too. Also, out the box Win98xx installations may be considered sucky by Win95xx users who don't know how to turn off the slow drooling "animated" UI and the "View As Web Page" crappiness. >Are there really so many 386DX systems still out there being used? I still >have my OLD 8088. ( Hehehee MS Dos 3.3 ) But it hasn't been powered up in >years. Until about a year ago, I was running Win95SR2 on an iP55C-233 with 64M RAM and either an 80G or 120G HD (can't remember). Enough muscle for Win98xx, and I had a license for that, but why bother to change? I don't need MSConfig hand-holding to edit the startup axis, and have rolled my own multi-shot registry/corefile backup utility, plus the system was running fine. But when the mobo died and I chose to rebuild, I used Win98SE. >System Requirements for Installing Windows 95: Personal computer with a >386DX or higher processor (486 recommended) 4 megabytes (MB) of memory (8 MB >recommended) I like to see PCI, 8M RAM, i486DX2-66 to 'DX4-100 as the minimum. For 4M RAM and pre-'DXn systems, I'd leave them in Win3.yuk hell. A big reason to prefer Win95 SR2 over Win98xx is the lack of "desktop integration" that bloats up RAM requirements etc. As long as you avoid the generally disgusting IE4.xx when installing IE 5.5 SP2 over the IE embedded in the OS, you can avoid that overhead. These days, the kicker is functional USB support - which is more a device driver minimum-OS-req'd issue than a USB issue as such. Else crisis! when bringing home cheap new printers, etc. Win98SE is also the last Windows version that is reasonably safe for drop-in HD maintenance. Both WinME and XP will auto-pollute such HDs with SR data and other crap, though this is easier to manage in XP. To Bindar Dundat: WinME's out of favor not because of it's trend-bucking *reduced* range of hardware support, but because it combines the drawbacks of both Win9x and NT to no good effect other than create an artificial demand for XP as an escape route. To a large extent, WinME's problems can be cured so that it becomes as good a Win9x design brief exposition as Win98SE, or maybe better. But there's more work to be done than in sanitizing Win98xx >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - Error Messages Are Your Friends >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - > It amazes me how many people still are running Windows 95 after all > these years. Actually I would never recommend Windows 95 or Windows > 98 to anyone. If you MUST run a Win 9X system run Windows 98 Second > Edition. Win ME was crap. On 98 vs. 98 SE, I never saw that much difference, and the differences varied by hardware. My MMX-233 at the time never took quite right to SE, so I went back to 98 OF (Original Flavour) for a while. I tend to treat pretty interchangeably a fully patched and updated Win98 OF vs. Win98 SE, unless someone has needs distinct to SE's particular features. In either case, much like you, I regard 98 (whatever version) as the high water mark of the Win9x family. > Windows XP is what I run. I would never go back to as 9x kernel OS. There are people with hardware that won't run Win XP well at all, and needs that Win 2000 won't meet. Until this last year, many hospitals across the country were still using primarily Win98 work stations. I believe most have upgraded in the last six months, with the last brief "extension" given to Win98 support. > I have never once gotten a blue screen of death on Windows 2000 or > Windows XP. One of two things is occurring. Either: (1) You aren't very creative. There are a lot of them. I have an entire page devoted to them, and it gets a LOT of traffic: http://aumha.org/win5/kbestop.htm or (2) You still have the XP defaults in place which reboot failing components, such as Explorer, rather than display error screens. It looks blue-less to the end user, but this doesn't mean there are no errors. That having been said, the types of error conditions that are so commonplace in Win9x mostly don't exist in Win XP. (There's a whole new generation of quirks to replace them! <vbg>) > I know there are still lots of PCs out there with good hardware that > won't run Windows 2000 or XP because of older CPU, ect. Yes. Compassion is they key here, and understanding also that some people have their particular computer needs fully met by the systems they presently own and won't be buying new hardware until the current systems fail -- ESPECIALLY in the current economy! SignatureJim Eshelman, MS-MVP Windows Windows Support Center: http://aumha.org/ Fighting Parasites: http://aumha.org/a/parasite.htm Computer Health: http://aumha.org/a/health.htm Troubleshooting: http://aumha.org/a/tshoot.htm |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.