to Win 95 or not to Win 95...

[psabi]

This post is to request opinion mostly but don't hesitate to toss in factual info if you have it...

I am "donating" a PC to a relative that is unable to toss down cash for a new PC. Current "scary" pc stats:

pentium 133 (socket 5, in case you were wondering)
32mb of FP memory
1.6gb hd
6x cd rom
28.8 modem/sound card bastard combo
1mb of video mem (on board)
win 95a
comment: cutting edge PC (circa 1995...)

What's in the PC I am giving her:

p166 (classic, mobo can't handle an MMX option)
32 mb of EDO (at least it's faster than FP)
2 (count 'em 2!) 1.6 hard drives
8x CD rom
ISA sound card
1 mb pci video
56k pci modem (yeah I know winmodems are crap but it's free)
comment: there is no place to go but up...

NOW THE QUESTION:

What OS do you think will "run" better on this p166 system (or as I like to call it "a 1/6 GHZ system" http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif ?

the choices are win95B, win98, win98se, or win2000 advanced server (ok, I was kidding about the last one)

Win95 has lower system requirements but then win 98 has better system resource management. The PC will be used primarily for AOL (yeah, not my choice), email, general surfing, and the occasional mp3 download. Games aren't really a focus other than your basic card games.

I can't wait to hear what the gang has to say...

[BigBlue66]

Howdy,

I would opt for the WIN95B OS. The processor is fast enough, (barely) 'caus WIN98 flavors require at least a 100Mhz processor to run.

However, 95B will get along with the limited amount of memory better than 98 will.

Cheers,

Big Blue 66


------------------
Woe is me.

[CWelker73]

i agree w/ bigblue66, given what tou have, win95b is the way to go. i had a similar system that ran win95b for a while until i upgraded to win98, and i would say win 95 ran better for day to day tasks that you want to do w/ it.

------------------
Allright brain, I dont like you and you dont like me, so lets get this over with and get back to killing you with beer. -Homer Simpson

[iisbob]

i'll have to disagree with the others and say go W98se, especially if they plan on using AOL-not to mention that with se you get better performance drivers for even polder hardware-and if the person is planning on using mp3's then most programs out there are optimized for 98se; it's about the " best " of the 95 kernel to come out yet ( why did they even release ME? then XP?)
I can garauntee you that they'll start trying to run programs that are only going to be supported on 98se, the programmers figure that's what 90% people are running so they won't attempt but the bare support on older 95 platforms, or even NT systms.
When i write an app, i specifically target it toward 98se, not becuase it's better but becuase it is the most distributed( next to 2000 ).

------------------
iisbob
"Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more deadly in the long run."

[nimnorf2]

Hey psabi,
I wouldn't dare disagree with either BigBlue or iisbob (Both of them have many informed and helpful posts scattered all over this forum)and CW gives even a little more clarity. I've an old 100mhz over on the other side of this room. When I went from 95 to 98SE I noticed a decline in boot speed,and a few applications, but the improvements to Plug and Play alone were worth the upgrade in my opinion. If your relative wants to add a peripheral someday I think you will be glad you loaded her with 98SE. You and I would notice the change in speed, but she won't have anything to compare it to and will still tell her friends what a fine relative you are. When giving something to an older friend, stability probably will matter more than speed.

[yawningdog]

I tried to build an internet machine using 95 and none of the ISP software seemed to be compatible. I wound up buying 98se and it runs fine now.

------------------
He thrusts his fists against the posts but still insists he sees the ghosts.

[scroatbagg]

I have got Win98se on an old P120 my daughter uses, it seems to run a lot better then Win95, less crashes, boot time doesnt seem that much slower and she can run what she likes!!! Go for Win98se..

[scroatbagg]

I have got Win98se on an old P120 my daughter uses, it seems to run a lot better then Win95, less crashes, boot time doesnt seem that much slower and she can run what she likes!!! Go for Win98se..

[scroatbagg]

Sorry about the double post, brain was being defragged at the time!!!

[BigBlue66]

Alrighty then, I may stand corrected.

However, considering that the 'puter only has 32mb of memory, and the fact that I see no indication of plans for adding more, I figgered that 95B would be the better choice, as 98 seems to like at least 64mb to run.

As for the better PNP support and all that with 98, I agree. I just think that the machine is going to crawl with only 32mb of RAM. Could be wrong though. Never actually tried it.

I might suggest loading 98SE and if it behaves fairly well, then so be it. But if not, then revert back to 95B.

Cheers,

Big Blue 66




------------------
Woe is me.

[CWelker73]

all of you have valid points about win98se. as a former slave to aol when i was living at home, i would have to say that if you wanted the latest version of aol (6.0, and maybe even 5.0), win98se may be worth a shot. but aol 4.0 running on win95b would be fine. i am basing this solely on what you said that this person would be using it for. or say the heck w/ it and put advanced server on it http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Allright brain, I dont like you and you dont like me, so lets get this over with and get back to killing you with beer. -Homer Simpson

[iisbob]

i'll have to say that blue has a valid point, you'll want to get at least another 32 mb to run really well; it won't hurt with any version of the win OS you use. if irecall you said it had edo memory, then you should be able to replace it with SDRAM, most mobo's will accept SDRAM if they work with EDO( do not try to mix them tho'!) check your mobo manual-sdram would be the better of the two if you can use it( not to mention cheaper ).

------------------
iisbob
"Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more deadly in the long run."

[This message has been edited by iisbob (edited 07-17-2001).]

[nimnorf2]

Dag,
two posts from the village idiot (me) on one thread.

Psabi, if you're still out there. I used 98SE on my old system with only 32 mg of ram for a couple years. Worked fine.

iisbob, wouldn't he be using 72 pin simm memory in that old system?

Blue and Welker, I'm serious when I say I only dare to disagree with you. I know I know very little and I've read many of your posts especially blue's. I bet you know how to hack into my system and turn me into a "newt"!
Respectfully and fearfully posted,
peace.

[ranchdog]

PSABI here's my .02-- Use 98SE and get more Bang for your Buck. HDD space will be the limiting factor in the end. Some day if ya need a "small" one get in touch w/me and I'll contribute. Smile Awhile

------------------
"Lemmee Fix That Thing......."
-Beauty is only a light switch away.-

[Paleo Pete]

Well, it's kind of a six of one, half dozen of the other. I've run win98 on an almost identical system, P-166, 32MB EDO RAM, 8X CD ROM, SB 16, Cirrus Logic 1MB video card, Zoltrix 33.6 modem. It ran fairly well, even ran a few games half decent. 98 has better PNP support, a much wider range of drivers, and a few neato features like animated menus.

95 will run on lower resources, and is sometimes a bit more stable, but has disadvantages like far fewer default drivers available, PNP was not perfect, memory management was not quite as good, and scanreg was not included. (I LIKE scanreg...) But 95 will run a bit faster on a 166, and won't eat up as much hard drive space at least for the initial installation.

Basically it's a matter of what you want out of it, and how much digging you want to do for drivers. For the purposes you described I'd say 95 would be fine, but will take a bit of digging for drivers. 98 will work too, and the difference in speed is not very noticable. I ran both on the system described above, and with a fresh 98 install I could barely tell the difference. As mentioned above, 64MB RAM would make a bit more difference in speed, but it will run on 32MB EDO.

------------------
YOU! Out of the gene pool!
Note: Please post your questions on the forums, not in my email.

Computer Information Links (http://www.geocities.com/paleopete/)

[psabi]

Well, the final tally for my super "1/6 of a GHZ" system:

Yeah, win98se. No surprise. Cause I's nerd, I felt I had to give both 98se and 95b a shot - I ran the system both ways using a clean install both times and beat the hell out of both installs (like she would). I don't know if it's an aol thing (running 5.0) or a virus scan thing (using innoculateIT) but win95b was just real irritable when you started to put it through the paces even with a clean install, up to date drivers across the board, plus the typical mix of patches courtesy of M$.

Win98se seemed to be ok when i put it through the paces - sure as hell didn't get pissed off like 95b did...

Thanks to all for your contribution - included a few specific comments for those that might check back:

blue: you and I were on the same page, focused on the hardware requirements, which is why i even considered the 95b setup. Funny, 98 (no se) lists requirements from M$ as a 486/66 with 16mb minimum but 98se is 24mb - even funnier the bare minumum for 95 is a 386 with 4mb (this is according to my copy of "Windows 95 resource kit" by M$ press...)

nimnorf:

quote
"You and I would notice the change in speed, but she won't have anything to compare it to and will still tell her friends what a fine relative you are." aw schucks... http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif And you beat me to the punch in restating the fact that I am running 72pin EDO sticks - damn EDO upgrade to 64mb would set me back more than ONE 256 stick of pc133...

ranchdog: I do appreciate the hd advice as I strapped in two 1.6giggers since my other "substantial" drives are currently in use. Not sure what size you could donate to the cause - I have have a fine collection of "classic" hd's that are 105mb to 400mb. Hell, at that point, I might as well duct tape a shoebox to the tower and toss in a bunch of 3.5's as "additonal space"...

Paleo P: Damn, I was waiting for you to show up... I'm covered with the driver issue for 95 but my trials (albeit brief) just had 95b in the toilet. Might have been better had I loaded AOL 4.0 but it was torture as it is using AOL... With the better PNP support and stability, I'm hoping 98se will involve less "support" calls. BTW - I'm hoarding my ISA stuff now - I'll donate to your ISA cause should you venture back to Virginia.

[BigBlue66]

Nimnorf2

Oh, pshaw. Don't be putting me up on no pedestal, lest I fall off the damn thing. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

The great thing about this forum is that you can offer up various ideas without being lambasted into introversion.

When battling a problem or even offering opinions, everyone's ideas count. And, I will be the first to admit that I can be wrong. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif But, it's great fun isn't it?

Cheers,

Big Blue 66


------------------
Woe is me.