Name: bluurg Date: April 30, 2007 at 23:42:11 Pacific Subject: Windows 95a faster than 95b/OSR2? OS: Win95 CPU/Ram: P75/32mb
Comment:
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. :)
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.
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.........
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
The information on Computing.Net is the opinions of its users. Such
opinions may not be accurate and they are to be used at your own risk.
Computing.Net cannot verify the validity of the statements made on this site. Computing.Net and Computing.Net, LLC hereby disclaim all responsibility and liability for the content of Computing.Net and its accuracy.
PLEASE READ THE FULL DISCLAIMER AND LEGAL TERMS BY CLICKING HERE
