Windows 95a faster than 95b/OSR2?

April 30, 2007 at 23:42:11
Specs: Win95, P75/32mb


Is it just me, or is Windows 95a in fact a bit faster than 95b (AKA OSR2)?
I've been working on an old Pentium 75 desktop with 32 megs RAM I
came across and have installed both 95a and 95b on it. Unless I'm
imagining things, I can swear that 95a is a bit faster/snappier than 95b,
like maybe it's not dealing with as much overhead. Has anyone else
found this to be true? I don't think it's something you really notice
unless running 95 on a really slow machine like a 486 or low-end
Pentium. The thing I notice the most is that windows pop up and
redraw quicker with 95a then 95b, and there doesn't seem to be as
much (if any) disk thrashing.

BTW: This post made possible by IE 2.0., so sorry if the formatting
is a bit screwy. :)


See More: Windows 95a faster than 95b/OSR2?

Report •


#1
May 1, 2007 at 01:00:35
I think it's might be true having loaded Win95 original onto a 486 with 8 megs of ram it seemed slow as hell to me, since it's normally running on a 500MHz AMD K7 with 256 to 512meg of ram:P. It may be due to the hardware as you say but 95a is not too different from 95b mainly B came about because of USB, so some of the core system needed to be cahnged to use that as well as to flaunt FAT32 (yay support for 64+ gigabyte drives that back then you would have sold your soul to get one:P) as well as general upkeep and bug fixes.

Seriously though on a decent system 95 will very rarely crash. Back int he day a good pentium was recomended to run it from 90+MHz up with at least 16 meg of ram. But once you got above 166 and 32 95 would be fast responsive and stable unless you tried doing something silly (like deleting windows files as it's running :P) Kudos on loading a webpage in IE2.0 I didn't think most pages would load anything at all now:P.

Quatermass O.B.E


Report •

#2
May 1, 2007 at 01:10:24
Actually your W95 numbering system is way off, whilst I appreciate most people say A, B and C, it would be easier to use the M$ definition see:

http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...


The later versions of W95 which had FAT32 were bloated compared to the original FAT16 only versions, plus they had more features built in to take account of more modern hardware, ie MMX CPU's, USB, etcetcetc plus software like IE3 or 4.........


Report •

#3
May 1, 2007 at 01:22:29
How is my numbering system way off? It really isn't. Anyways, I'm going to be upgrading the Pentium 75 to a 233MMX this week. Would I be better off using a FAT32 Win95 (want to say 95b) because being optimized for MMX CPUs it will be faster than the original Win95?

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
May 1, 2007 at 01:31:53
It's not that way off, as nobody I know refers to the versions other than original,a,b or c (mainly because were lazy and that that is what the system properties windows usually displays). So all though not the proper way of saying them it is correct:P
Anyway thanks for the link I can add that information to my catalogue of stuff.

Quatermass O.B.E


Report •

#5
May 1, 2007 at 05:00:15
Win95B can be OSR2 no FAT32 or OSR2.1 with FAT32, therefore just saying "95b (AKA OSR2)?" did not help to compare the two versions of Win95 you have tried.

IIRC Win95 OSR2 had IE3.xx, whereas the previous versions had IE2.xx

I would prefer W98SE over W95, but W95 OSR2.5 with the IE4 Full update is very usuable mainly due to Windows Explorer acting like a Webpage layout.


Report •

#6
May 1, 2007 at 14:12:01
I avoid OSR2.5 with IE4 and the explorer shell enhancements ("view as Web Page) because it's too bloated and really slows the system down.

Report •

#7
May 1, 2007 at 14:19:30
Take your Win95 CD along with a Win98 CD & use 98Lite to create a 95/98 "hybrid"...use the SLEEK configuration:

http://www.litepc.com/preview.html


Report •

#8
May 3, 2007 at 04:15:33
Lupin I have IE4 on a Computer Mag Disc as well as the following CD's

4.00.950 OEM (without SP1)
4.00.950a OEM
4.00.950C OEM

Though the Microsoft link does not mention the 4.00.950 OEM version. The other original CD versions were sold on with PC's many moons ago, never had a floppy set though!


Report •

#9
May 3, 2007 at 04:48:54
Totally understandable Santa. A reasonable answer and I agree saying 95B doesn't help if they ahve 95B wityh no FAT 32. I'm not too fond of 2.5 (ala 95C) because of the IE4 intergration. But then again I isntalled 95C the otherday on VPC2007 and unlike my downlaoded copy I burnt (I found out that I actually ahd a proper copy which I've had for about 2 years now but beleived it was 95B as the disc is exactly the same:P) it didn't isntall IE4 during the main install which I found a bit wierd. Plus it would only let me isntall the minimal version of IE4 when I did go ti insall it. Not sure what was going on there. I don't have a copy of 95B with no FAT32 support. :( otherwise I would have all of the 95 clean install versions.

Quatermass O.B.E


Report •

#10
May 3, 2007 at 14:43:09
If you've never tried 98Lite, I highly suggest you give it a try...the preview version is 100% free & never expires

http://www.litepc.com/swap.html


Report •

#11
May 4, 2007 at 00:50:54
AFAIC if it will not run W2K well the PC is scrapped!! Only keep the old O/S CD's for selling on EBAY in the future....

Report •

#12
May 4, 2007 at 16:18:46
Yes Windows 95A is faster than Windows 95B because of the absence of anything Internet Explorer related. I performed a hack on Windows 95B to remove IE references from its setup files, and when it installed it essentially was 95A.

The install size was under 50 Megabytes and on a virtual PC it ran like a dream. So yes, 95A is a hair faster than 95B.

There is one subtle yet vital difference between opinion and fact; and the bigger man is he who can whole-heartedly admit this.


Report •

#13
May 15, 2007 at 07:23:16
The "slowness" that you often see in later versions of Windows 95 is directly related to specific dll files. For some stupid reason, Microsoft decided that eye candy was more important than performance when they unleashed Internet Explorer 4.0. [Boy, how some things never change these days!] Specifically, dlls like COMCTL32.DLL cause the "animation" that you see when using the scroll bar in large directories in Windows Explorer. As long as you do not "upgrade" COMCTL32.DLL beyond version 4.70 or so, you'll maintain the snappy performance (and stability) you are accustomed to seeing in Windows 95a.

BTW, if you install Windows 95 C, you can very easily abort the installation process of IE 4, and maintain version 3 if you like. Just ignore the prompts for the IE 4 installation, and reboot cleanly. It won't force you to install it. :) :) Of course the age-old hacks to layout.inf and setuppp.inf can prevent any IE from ever appearing whatsoever. Those hacks are legal now, btw, ever since the anti-trust case.


Report •


Ask Question