Windows 95 not recognizing keyboard and mouse

have you tried other keyboards? have you tried to plug the keyboard and mouse in different ports? are you sure that your keyboard and mouse work?also im pretty sure windows 95 probably came with mouse and keyboard drivers but do you think that could be the issue?

Trying alternate mice / KB is a tough option as USB arrived in the mid / late 90s and just about everything since has USB plugs. Few folks will have spare 15 - 18 year old keyboards around. I have some old stuff in my junk box that's going on 20 years old bit even those have more modern plugs.

Perhaps an adapter will work for you

Good ol' 95. Probably 32 or 64MB of RAM, 28.8 or 33.6 modem, 1 or 2GB HDD, 2MB GPU. I feel old now, used to play around with Win95 PCs(still use a DOS and Win 3.1 PC at work on old machines).

Looks like a standard Serial port mouse...
1. You may be able to connect a PS/2 mouse and keyboard, with a Serial Port to a dual PS/2 adapter, and a PS2 splitter (1 ps2 to 2 ps2) for both keyboard and mouse.

2. Another option is a PCI to PS/2 card if the motherboard has PCI expansion slots.

3. One more option may be a 5-pin din to ps2 converter...
USB may be out of the question as the motherboard BIOS may not have the capability to recognize USB.

a) Serial Port Mouse
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Serial-Port-Mouse-New-/252057380682

b) Serial Port to PS/2 adapter/converter
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=serial+port+to+ps2+keyboard+adapter&biw=1131&bih=771&tbm=isch&imgil=uO1J5HwAqmcmbM%253A%253Bg_BCY6EKribPvM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.ebay.com%25252Fbhp%25252Fserial-port-mouse&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uO1J5HwAqmcmbM%253A%252Cg_BCY6EKribPvM%252C_&usg=__5SmqVCfh9rpgJ7-zz4_GJgnITCA%3D&ved=0CEAQyjdqFQoTCLG4otnx4McCFVIsiAod2eABoA&ei=WGXrVbGsGtLYoATZwYeACg#imgrc=uO1J5HwAqmcmbM%3A&usg=__5SmqVCfh9rpgJ7-zz4_GJgnITCA%3D

c) ps2 splitter (2 ps2 to 1 ps2 port)
http://www.amazon.com/StarTech-Keyboard-Splitter-Adapter-KYC1MF/dp/B000067SLZ

d) 5-pin din to ps2 converter
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=5-pin+din+to+ps2+converter&biw=1131&bih=771&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCwQsARqFQoTCN7F59L04McCFVM0iAodJf0B1g

I still have some old Wang 8088 processors that ran on DOS 3.1 w/ 5.25 floppies. Used one of hem until about 5 years ago. We did the structural design for a nationwide greenhouse / solar room manufacturer on them. We had several laptops that came with both Win95 / W4WGs, one still working, and also had a few desktops we tried both. Because Windows 95 was 40% slower than W4WGs we never deployed it at the office or home and went right from W4WGs to NT4.

I have library a database on the W4WGs box that I open up anytime I feel like re-reading or someone wants to borrow a book.

I'm sure 95 would have been a resource hog compared to W4WG. Would be interesting to see this generation interact w/ older PCs like this. Haven't had to use a 5.25 floppy for awhile. Still have a 3.5 98 boot disk around somewhere though.

The release of Win95 forever clouded my perception of media hype. Each year, I would anxiously await PC magazine's PC Roundup issue which typically tested 100 or so PCs. These things literally made and broke vendors in the day. I was shocked to see two things:

1. One-third of the systems submitted had W4WGs, two-thirds had Win95 ... with all MS spend marketing the "latest and greatest" and all the trade mag articles about the blazing performance we could expect, I couldn't figure why in the world any vendor would submit the slow cumbersome "old thing".

2. When I read it, there was a part about that say Comtrade had submitted 5 builds for example and then when I got to the tables, there was only 2 machines ... ?? ... as I was reading the article, turned the page and it was gone ... where was the rest of the article ? Turned a few more pages, went abck to last page and viewed the small print at bottom right of page and it said that the article continued 100 paged later !

Now why would they do that ? Was a real PITA looking at the table on page 196 and then flipping back to 96 to make line by line comparisons. But after dong so, the benchmark scores were wildly different. The article would spend like a page and a half on the 4.5% advantage that SCI drives had over IDE and that the ones with Mushkin / Micron memory were x % faster .... but a 40% difference between benchmarks on identical machines and not a word ?????

It's simple fact of publishing made even more important today than it was then. Your standing in the train station looking for something to read on the daily commute home. You see a magazine with the headline:'

"Win95 has absolutely nothing to offer... 40% slower" and you think, well I won't learn anything reading that, the headline told me all I need to know". Not only does that magazine not fly off the shelves, but after months of press releases repackaged as news articles, spouting how all the new and wonderful stuff will make our lives better, they kinda put a big hit on their own journalistic integrity.

InfoWorld was the only one who covered this and follow up articles reported that corporate america had invested from $2500 to $4500 per box in hardware upgrades, training, downtime ... only to find that their systems were slower than they were before. Lotta IT chiefs were out on their you know what after that. And us geeky types wonder why business is slow to move to the latest and greatest ... cause those in charge better show a positive ROI on their investment or they are shown the door.

Very interesting read, JackNaylorPE. Didn't know the history at the time, only 12yo at Win95 release. Your right about the marketing/ads. They have to put a positive spin on it(Vista anyone?). It was a terribly slow OS to install and run on a machine originally equipped w/ XP. No wonder everyone "held on" to XP.