Image Map Image Map
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 133

Thread: Operating System compatibility on early x86-32 chips

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moogle! View Post
    Did you actually see Windows 95 run on those VIA C series processors? I would have thought it would crash when presented with something that fast. The fastest thing I have seen 95 work on was a PIII 333 (500Mhz Katmai on an LX board), and I know it will just throw an error on my K6-2+ 550. I've also used it on my Pentium 66 with 32MB of ram and it was...passable.
    You are right, i havent seen win95 on a via cpu yet. Its just an assumption. I maybe delete the green from it.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    116

    Default

    I actually tried to install something on a C7 once and it failed because of a missing instruction, but I forgot what it was. I think it was a Linux distro. :/

  3. #103

    Default

    Win95B will work on a 350Mhz and faster if it is patched with the "K6" patch. I mentioned this earlier. I don't know if the K6 patch works on Win95A.

    The issue was a Windows bug in some timing code that eventually fails when the system is clocked too high and wasn't specific to any K6 family. It will likely be a problem in Win95 with any processor family at some clock speed. I wouldn't rule out late high clock speed PC models from working after the patch is applied. Any processor 386 or newer will probably work, but there are other practical considerations when getting too new (like drivers).

    So it's why I suggested splitting Win95 into Win95A (retail/OEM) and Win95B (OEM). Because if you picked up a boxed version (I don't think I have it anymore) to install on a PC, I think that'd be a very different experience than the better version of Win95. Honestly, I remember when Win95B became available, we looked for some way to obtain it, since it was better, and it gets better patched fully

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    116

    Default

    My copies are the 95c, though they don't have the patch you mentioned.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the3dfxdude View Post
    Win95B will work on a 350Mhz and faster if it is patched with the "K6" patch. I mentioned this earlier. I don't know if the K6 patch works on Win95A.
    Thankyou for the suggestion, and letting know this. I didnt even knew that there is two version exists from windows 95. I must do some research on this topic to decide if its needed to split it.

  6. #106

    Default

    Among others, FAT-32 is one major difference.
    PM me if you're looking for 3" or 5" floppy disks. EMail For everything else, Take Another Step

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    33,632
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    We always called 95B, "OSR2" (OEM Service Release)--and there were actually 4 of those--the original, OSR2 OSR2.1 and OSR2.5.--and the version differentiation with regard to system files was even more granular When did the B and C appellations arise? 2.1 and 2.5 largely tried to remedy the really terrible USB support.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,619
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck(G) View Post
    We always called 95B, "OSR2" (OEM Service Release)--and there were actually 4 of those--the original, OSR2 OSR2.1 and OSR2.5.--and the version differentiation with regard to system files was even more granular When did the B and C appellations arise? 2.1 and 2.5 largely tried to remedy the really terrible USB support.
    MS used B and C as a suffix when reporting the version number. See https://www.operating-system.org/bet...95c-scr-09.png Confusing because the CD was labeled with the OSR number not the letter suffix.

  9. #109

    Default

    Yes, the System Info will say 'B' or 'C', but the CD label does not clearly mention this sub version, and you'll have to look closely.

    Win95A original release:
    While made a splash at release, and revolutionary for MS, really didn't last all that long. Label will say "Windows 95" for retail, but some say "Windows 95 Companion" that are OEM.

    Win95B OSR2:
    A substantial update, made available for OEM in 96, probably made from what was left of the cancelled Win96 release. Comes with FAT32 and IE3 integrated. The CD label will say "Windows 95" or "Windows 95 Companion", since it was an OEM disk intended for reinstalling. Unfortunately that's hard to distinguish without looking more closely.

    Win95B OSR2.1:
    Same thing as OSR2 re-released in 97, but with the USB patch installer added to the disk. The CD label will say "Windows 95 with USB support". This is pretty common and easy to spot.

    Win95B/C OSR2.5:
    Same thing again, re-released late 97, except the USB patch is integrated with the installer, as well as IE4, all on one disk. I think the CD label will say "with Internet Explorer", but I haven't seen this disk in a very long time. I think it was short lived since 98 came out not long after. (and funny enough, they look the same)

    For all the OSR2+, they didn't really include many of the patches, and there were many. They only did the bare minimum, I guess, for keeping the manufacturers happy. For whatever reason, they didn't do service packs in 9x. And I don't think it is possible to go from Win95A to B through patching, but you can get from OSR2 to 2.5 through patching. The OSR2+ versions are fundamentally identical. So there are really 2, and only 2 versions of Win95. Now I don't know how practical to talk about Win95 on fast CPUs being compatible, since Win95A is going to be unstable, and Win95B is unstable, until patched, but could get unstable in other ways. So split them if you think it matters, but you could just the K6+ as a negative generally speaking, and others on that list too.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    33,632
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    It's been awhile since I looked at Win95 anything, but I can check my MSDN library to see what was the final version and what it included.

    98SE was just so much better on faster CPUs, though there are issues with more than 1GB of memory, but those are easily handled. WDM introduced with 98 straightened the driver mess out quite a bit. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than the Win 3.1/95 situation.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •