Ah, that explains why has always been updated shortly after installation without me knowing what did it.

indeed. though DCOM95 version 1.2 (bundled with IE5 and its setup files) had secur32.dll v4.10.1999 while the Q266772 hotfixes for Win95/98fe had secur32.dll v4.10.2000. The Q266772 hotfixes are available from MS KB article 267972.

Hello!
I just found this (still active!) w95 forum!

W95 works very well for me. I think the most critical problem with w95 on new machines is the shutdown bug, which does not allow hard disk to complete. Disabling Windows disk cache and setting a low BIOS HD block move works well, but a more elegant way is a small driver that inserts 2 sec delay at power off. Works very well for me!
http://members.driverguide.com/driver/deta...riverid=1046722

I was hoping that Micro$oft might release W95 for personal use rather than abandon it completely. However, as someone mentioned, all win95 updates are gone! If the latest upgrades gets lost, the usefulness of w95 will be much reduced. Is it still available somewhere? I happen to have the latest w95update page saved, and many of the updates. Would it be of interest (and legal?) to mirror the old w95update site? But some of my updates are swedish versions.

Regards,
Anders

OK, I found Win95 updates are still available. A good site is
http://erpman1.tripod.com/win95upd.html
My thanks to ERPMan!

Speaking of windows 95, did anybody ever find a fix to the "comctl32.dll" problem in which it slows down the system?

Slowdown? Don't you mean consumption of resources? There is a fix for that.

Don't feel alone, Win95 users! I know of *many* individuals that still use Windows 95 *daily*.

Ranging from 286/16mhz to P4/2.8Ghz! DOS gamers all the way to entire businesses that still use it for their in-house networking needs. A 486/dx66mhz with 32megs ram that is used daily for internet access; a 386/sx25 with 16megs ram used daily for word processing.

And I won't even begin talking about the machines at the local library....

Windows 95 is NOT dead; just removed from the public eye. I know of even more people still using Windows 98SE.

I knew 1 person that used ME. They chucked the computer when Vista came out... some people are just born to be losers, I guess. (no offense to actual die-hard ME users- it *is* better than 98SE if you know what you are doing)

W95 will absolutely not run on a 286.

Yep! Since it uses 32-bit code along side 16-bit code in the kernel (and other files), it not gonna go on a 286...
In fact, DirectX 8.0a won't install without a Pentium-class CPU... Unless you short circuit the installer CPU detection code...
Then it worked without a problem on a 486 - Gotta love Microsoft!
I did not have a 386 at the time to test it.
For more information see: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/819696
Specifically this statement: "DirectX 8 and DirectX 9 do not support systems with 486-class processors." in the Prerequisites section.
While on the subject of DirectX, I recall that MS released DirectX 6.1 with a suite of updated video drivers similar to Windows 98 and then dropped them in 7...
So to get the new fast DirectX video drivers, 6.1 had to be installed and then 8.0a...

Go hardcore 95'ers! - I hung up my 95 hat when 98SE was released but don't feel bad - You're all part of the 9x family!

I do have a Windows 95 installed on a few computers. But, I had to move to windows 98 on every computer I'm using for Internet browsing. There are quite many portals using flash. Unfortunatelly, there are no proper flash player available for Windows 95. Older flash player versions are working quite well, but some Internet pages are not compatible with them. So, without a flash player 8 or 9 it is not possible to browse certain sites.

Check out this July 7 Bink.nu article titled "Why I Still Use Windows 95"
http://bink.nu/news/why-i-still-use-windows-95.aspx

looks like there are a few others out there still using Win95 OSR2 in today's world

And notice well, that after presenting his intelligent post---how he is attacked in the posts which follow, by the id*** lemmings--infected by the herd-mentality virus!!!

Hey, that's Andrew T.'s weblog post, reposted on Bink for some reason.

EDIT: Just read all the comments. Amazing how people can be so closed-minded.

I Have windows 95 but i dunno what rev it is unless i install it

So to sum up all the comments; “If you don’t spend $10,000 a year on new computers all your techie friends will laugh at you.” ….wow.

When I get the time I’m going to dig through all my old computer parts and build a Windows 95 machine. I miss using some of the lean software I still have for shopping and music mastering.

Are there any applications/utilities which run under Win95 but not under Win98SE?

I am using Win98SE/WinXP/DOS 6.22 via System Commander. Assuming I could find the hardware drivers, would there be any benefit in installing also Win95 as another opsys?

Does Win95 OSR2 already come with the proto-root kit which secretly stores browsing histories in the cloaked (=not visible & access denied) Index.dat files? http://support.it-mate.co.uk/?mode=Product...=index.datsuite

Unless you like busy work I wouldn't see the point of adding 95 to that mix. 98 is really just an updated version of 95, but with the Windows Desktop Update and Internet Explorer 4 (or 5 with 98SE) included and the usual ton of bug fixes. Perhaps some minor changes in what additional software came with it too.

If you've got 98SE then you've got the finest 9x system Microsoft built. It's compatible with all the Windows 3.1 (well, most) and certainly all the Windows 95 based software. It's even a better MS-DOS than 6.22 was so you really don't need that, but then you already have it so enjoy.

I think folks like 95 because they find Explorer without the installation of the Windows Desktop Update and Internet Explorer 4 to be speedier and less buggy. Simple, sometimes, is better.

If you're gonna have that thing connected to the internet, make sure you use something like the Unofficial Auto-Patcher for Windows 98SE or at least the Unofficial Service Pack so you have fixed versions and updated security bug and hole fixes, and if not using Auto-Patcher then get Maximus-Decim's Internet Explorer updater installed so IE 6 SP1's security holes are patched. You can be infected without ever opening Internet Explorer, no matter which browser you use, because it's integrated into Windows Explorer.

Nice to hear. By the way, old Windows 3.x (based on DOS 6) still has some value today, it is a private little Enigma machine, if you know the Farsi/Arabic alphabet: in the early 90's the code of Win 3.x was extensively hacked and 4-5 functioning versions were created with non-standard code pages. If under these non-standard versions of Win 3.x you save files with Farsi file/directory names, operating systems with a differing code page just get file error messages when trying to access these files/directories. A floppy with such files looks pretty much like a bad floppy, and to access these directories/files you need an opsys with the corresponding non-standard code page.
The Windows Explorer under Win98 is definitely weak. Under Win98 Beyond Compare can be used as a semi-replacement of Windows Explorer. Copying, moving and deleting files with Beyond Compare does not cause one-minute-system freezes http://www.msfn.org/board/98-FE-98-SP1-98-...fix-t84451.html Copying files under XP is about 2 times faster than under Win98.

So if the Windows 95 Explorer is the major benefit of having Win95, the combination of Beyond Compare under Win98 and Explorer under WinXP may make Win95 superfluous.

Thanks, but under Win98 I prefer to have security holes rather than MS updates after Setpember 2001, and under WinXP I have not set up an internet access

Yep, I'm user of Windows 95 too and I love this OS. It's even working from USB Mass Storage Device / USB Key . It's simple, fast, easy and undestroyable >:D with fixes. And I'm happy that I'm not the last one who still uses it

I still use these apps that do not work very well with 98se. They are ok with 98 if I patch few files from 95 into it. Digital Editor Plus, Cakewalk Pro 3.0 Samplitude Master 3.21, Micrographics Picture Publisher 4.0 (faster than any version of Photoshop), Aldus Photostyler (best digital airbrush ever made)

These are all simple fast tools that get the job done when I’m in a hurry.

Are these Win 3.x applications? It is a good idea to create a list of good Win95 applications which don't run well under Win98.

BTW, my single most-used and most-important software is a Win 3.x application: InfoSelect 3. It is a free-form personal information manager & contains my personal notes, computer installation & usage notes, diary, contacts, whatever one would write down on paper - of the last 18 years. I upgraded in 1995 from the DOS-version to v3. It works under Win95, 98, XP without installation, all personal notes in a single set of files & updatable/accessible at the tip of my fingers under various opsys, ideal for a multibooter.

I would give Infoselect 3 my personal rating "most useful software ever written" - even if it cannot be found anywhere anymore, not on eMule, nowhere. Other top software might have been forgotten & buried like Infoselect 3 - I appreciate comments like "Aldus Photostyler (best digital airbrush ever made)". I am a multibooter because I like to be able to continue using my old software, just as I like to be able to read old books. When M$ fanfares a new opsys, M$ basically says: "Now you can throw away all your old books" - not with me.

Happy to read it! I could not reach to say so much in so few words.

Greetings MSFN members,

I'm a long time lurker, but this thread has made me want to go back to Windows 95 to honor its 13th birthday! Why? Windows 95 comes from a much more simple time. No DRM (that I know of). A better interface. And that good ole dosage of the mid 90s. At this time I'm using a heavily tweaked Windows 2000 Pro (which, all the software installed, as far as I know, can be run on 95, alternatives can be found, or can be tweaked to run on 95). So, why not I ask?

Of course 95 aint the most stable OS around, but of all my time I used it (primary OS till 1999, then used here and there till I decided to reinstall it), I've seen only about 10 BSoDs. While, my NT boxes have (since 2003), have gone blue 4 times. If only Billy, I mean Balmer, would just re-release this as Windows 7 (with the NT kernel of course), or hell, add the good stuff from 2K, XP, and Vista into NT 4, call it Windows 7 and release it to make "Windows 7" the best
version of Windows, but ehh....

EDIT: The Windows 95 installation failed, plus several critical components do not have Windows 95 drivers, only WDM drivers that don't list 98/SE/ME as compatible OS'es. Guess I'll be sticking with 2000 for the forseeable future.

I agree, but they don't care your needs, only theirs.
Remember the old proverb: "The best for the hound is the worst for the hare".

Greetings.

Meh... if everyone switches to a non-Microsoft os, then they'd care. Hopefully that "cancer" Ballmer rambles on about (even though I prefer FreeBSD).

Reminds me of when I was reading a book about PCs and saw an article about games refusing to let you play on a 486 or a game installer refuses to continue on a 486. Well it was about the fiasco of Cyrix and/or AMD K5 processors not being officially supported by Windows 95 and with the mentioned processors, Windows 95 would report the processor being a 486 to programs.

Gotta love those days.