The Andrew Turnbull Family of Fine Websites
I just read your article about why you still use Windows 95 OSR2 and agree with you. I found it to be very stable on my Acer Aspire that I bought in 1998. I don't remember seeing blue screens, etc.
I've been building my own systems now and am currently using a Duron 1.8GHz, nForce2 motherboard, 768MB RAM, 80GB HDD, ATI Radeon 9600 video card and some USB devices (mouse, cellphone for internet, card reader). Do you think it could run Win95b? (I have the "B" version here on CD)
What are your system specifications? My system isn't very fast with WinXP and 98SE is buggy.. ME is a disaster.. I wonder how 95 would work. I don't care much for the latest junk on the market. As long as I can watch YouTube, that's good enough for me (oh, and check email..that's pretty much all I do with my machine these days).
Don't let others get on your nerves. The heck with them anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Let them spend hundreds of $$$ on new hardware just to "enjoy" their slow buggy POS Windows Vista and other bloatware that's full of security holes. I remember in the days of Win95, we didn't have to use firewalls, and I never used antivirus..and my system was just fine for several months until I sold my computer.
Hi Paul,
While I'm reluctant to say it's impossible, you'll likely have a tough time getting Windows 95b up and running on your new machine. Even if you get it installed, compatible audio and video drivers for new hardware are very tough to come by, and you'd probably have to do without (most) USB devices. I don't think I've ever seen Windows 95 (or NT4) running on a system faster than my own firsthand.
Speaking of which, my own system is a 600MHz Pentium III-based Compaq Deskpro with 128MB of RAM. Windows 95 OSR2 is likely to be a better choice than either 98 or ME as far as bugs and performance go: There's no real IE integration, and in my experience it runs at an acceptable speed even on a 486.
As far as anti-virus concerns go, I have a version of AVG installed that I run every once in a blue moon, although the scans always turn up dry. Given this plus the lack of open ports with processes running, I have to think that Windows 95 is a lot more secure than people give it credit for.
Nice to hear from you!
Commenting by HaloScan
