Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Frederick, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Upgrade Windows 95?

    I'm looking for educated opinions...
    I'm running Windows 95 on a Pentium 233MMX machine with 128MB of RAM. The system is relatively stable, thanks to Norton Utilities. Should I upgrade to Windows 98 SE? I already have most of the utilities that W98SE provides and I'm running FAT32, thanks to PartitionMagic. I guess I'm trying to find out if I'll have fewer crashes with W98SE. Thanks for your opinions.

  2. #2
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Brantford, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    2,391
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Upgrade Windows 95?

    In my personal experience, I've had a more stable system running the newer, patched versions of the 9x Operating Systems.

    I would recommend going to 98 SE, and applying all the critical updates available from the Windows Update site.
    Christopher Baldrey

  3. #3
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Frederick, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Upgrade Windows 95?

    Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your insight.

  4. #4
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Upgrade Windows 95?

    Helped other friends with this same thing. There can be frustrations, but in general it's very much worth the effort.

  5. #5
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles Area, California, USA
    Posts
    7,453
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Upgrade Windows 95?

    Hi rh:
    Let me take the minority view. I had Win 95 & eventually got a new machine with Win98SE. I have to go by memory with Win 95. Here's the pros:
    1. Win 98 has some features that I use a lot. The ability to add, delete, & modify menus directly is a big bonus. You can drag shortcuts right to the menus.
    2. It boot up quicker & shutdown quicker (until I got DSL, which requires a network card, which is slower).
    3. Win 95 used to "refresh" itself about 6-8 times/day. All my special windows then required that I change their view. Unfortunately, I discovered a freeware product that would help too late. Win 95 only remembered the settings for the last 29 windows, I think. Win 98 is over 200.
    4. 95 did crash more than Win 98.
    5. You can set it to single or double-click to start apps.
    6. It has a runbar (single click launchpad). You can place toolbars on the taskbar, like Quick Launch, Desktop, Links bar, & address bar.
    7. You have quicker access to the desktop with many windows open. Win 95 did have some freeware apps to help, however.
    8. You can switch resolutions more easily on the fly, as you can place an icon in the system tray.
    9. Apps load faster, especially with a good disk utility.

    Now for the cons:
    1. You've said that Win95 is fairly stable. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". You might end up <img src=/S/toilet.gif border=0 alt=toilet width=24 height=26>
    2. If you've tweaked 95 just the way you want, it'll take you months to tweak 98 the way you're happy. i.e. you start from scratch. You'd be surprised how many changes you make to a system over the years.
    3. It can have or develop shutdown problems.
    4. Mine developed problems with the SendTo menu not working. There is a registry patch. 95 never had that problem, that I recall.
    5. I lost the ability to easily use Encarta & other tools that I had with Bookshelf on the Office Shortcut Bar.
    6. It doesn't come with native built in fax, so I lost the ability to send and receive a fax.
    7. The footprint is bigger. I use more resources with less apps running (of course, maybe that's why I crashed more with 95). I seem to have more resource leaks with 98 (then again, maybe the crash/reboot syndrome of 95 didn't let me notice resource leaks).
    8. It doesn't mesh as well with Power Management.

    Finally, other than the oppressive EULA that comes with XP, you're a whole step behind. You might consider waiting a few months for them to correct more bugs, & then upgrade to XP.

    My <img src=/S/2cents.gif border=0 alt=2cents width=15 height=15>.

  6. #6
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Frederick, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Upgrade Windows 95?

    Phil,

    I appreciate your 2 cents worth! I'd go straight to XP, but I think my little old 233MMX would choke and die. Thinking about it, my Win95 setup is quite stable and, you're right, it would take months to get a new system tweaked just the way I like it. Right now, this system is primarily a homework and web surfing machine, but it has a 12MB Voodoo 2 graphics card, so the kids can run a fair number of games on it. My biggest limitation (other than a woefully slow processor) is a lack of hard drive space...it only has a total of 6GB, and I've used about 5GB. That makes it hard to install anything new.

    I'll probably stick with Win95. Again, thanks for your opinions.

Posting Permissions

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