PDA

View Full Version : Windows 95



dongfeng
January 19th, 2004, 03:45 PM
I have the very first edition of Windows 95, I bought it on the first day it was released :D

Anyway, I have an old desktop computer, it was originally a 486, but it was upgraded in the past with a motherboard from a Pentium 166 (not an MMX version). The main hard disk is missing, but it comes with (I think) 700 MB drive. I guess this is too small for Windows 95, but I do have a spare 10GB drive I can use.

When I format the drive, how should I partition it, and format it in which file system? Is it FAT32?

I remember from ages ago we had a new hard disk and it had to be split up into sections of either 1 or 2 GB. I forget.

What is the correct way of formatting this drive for Windows 95?

Thanks :)

Rick Ethridge
January 19th, 2004, 05:07 PM
I have the very first edition of Windows 95, I bought it on the first day it was released :D

Anyway, I have an old desktop computer, it was originally a 486, but it was upgraded in the past with a motherboard from a Pentium 166 (not an MMX version). The main hard disk is missing, but it comes with (I think) 700 MB drive. I guess this is too small for Windows 95, but I do have a spare 10GB drive I can use.

When I format the drive, how should I partition it, and format it in which file system? Is it FAT32?

I remember from ages ago we had a new hard disk and it had to be split up into sections of either 1 or 2 GB. I forget.

What is the correct way of formatting this drive for Windows 95?

Windows 95 will comfortably fit in a 700 meg drive. The original system only supported FAT16 and had a 2 gig limit which FAT32 superseded. I recommend WIN95B instead. RLE

Thanks :)

Unknown_K
January 19th, 2004, 05:17 PM
Win95 will run just fine on a 700mb drive on a p166. I recommend 32mb of memory but even 16mb will let windows load up. Be warned that the original windows 95 has no support for USB devices.

dongfeng
January 19th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Thank you!

I'm not really worried about the practicalaties of doing this, I'm just interested to replicate what was my first PC! It doesn't have any USB anyway.

I'm going to have to rebuild the thing anyway (someone's used it as spare parts) and glue the processor fan back on with the special paste.

Classicsat
January 27th, 2004, 12:12 PM
Win95 will run just fine on a 700mb drive on a p166. I recommend 32mb of memory but even 16mb will let windows load up. Be warned that the original windows 95 has no support for USB devices.

I have always had luck installing it on a 500 MB drive, on a P90/W 24 MB RAM. In fact that was my main system until summer 2002, (got bits for an
Athlon 1600+), ran Win95 on that until last fall, when I got XP.

dongfeng
January 27th, 2004, 02:37 PM
I tried installing Windows 95 on my main machine (2.8GHz P4), and it wouldn't start saying I didn't have enough memory - 1GB doesn't seem to be enough :lol:

Rick Ethridge
January 27th, 2004, 03:51 PM
I tried installing Windows 95 on my main machine (2.8GHz P4), and it wouldn't start saying I didn't have enough memory - 1GB doesn't seem to be enough :lol:

Over 256 meg of ram will cause it not to run. RLE

Administrator
March 1st, 2005, 03:07 PM
I have the very first edition of Windows 95, I bought it on the first day it was released :D

Anyway, I have an old desktop computer, it was originally a 486, but it was upgraded in the past with a motherboard from a Pentium 166 (not an MMX version). The main hard disk is missing, but it comes with (I think) 700 MB drive. I guess this is too small for Windows 95, but I do have a spare 10GB drive I can use.

When I format the drive, how should I partition it, and format it in which file system? Is it FAT32?

I remember from ages ago we had a new hard disk and it had to be split up into sections of either 1 or 2 GB. I forget.

What is the correct way of formatting this drive for Windows 95?

Thanks :)
Use a Fat16 partition using a win95 bootdist type in fdisk and follow the instructions

Rick Ethridge
March 1st, 2005, 04:35 PM
Your WIN95 does NOT support FAT32. It IS possible to install the OS on your 700 meg drive with about 400 meg to spare. Otherwise, partitioning the 10 gig drive is necessary. Probably three even partitions would work.

Administrator
March 31st, 2005, 01:12 PM
I have the very first edition of Windows 95, I bought it on the first day it was released :D

Anyway, I have an old desktop computer, it was originally a 486, but it was upgraded in the past with a motherboard from a Pentium 166 (not an MMX version). The main hard disk is missing, but it comes with (I think) 700 MB drive. I guess this is too small for Windows 95, but I do have a spare 10GB drive I can use.

When I format the drive, how should I partition it, and format it in which file system? Is it FAT32?

I remember from ages ago we had a new hard disk and it had to be split up into sections of either 1 or 2 GB. I forget.

What is the correct way of formatting this drive for Windows 95?

Thanks :)

[quote="Administrator"]Insert a windows 95 boot disk or CD and set your computer to boot off the floppy disk or cd-rom then follow the instrustions
after the boot secquence has finished type in format C: and follow instrustions.

Unknown_K
March 31st, 2005, 01:25 PM
Your WIN95 does NOT support FAT32. It IS possible to install the OS on your 700 meg drive with about 400 meg to spare. Otherwise, partitioning the 10 gig drive is necessary. Probably three even partitions would work.
Windows 95 OEMSR2 supports Fat32 I believe, the original release did not.

Allison
April 2nd, 2005, 06:35 PM
I've put Win95 on everything from 386s up. Required is a 386 or greater, 8mb will run it and believe it or not 120mb disk. I made a few of those using old dell 386s with 120mb drives to serve as network printservers for oddball printers.

Currently I've got a modular systems 486slc with 16mb ram that runs w95osr2 fine though not very fast. It's upside is the box is only 5x3x12 inches and runs on 12V 1.0A. Not bad for SVGA and Eithenet built in.

For those really into pain I also have a dell 466 (486/66) with 32mb running NT4/server and while slow it's quite reliable. The only problem with older machines like this is problem in the bios with disks greater than 512mb. Under nt4 thats plenty enough for the boot and system device . I happend to use a 4.3gb drive with a 512mb/3.8gb partition that works smoothly. Very compact pizza box at 4x15x16 inches and quiet too.


Allison

Terry Yager
April 2nd, 2005, 08:56 PM
If you use "Compact" instalation, Win95 uses 66Mb of drive space. You can run it in as little as 4Mb of RAM, but you'll need to install it in another machine. Setup requires 8Mb to install for some reason.

--T

patscc
April 17th, 2005, 05:58 PM
Win95, original, required 2.8 Mb of available XMS for setup to run through.

Check your BIOS, in case something is prohibiting how you've got your mem alloc'd
Try a boot disk only loading himem.sys, skip all possible drivers.
Don't load emm386
Try not letting Win95 setup load SmartDrive (/C disables it)
SmartDrive will suck up at least a meg or so, and then of course, Win95 setup craps out. Of course this means the file copying process takes forever, but...
Persever, it'll work out.

I used to have an old Thinkpad with a 486SLC, 4 MByte ram, and I got Win95 on it.
For those of you that are "Why bother ?" here's an observation.

When I did this, I also loaded the current( of the time ) RedHat distrib onto it, using Fwm as the window manager.
The system spen about 90% of the time thrashing it's swap file.

I loaded Win95 onto it, and while slow, ran stable and didn't thrash it's swap file. Yes, so it had a 16-bit core, but so what ? Point is it worked.

You can free up drive space by only doing a minimal install, no helper apps, and then going in manually and zapping all the unneccessary drivers and such.
I remember I spent a lot of time( Of course, at the time, my job consisted of guarding a parking lot, so time was not an issue) renaming files, seeing if the system would still boot, work, etc, and then eventually delete the renamed files. It's amazing how much unnecccessary junk Win95 threw on your HD.

patscc

patscc

Terry Yager
April 17th, 2005, 07:22 PM
<chanting hypnotically> ...it's a feature, not a bug...it's a feature, not a bug...it's a...

--T

patscc
April 17th, 2005, 07:44 PM
Tee-hee.
and of course, "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away"

We've all heard the story about how 'bug' started, I wonder who first thought of turning a percieved bug into an incidental feature ?

Didn't you know that's why object-oriented programming was invented ?
It's a whole new way of putting blinders on the side of your head and pushing the core problem around until some idiot picks it up, and of course if he doesn't get it right, well, then you're absolved of blame, since your little corner in cube-land depends on their class functioning.

I think, soon, I'll have to post a rant.

I think my favourite bug was the Pentium 60's 'obscure' floating point bug, where Intel basically said, 'Oh, come on, Joe Average User, you don't even know what the hell an FPU is, even with the flaw, you'l be fine, really.'
Instead of quietly and gracefully fixing it on the next production mask, they had to make an issue out of it.

patscc

Terry Yager
April 17th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Don't ya hate when they fix one of your favorite features in the next upgrade?

--T

patscc
April 17th, 2005, 08:37 PM
Now, when your favourite feature gets fixed, does that make it a bug ?
patscc

Terry Yager
April 17th, 2005, 08:44 PM
Depends on how you exploit it, I guess.

--T