Hello

I am not sure which Windows version will be more suitable for this laptop. I would like to use it to surf the web, view/write documents and run any useful software for me. It will connect to internet via a wifi usb adapter or a pcmcia. I was considering Win95 OSR2, Win98SE and Win2000. Please give me any hint from your own experience with a similar machine and these OSes or anything you find worth mentioning.

If I decide to install Win98SE, what updates won't have an impact on my system performance/speed/stability? I ask this because a few years ago, after updating several Win98SE installations through windowsupdate (security updates + software such as IE and Media Player) they became unstable while using IE, and a few drawbacks more. I hope this was some software updates fault, because I would like to have my system totally patched for security holes. Or maybe I will be in high secutity risk for not updating to IE6 too? Well, telling the truth, I think XP and 2000 become slower after updating critical updates too.

Hi nestul,

My own inclination would be to go with Windows 95 OSR2 (out of personal preference), but all three would likely be capable of running in a pinch.

Laptops can be finicky to get working, due to the variable and proprietary nature of their hardware. I'd scout out the manufacturer's website and elsewhere for the drivers you'd need first, and see which versions of Windows they're available for or compatible with.

Try to find a copy of 95 Original(WITHOUT IE).That would be the fastest in my opinion.

In Windows 95 not many USB devices will work. It will be necesary to use Windows 98 in order to connect the computer to the internet through USB port.

If you are going to visit web pages with Adobe Flash Player 9 requirement, the Windows 98 is a must.

USB significantly slows down computers with slow processors. PCMCIA requires much less processor power to handle.

I do not know if it is possible to use wireless in Windows 95. I never tried to do so.

Hey, that laptop has the same basic specs as my home PC! Windows 95 OSR2 is running fine on it.

OSR2 can also be installed without IE, and is just as fast. Plus, it has USB support and FAT32.

According to this thread there's a Wifi network card that works with Windows 95.

IE is obsolete. There are other, better web browsers out there, and they work with Win95 too.

Before throwing it away I installed a highly nlited copy of XP on a P1 133mhz laptop just a few months ago. It worked as well as one could expect a 133 to work, I'm not sure 98 would really have been any faster.

It's hard to say what to recommend as it depends on so many factors.


I 'personally' would be deciding between Windows 98SE and Windows 2000.

Windows 2000 SP4 is good as most software still supports it and I consider it to be very rock solid and stable. It also has good support for laptops. It's downside is it has a critical security vulnerabilities and needs a good firewall installed. It also needs more Hard Disk space than Win98.

Win98SE will run faster than 2000, doesn't have as high an overhead for RAM and is backwards compatible with older software. Its biggest downfall is it is now no longer supported by Microsoft so you're on your own but you do have MSFN forums to help you


The other thing you should consider is what drivers you have available.

I'm not sure how much HDD space Win98 needs, but without IE and other crap, Windows 2000 doesn't look too bad.

Personally, I would use 98SE w/ IE6 and basic upgrades. I have had a 98SE system running on an Asus Hi-Grade Ultinote U6-something w/ 64MB RAM.

Out of experience, try getting a cheap CRT to plug in instead of using your laptop panel.

Win98 with a pretty standard install is 150MB

Myself I would use 98lite to create a minimal install, removing i.e and using the faster 95 shell if your applications allow you to. Your wireless network needs to be using wpa to prevent others using your network and browsing your lan or your data transfers, this might require the 98 shell. Wep is the least level of security you should use on your wireless network but the pass key needs to be difficult to brute force and will need changing on a very frequent basis.

What about NT4? There are some good USB drivers for it and it is NT. Besides that it will flooow on you 160MB RAM machine...

Check out:

Windows NT4 Today
Windows NT4 Visual Update Project
Windows NT4 Updates List

Thanks everybody for your replies

Drivers won't be a problem for this systems:
» Microsoft Windows 2000
» Microsoft Windows 3.1
» Microsoft Windows 95
» Microsoft Windows 98
» Microsoft Windows for Workgroups 3.11
» Microsoft Windows NT 3.51
» Microsoft Windows NT 4.0
» OS/2

After reading your opinions, I think I will begin giving a try to Win95OSR2, Win98SE and Win2000SP4, all at once. This way I will be able to compare them side by side. I could post data comparison at your request, but this will be during november because I am waiting for a new HD for this laptop to arrive. I still have some doubts:

- Maybe I will avoid IE installation, but in this case which light browser do you advise me to use? Will firefox eat a lot of resources/time for opening?
- FAT32 or NTFS for Win2000? FAT32 will be faster but more unstable, won't it?
- Are the english updates for Win95 or Win98 compatible with spanish OS?
Win9x doesn't have any known security vulnerabilities?

I run 98 and 98SE on an old HP Pavilion with a 366mhz Celeron. 98 first edition does run slightly faster, but the difference isn't that much. With a little work, 98 can be more than functional enough for everyday usage.

Regarding the disk space you can have a reasonably well equipped system on about 700mb. If you don't include all the cab files from the 98CD, you can get it down to 600mb or less.

Regarding the browser, SeaMonkey is very good on both 98 and 98SE. It takes a bit longer than Internet Explorer to launch but it's much faster on the net, not to mention more stable and far less vulnerable. When I ran IE6, my resources would slowly drop until it forced me to reboot, or crash. With SeaMonkey, I can browse all day with no problems. Internet Explorer can be removed with IEradicator. It has worked quite well on the few 98 boxes I've used it on. Be aware that other software often uses Internet Explorer components and may fail to work without it. If that happens, you can always reinstall it.

Regarding 98 vulnerabilities, much of todays malware doesn't affect 98, including most everything that uses rootkits. More often than not, vulnerabilities that affect 98 systems will be for specific applications, not for the OS itself. This can become a problem as more software vendors drop support for 98. Various 3rd parties release unofficial patches and updates. The big difference is that you have to look for them, decide what you need, and apply the fixes yourself. Fortunately, there isn't nearly as many as there is for an XP box, so patching won't be a weekly chore.

98 can be well secured with a default-deny security policy and a few freeware apps. If you're not one who installs new software regularly, which is difficult on a 98 box anyway with so many not supporting it, default-deny is a very effective strategy. I use a combination of the policy editor, System Safety Monitor free version, and Kerio 2.1.5 firewall to enforce a default-deny policy. To effectively set up such a policy, you do have to know your system, what processes are part of it, what's necessary and what isn't. It takes a little time and some study, but the results can be nearly bulletproof.
Rick

Thanks for the explanation about Win98 security issue.
I have installed and configured Kerio firewall before so this won't take me a lot time knowing what I am doing. I will give SeaMonkey a try too.

If you make sensible decisions about what files you download onto your computer, Windows98 is unlikely to pick up any viruses or trojans.

But by just connecting Win2000 out of the box (no firewall) to the internet, I guarantee you'll get trojans installed without you having to even visit a website!



Note: This doesn't mean I don't recommend using a Firewall with Win98. Use one! (Hardware or Software)

I would say give Ubuntu a try (Yeah I know its not a MS OS)
but on a 233Mhz machine you options are limited to a community supported OS any way you go. (win 98 and ME are no longer supported and 2k is in extended support)

http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/desktopedition

ubuntu wouldnt run to well on 233mhz if you want a gui, ubuntu 5.04 is slugish on 350mhz.

support is not an issue if you read teh stuff on this thread
your not going to try nt4, oooh

You could try Linux, such as Puppy Linux, and maybe Xubuntu. You could install CrossOver/Wine.

Your OS choices with a 233mhz are definitely limited. You never mentioned how much RAM this laptop has. It will run a basic 98 box but don't expect to run anything particularly heavy on it. For standard internet usage, it will work. Check the vendors site for new drivers and software/firmware updates.

With such a low power system, your software choices are critical. The priority is efficient code and use of resources. Avoid using Microsoft products like Internet Explorer or WMP. Avoid Adobe Acrobat and combined security suites like Norton. Stay with single purpose programs, especially those related to security and privacy. Most AVs will be too heavy for that unit. Foxit PDF reader replaces Adobe quite well. For music, an old version of WinAmp is a good choice. I use 2.81. SeaMonkey is a lifesaver, especially with the available extensions.

The combination of Kerio 2.1.5, SSM free, and Proxomitron makes a formidable security package that uses far less resources than most AVs. I stopped using a resident AV 2 years ago and have never missed it. Properly configured, Kerio and Proxomitron will speed up the internet for you by blocking bandwidth wasting content. Eraser is worth getting just for its erasing scheduler. Keeps the buildup of temp files from happening, which always helps. Use version 5.7, not the latest one with a 98 box.

As long as you don't expect to multi-task, that laptop should get you by.
Rick

Actually, he did, in the thread description. It has 160 MB, which is enough for decent multi-tasking and a modern web browser.

If you go for Windows 98, you can use WMP Classic instead of Microsoft's. On Windows 95, though, I find the official WMP 6.0 (or 6.1 if you can find it) to be best.

I use both Acrobat Reader 5.0 and Foxit Reader 1.3. Foxit Reader is a good reader, but at least on my machine, the printing support is broken, so I keep Acrobat Reader for that.

Proxomitron seems like an advanced edition of Adblock Plus, an extension for SeaMonkey, Firefox and K-Meleon. I don't see why one wouldn't just use Adblock Plus if (s)he doesn't need the advanced features of Proxomitron.

Years back when I tried AVG Free, it seemed very light on resources, even with the shield on. I don't know if it's still that way today.

Yes, it does! AVG Free is definitely the way to go!

I missed that in the title. That's more RAM than I was expecting it to have. Having 160MB will definitely expand the list of what you can run. Available RAM matters much more than processor speed. I have several apps that supposedly want a minimum processor speed of 500 or 550mhz and run fine on 366mhz.

Proxomitron also gives the user the ability to change the user agent, referrer settings, limit connection times, and much more. The more a user dives in, the more they can do with it. For someone who likes working with rule based apps, Proxomitron is a tweakers dream. It also has the advantage of working with all browsers, not just FF and Sea Monkey. It's good protection for IE users.

I didn't know if AVG still supported 98 or not, or how much longer that support will last. Haven't used them in a long time. Never really cared for it. I stopped running a resident AV shortly after testing SSM and deciding it was more than sufficient as a primary defense. About the only time I use an AV is when I scan new incoming files. VirusTotal works as well as any installed AV for this. Either way, that's up to the individual user to decide what works for them.
Rick

The 40GB HD I was waiting has arrived

I have taken notes from your advises. This week I am quite busy, so I won't be able to start setting it up until november I think. I will keep this post updated for people interested.

Thank you. See you next week

Like the original poster, nestul, I'm interested in installing Windows 95 OSR2 on an old laptop. I'd like to use a PCMCIA cardbus card for WiFi internet access. I'm new to WiFi.

This is a long shot, but does anyone know of any wireless 32-bit PCMCIA cards (with available Win 95 drivers) that could do the job? I'd really like the card to use the 802.11g connection standard (or newer), rather than the old 802.11a/b standard, for two reasons: 1) 'g' has a faster maximum speed than the old 'a/b', and 2) I understand that although 802.11b can use WPA security, many 802.11b cards did not receive the necessary firmware update, and so in fact can't use WPA.



BenoitRen, thank you for the link. That card (Netgear MA401) uses the older 802.11b standard. I'll keep it in mind, but I'd prefer a 802.11g or newer. Do you know of any other cards?



Hi nestul. If you could post an update, that would be great. Thanks.

Finally, does anyone know if Win95 can even use 802.11g wireless cards, and WPA security?