• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Hoko

Several Win 95 Questions

122 posts in this topic

I'm trying to get Windows 95 up and running and looking for updates that will provide internet security. Does anyone know where I can download the Win 95 service packs?

I'm not sure which version I have, it's the OEM CD with usb support if that helps. Was also wondering if there's a fix to make Firefox work with Win 95

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Win95 "B" and Win95 "C" both had USB Support.

"B" (2.0) has no USB files at all and are (were) downloadable from MS.

"B" (2.1) has "DRIVERS\USB\ENDUSER\USBSUPP.EXE".

"C" (2.5) has "OTHER\UPDATES\USB\OEMUSB.EXE" + "USBSUPP.EXE" + "USBUPD2.EXE".

This doesn't provide any "unofficial" Service Packs but provides a link to overcome CPU Limit. However, if you go here and scroll down you'll find a couple of "unofficial" ones. The MSFN Topic is here. Get the actual file from the first link and if it doesn't work, scroll down on the second link and click into the Website for other links. Note that there ARE several Win95 topics of value in this Subforum.

edit - forgot to mention this Topic which specifically names Hotfixes. I believe IE5.5 SP2 is the last IE usable on Win95. Not sure about other Browsers. Also check out this Topic.

edit2 - Outpost Firewall v1 FREE (the second link) -

http://outpost-firewall-free.softpile.com/45412/download/

Google

"blockpost_2002_08_08.exe"

for an Add-On Blocking facility.

edit3 - for that eMachines, you'll have a dickens of a time finding the Drivers. I have them. It's a Trigem/Anaheim MoBo. http://www.elhvb.com/mboards/TriGem/

ULP!!! May be wrong - it COULD be a "Freeman" - Brother had one EXACTLY like it and I have all of the Gateway Docs and Drivers for it too. Check the MoBo for an "identifier".

KRAP - "Florida" MoBo...

HTH

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erpdude8's Unofficial Service Pack is incompatible with my FIX95CPU update. Installing it on a FIX95CPU system will render the system unbootable.

You will have to choose which update you want or need most. If you need FIX95CPU, then you can't use the USP as well. If you don't need FIX95CPU, then you can opt for the USP instead.

The Microsoft USB Support updates have been superseded by this. XUSBSUPP.ZIP - 901.0 Kb

This package installs every official updated file pertaining to USB under 95. Do NOT mix it with the original Microsoft ones. (And probably should NOT mix it with the USP either... :} )

Firefox - first be sure to install WINSOCK2 and any other update packages you wish to install. Then:

Firefox 1.5.0.12 runs natively on Windows 95.

Firefox 2.0.0.20 can be made to run on 95 by doing the following:

Download and run the 2.0.0.20 installer.

Select custom install.

Choose NOT to install the DOM Inspector and the Quality Feedback Agent.

When Setup completes, do NOT launch Firefox.

Find the following files and DELETE them: "nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js"

Now run Firefox.

(These instructions are taken from this original thread, but the OP there takes many unnecessary steps.)

EDIT:

See this also. YouTube with Flash 7/Win95

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit3 - for that eMachines, you'll have a dickens of a time finding the Drivers. I have them. It's a Trigem/Anaheim MoBo. http://www.elhvb.com/mboards/TriGem/

ULP!!! May be wrong - it COULD be a "Freeman" - Brother had one EXACTLY like it and I have all of the Gateway Docs and Drivers for it too. Check the MoBo for an "identifier".

KRAP - "Florida" MoBo...

HTH

Thanks for all that info, it may take me a while to process that. :)

I did find the version of 95 I have. I looked on the system properties window and it says 4.00.950 C. So it's 95C.

Man, you are right about the motherboard drivers. Original driver disks are worth their weight in gold.

I didn't see any markings on the motherboard to suggest who the maker was. Here are a few pics of it, maybe you can tell.

001_zpsaeed932f.jpg

006-1_zps629f715b.jpg

005-1_zpse7aca90d.jpg

007-1_zps3931ae78.jpg

008_zps5e493258.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an excellent site for older eMachines. You just needed the Model number like Txxxx and you could get lots of good stuff from original specs, drivers and modified BIOS and such. I did a few. The site was www.e4allupgraders.info but don't click it because it now is a parking page.

Instead I checked Wayback ( for one year ago ).

Wayback ... The main page here

Wayback ... Drill down to Model Series ... here

Wayback ... Using "T" Model ... here

Wayback ... Using T3065 ( one of mine ) shows the FIC AU31 (K7M-NF18G) motherboard here

Wayback ... clicking downloads in that page shows the live offsite links for BIOS and mods here

... etc. So there is still hope! :thumbup

I looked upthread but your series and model number don't seem to be listed, unless I missed it.

EDIT: the most recent snapshot seems to be April 23, 2012. See here.. Changed "offsite", the links were local to the archived site after all and most of the files did not make it.

Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Run CPU-Z v. 1.53 (or v. 1.47), and let's see what it says.

I'm not certain those versions work under 95. I haven't tested them (or if I did I don't remember) but I used v1.32.1 in this post and I believe I was using the last 95-compatible version at that time... :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By following CharlotteTheHarlot's links (nice! :thumbup ), here's it: Trigem Florida-TG/TGA Mainboard

@LoneCrusader: if you scroll down the link I gave for 1.47, you'll find most other older versions there, including, of course, 1.32.1...

If you have some spare time, you might find out which actually is the last version that supports 95c. I know 1.47 works OK with 98SE, because it's the one I use in it, although 1.53 is said to be the last one for 98 (or 9x/ME ?).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LoneCrusader: if you scroll down the link I gave for 1.47, you'll find most other older versions there, including, of course, 1.32.1...

If you have some spare time, you might find out which actually is the last version that supports 95c. I know 1.47 works OK with 98SE, because it's the one I use in it, although 1.53 is said to be the last one for 98 (or 9x/ME ?).

According to the CPUID Version History page, a 1.57 exists for 98. Versions after this have no 9x listings or comments...

I clicked on some of the other builds linked on your link at OldVersion.com. Version 1.32.0 is listed working on 95 there. Version 1.33 is listed as NOT working on 95.

So, given the only build between these is 1.32.1, and I have used that one on 95 myself, it would seem to support that version being the last one working on 95. Further experiments should be made, but 1.32.1 is a good place to start and should work for identifying the OP's machine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I change my advice to v 1.32.1, then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By following CharlotteTheHarlot's links (nice! :thumbup ), here's it: Trigem Florida-TG/TGA Mainboard

It turns out that the files are not offsite like I assumed. They were in fact onsite but after a certain size were not archived by Wayback. :realmad: I just went through his motherboard and got these results ...

  • CPU (html)
  • Jumpers (html)
  • End-User Tips (html)
  • Downloads (html)
  • BIOS v1.80 Binary (exe), Readme (text)
  • BIOS v2.00 Binary (exe), Readme (text)
  • AUDIO: CS4280 ... for Win98SE/ME/2K (PW3041.zip not archived), for Win2K (PW3022R.zip not archived)
  • AUDIO: CS4281 ... for Win98SE/ME/2K (PW5026.zip not archived), for Win2K (PW5015C.zip not archived)
  • VIDEO: ATI 3D Rage Pro Turbo v4.13.2655 ... for Win95b/98/ME (wme-j5-30-1-b02.exe not archived)
  • VIDEO: ATI 3D Rage Pro Turbo v5.0.2195.5013 ... for Win2k (w2k-j5-30-1-b02.exe not archived)
  • VIDEO: ATI 3D Rage Pro Turbo v5.10.2600.6010 ... for WinXP (wxp-j5-30-1-b02.exe not archived)
  • Motherboard Manual ... version TG (Florida-TG.zip not archived), version TGA (Florida_TGA.zip not archived)

So only the BIOS binaries are stored at Wayback. However those filenames may yield some results in Google and elsewhere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the CPUID Version History page, a 1.57 exists for 98. Versions after this have no 9x listings or comments...

Yes, this is true.

At around v1.50 some bugs started appearing in Win9x and I was in contact with him at the time. I can't remember what the specific issue was, but I imagine it was compiler related like System Internals utilities. Here is what I have saved ...

2009-02-13 ... 19:56 ... 1,527,808 ... Cpuz.exe_1500

2009-04-28 ... 14:28 ... 1,564,672 ... Cpuz.exe_1510

2009-07-25 ... 11:56 ... 1,739,240 ... Cpuz.exe_1521_xp

2009-08-25 ... 16:29 ... 1,718,760 ... Cpuz.exe_1522_9x <---

2009-12-19 ... 15:45 ... 1,759,720 ... Cpuz.exe_1530_9x <---

2009-12-19 ... 15:35 ... 1,788,392 ... Cpuz.exe_1530_xp

2010-03-30 ... 23:45 ... 1,849,832 ... Cpuz.exe_1540_9x <---

2010-03-30 ... 23:42 ... 1,886,696 ... Cpuz.exe_1540_xp

2010-07-09 ... 14:34 ... 1,878,504 ... Cpuz.exe_1550_9x <---

2010-07-09 ... 14:30 ... 1,915,368 ... Cpuz.exe_1550_xp

2010-10-26 ... 23:46 ... 1,964,520 ... Cpuz.exe_1560_9x <---

2010-10-26 ... 23:39 ... 1,997,288 ... Cpuz.exe_1560_xp

2011-02-18 ... 16:03 ... 2,091,496 ... Cpuz.exe_1570_9x <--- this one he still distributes as Cpuz9x

2011-02-18 ... 15:57 ... 2,128,360 ... Cpuz.exe_1570_xp

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, jaclaz for helping out. I already gave the "elhvb" link but it must have not gotten noticed. :unsure: I have used that site a LOT before! ;)

side note (edit) - had a bit of a problem with posting/editing. I MEANT to specify "Florida-TG" so thanks for expanding on it with specifics, all. I had already gotten the correct manual.

BTW, yep I have all of the drivers. Pretty much the same as an eTower "533ID". I'm unsure if you'll need Chipset Driver(s) or if they're included in the Win95.

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest we wait for Hoko to get back to us before going any further? :unsure::angel

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the OP would be wanting to "get win-95 running" on this particular machine vs win-98 (he could explain that if he wants) but I'd like to know, in a general sense, what advantages there would be for system tweakers like ourselves in running win-95 vs win-98, given that either OS was leveraged to the max with any available files and settings from all sources.

Is there a case that can be made that if you are going to run win-9x/me on a given (older) system, and if maximum usability and stability are your goals, that win-95 can meet that goal better than (or even equal to) win-98 or ME?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can make a case even for CP/M-86, if one tries hard and long enough...

In any case, besides the posts by LoneCrusader, who's participaring in this thread already, you should search for and read patiently most posts by BenoitRen, to give yourself a good picture of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why the OP would be wanting to "get win-95 running" on this particular machine vs win-98 (he could explain that if he wants) but I'd like to know, in a general sense, what advantages there would be for system tweakers like ourselves in running win-95 vs win-98, given that either OS was leveraged to the max with any available files and settings from all sources.

Is there a case that can be made that if you are going to run win-9x/me on a given (older) system, and if maximum usability and stability are your goals, that win-95 can meet that goal better than (or even equal to) win-98 or ME?

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does? :huh:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does?

There's a lot about the technical differences between win-95 and win-98 that I don't know. Technical differences that have an impact on usability and stability. I would be eager to learn about perhaps the most important of these differences so that I (and perhaps others) would have a basis to switch over from win-98 to win-95 during a future OS re-installation. (I do not mean to question the subjective feelings that people may have for one OS or another).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only "case" that needs to be made is the preference of the user. You don't know why the OP wants do do it... I don't know why you would care if he does?

There's a lot about the technical differences between win-95 and win-98 that I don't know. Technical differences that have an impact on usability and stability. I would be eager to learn about perhaps the most important of these differences so that I (and perhaps others) would have a basis to switch over from win-98 to win-95 during a future OS re-installation. (I do not mean to question the subjective feelings that people may have for one OS or another).

Besides the posts by LoneCrusader, most posts by BenoitRen, and also those by Andrew T., together with some posts by erpdude8 and a few by RLoew are all you need to read, to form your own opinion. The materials are there, it's just a matter of taking a deep breath and plunging into them. As you progress along that material, you might as well open a new thread, in order to discuss those tech aspects you're interested into.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot about the technical differences between win-95 and win-98 that I don't know. Technical differences that have an impact on usability and stability. I would be eager to learn about perhaps the most important of these differences so that I (and perhaps others) would have a basis to switch over from win-98 to win-95 during a future OS re-installation. (I do not mean to question the subjective feelings that people may have for one OS or another).

OK, fair enough.

I'll make a few short points below, but despite the technical aspects, this really is a "subjective" issue based on the preference of the user.

My personal affinity for Windows 95 comes from my early computer experiences. I never used 95 RTM / 95A, so my first experience with 95 was OSR2.x, which is essentially a whole new version unto itself, without the bugs of 95RTM. I had a 95OSR2.x machine that never gave me problems and ran everything I threw at it. A friend of mine had a 98FE computer that was a pile of junk and was crashing constantly. Because of this, and because I eventually used 98FE for a short time, I came to dislike Windows 98. Keep in mind that this was based on experiences with 98FE, and the fact that 98 was somewhat slower that 95 on the hardware of that period. I eventually encountered the 2.1GHz bug on a new system I wanted to build (and didn't know how to fix it at the time), and this, combined with the fact I could not run WarCraft III on 95, forced me to step up to 98SE.

Since then I have come to appreciate 98SE. It is more stable than 98FE (in the same vein as 95OSR2.x fixed the problems with 95RTM) and as such I find it an acceptable replacement for 95 OSR2.x for most of the things I use my computer for. I do devote a fair amount of time to working with 95, but this is because I was forced to abandon it unwillingly, and out of a sheer determination to use it because the "mainstream" says I shouldn't. I've been quite the 95-diehard for most of my time though. I actually refused to purchase or use ANY USB device WHATSOEVER until sometime in 2009, simply because the devices did not support Windows 95. :lol:

Other users here have different reasons for preferring 95. Many of the 95'ers hate the Windows 98 / Desktop Update shell. I prefer it myself; however I always run very powerful hardware for 9x, so I am never bugged by its supposed "sluggishness."

Now for a few quick technical points. You will have to follow dencorso's advice and do some digging if you need more than this.

-Windows 95 OSR2.x is faster than 98 & up and can do MOST but not ALL of the things 98SE can do.

-Windows 95 OSR2.x USB Support is almost nonexistent and USB2 Support is not available. Firewire/1394 is not supported either.

-Windows 98SE is supported longer on "newer" hardware; and is capable of "better" supporting "even newer" hardware that does NOT support 9x.

-Windows 98/98SE/ME are supported under KernelEx & the Revolutions Pack where 95 is not. This is a factor if you want to run newer programs.

-Most of the unofficial bug fixes found here for 98 & up have been ported to 95 in some form, so they are fairly equal in this respect.

-RLoew has added 95 support in some form to almost all of his various patches, including but not limited to the RAM, 48-Bit LBA, and SATA patches.

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok sorry I havent shown up past few days been very busy. Thanks very much to all of you for the outstanding help. That is awesome that you all could track down those drivers. I downloaded all of them but I've run into a problem. The motherboard video drivers need Direct X 8.1 to work and from what I've seen, Win 95 cannot use anything past Direct X 8.0. I hope I'm wrong about this. Is there a way to deal with this? As for why I want to use Win 95, it has always been my favorite OS and I dont really care how much more difficult it may be to get it going, Its worth it to me.Thank you, The help on this forum is outstanding. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to hear from you again Hoko! :hello:

And to see you're going for 95 precisely for the best of all the reasons, that's great! :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The motherboard video drivers need Direct X 8.1 to work and from what I've seen, Win 95 cannot use anything past Direct X 8.0. I hope I'm wrong about this. Is there a way to deal with this?

Do you actually get an error when you try to install them, or does it just say that in the documentation somewhere?

If the documentation just makes this claim, I would try installing them anyway. I highly doubt that there is enough difference between DirectX 8.0a and 8.1 to keep a driver from working...

If you do get some kind of error, see if there are any earlier versions of the video drivers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.