Keith Stanier wrote:
>Yes Jerry is right.
>
>I have Win95 B and C. The CD labels are
>
>B) W95_full_ar with a build date of 1 May 97
>
>C) Win95_OSR25 with a build date of 26 November 97
>
>The C has the IE4 setup.
>
>You would probably better of{"F"} going to Win98SE.

I already decided against Win98 for now, as per the quoted comment:


On Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 10:01 pm, Kiwi wrote:
>I have had a couple of quite old (in PC terms, anyway) systems on hand for awhile
>that still worked when I put them in a corner of storage area. I just might have
>a use for one or the other of them (not really sure). One is a Dx4 486 / 100 MHz
>machine from the early ISA to PCI changeover period (Socket 3), and the other is
>a slightly later model, Socket 7, that has an AGP1 video bus.
>

>Both last used Win95 as their primary OS. One has a 540 MB Hdd and 72-pin SIMM memory.
> The other has an 850 MB Hdd and 168 pin DIMM memory, max 128 MBs each, "Low Density"
>RAM (I have a range of possible CPUs for that one, from 120 MHz on up to 350, from
>AMD, Cyrix, and Intel).
>

>I'm pretty sure that whichever one I go with, I will want a newer Hdd than what these
>two started with. The oldest requires an AT power supply, and so far, I haven't
>had it working in a newer, AT/ATX case I moved it into (switch problems). I only
>have one potential CPU option other than the Dx4, and that is a "586" K5 processor,
>which I believe is 133 MHz, about which I have no "OK - not OK" recollection any
>more. Whichever works reasonably well, I'll put a fresh Win95 install on it, I think.
>
>

.

Kiwi

**

Written in response to: re: Identifying the OSR2 version of W95 (Keith Stanier: Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 4:31 am) There are presently no replies to this message.

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum