I have an OEM CD for Windows95 that I have thought of as a "95B" (OSR2) item, not sure I have a record of the original OEM authentication code, but in response to a thread mention of the 95 is Alive site, I stopped in there just now. Something piqued my curiosity.

The number of CDs for OSR2 was described there as having been only a "few", so perhaps I have something else. It did come with a new PC (a P1-55C / 233), and the headlined item is "USB Support". It dates from December, 1997, part number X03-52599.

I recently had a Dx4 486/100 PC running Win95 going here, and thought I might find a use for it, but I'm afraid it's a goner after a screwup I pulled. I'm not too sure any more if I should bother holding onto this Win95 CD, but perhaps if it was as special as the 95isAlive webmaster seems to think it is, that could affect my estimate of its retention value.

.

Kiwi

**

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Kiwi, Sounds like a 95C disc. Primary difference between the B version and C was C came with internet explorer 4. Explore the disc, and if it has I.E. 4 then it's a C version. B's are a dime a dozen, C's are more rare. Jack....


On Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 8:15 am, Kiwi wrote:
>I have an OEM CD for Windows95 that I have thought of as a "95B" (OSR2) item, not
>sure I have a record of the original OEM authentication code, but in response to
>a thread mention of the 95 is Alive site, I stopped in there just now. Something
>piqued my curiosity.
>

>The number of CDs for OSR2 was described there as having been only a "few", so perhaps
>I have something else. It did come with a new PC (a P1-55C / 233), and the headlined
>item is "USB Support". It dates from December, 1997, part number X03-52599.
>

>I recently had a Dx4 486/100 PC running Win95 going here, and thought I might find
>a use for it, but I'm afraid it's a goner after a screwup I pulled. I'm not too
>sure any more if I should bother holding onto this Win95 CD, but perhaps if it was
>as special as the 95isAlive webmaster seems to think it is, that could affect my
>estimate of its retention value.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Jack's got it.  Look in the WIN95 folder on the disk.
If you've got files with names like
ie4???.???
then you've got a "C" disk.  There are no
"ie????.???" files on a "B" disk -- Internet Explorer
was "integrated" right into the OS.

Remember Bill Gates telling the Justice Department
how important it was to have the browser intergrated
into the OS?

Jerry

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The label is "WIN95_OSR25" (I suppose I could've stuck the CD into the optical drive before mow, but I wasn't sure where the CD carrier/ sleeve for "The Witcher" was); there is an "IE4setup.exe, as well as a great many ie4 CABs, including ie4NT CABs.

I also have notes (digital) I saved from back then about how to use an OEM disk as if it were an Upgrade CD, but whether the OEM number (whatever it is, wherever it is) was going to work with that CD, I'm not sure was part of the procedure described. It's been a long time since I last installed Win95 on anything, and my memory isn't the capacious vault I once imagined it as!

Thank you.

.

Kiwi

**


On Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm, jack hall wrote:
>Kiwi,
>Sounds like a 95C disc. Primary difference between the B version and C was C came
>with internet explorer 4. Explore the disc, and if it has I.E. 4 then it's a C version.
>B's are a dime a dozen, C's are more rare.
>Jack....
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

It's not really integrated. It's just installed along with everything else. The system doesn't depend on it, unlike when you have installed IE4.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Shucks.  And I HEARD Bill tell those DOJ folks it HAD
to be "integrated."  Can I ever believe anything he
says again?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Kiwi, 2.5 is 95C. It will load 4.0 with the installation.


On the OEM version, the product code is all numerical. If you have trouble finding it, there is a proceedure for creating one, but can't be published here. If you need info on that, email me. Jack...


On Monday, December 24, 2007 at 12:22 am, Kiwi wrote:
>The label is "WIN95_OSR25" (I suppose I could've stuck the CD into the optical drive
>before mow, but I wasn't sure where the CD carrier/ sleeve for "The Witcher" was);
>there is an "IE4setup.exe, as well as a great many ie4 CABs, including ie4NT CABs.
>

>I also have notes (digital) I saved from back then about how to use an OEM disk as
>if it were an Upgrade CD, but whether the OEM number (whatever it is, wherever it
>is) was going to work with that CD, I'm not sure was part of the procedure described.
> It's been a long time since I last installed Win95 on anything, and my memory isn't
>the capacious vault I once imagined it as!
>

>Thank you.
>
>
>

.
>

>Kiwi
>

>**
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Kiwi, 2.5 is 95C. It will load 4.0 with the installation.

Nope, it will install IE3 along with the rest. After the installation, if the Windows 95 disc is still in the drive, it will install IE4 automatically.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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

**


On Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 1:39 am, Benoit wrote:
>

Kiwi, 2.5 is 95C. It will load 4.0 with the installation.

Nope, it will install IE3 along with the rest. After the installation, if the
>Windows 95 disc is still in the drive, it will install IE4 automatically.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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 going to Win98SE.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

You would probably better of going to Win98SE.

This is the Win95 forum. Stop polluting it with recommendations of Win98SE.

With Windows 95 you can have a stable Windows without Internet Explorer.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

On Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:17 am, Benoit wrote:
|This is the Win95 forum. Stop polluting it with recommendations of Win98SE.


Up yours Benoit. 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I have more versions of W98 on hand, true, but for what I might be doing with whichever of the oldies can be dragged somewhat closer to the present day, Win95 is much more suitable (and I do not use, nor want to use, IE, Outlook, etc.)

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

**

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I agree with Benoit. Don't know why anyone in their right mind would "upgrade" from 95 to 98SE, unless for the USB support - in which case why not go for ME? It's just as stable as 98SE and at least you get real USB capability.


On Thursday, December 27, 2007 at 5:17 am, Benoit wrote:
>

You would probably better of going to Win98SE.

This is the Win95 forum. Stop polluting it with recommendations of Win98SE.

With Windows 95 you can have a stable Windows without Internet Explorer.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

On Friday, December 28, 2007 at 2:41 am, Alan Masterman wrote:
|I agree with Benoit.  

I agree with Benoit. My only problem with him was

|This is the Win95 forum. Stop polluting it with recommendations of Win98SE.

This is a forum where you can talk about anything that is relevant.

|Don't know why anyone in their right mind would "upgrade" from 95 to 98SE,

I don't know anyone thin there right mind that would want to do an upgrade. A clean 
install of any OS is the only way to go.

What you have to bear in mind is if you read the spec of a lot of software or hardware 
is that it is only suitable for Win98SE or above. You will find that a lot of the 
newer software is only suitable for WinNT. 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

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

• Report abuse of the forum