Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
December 10, 2009 12:14:50 AM

Hi, what are the advantages and disadvantages to upgrade from windows 95 to windows XP?

More about : upgrade

December 10, 2009 6:25:56 PM

If you have a computer that is so old that Windows 95 was provided with it... do not even bother with upgrading... you'll be much better off buying a new PC. Anything that would have come with Windows 95 is much too slow to run XP.

XP has many advantages over 95... native USB support being the biggest. Not to mention support for larger hard drives, better video / gaming support, etc etc. Windows 95 also only supports IE 5.5... which will not work with a lot of webpages anymore... most require IE 6.0 or greater.
m
0
l
December 19, 2009 11:03:02 PM

Zoron said:
If you have a computer that is so old that Windows 95 was provided with it... do not even bother with upgrading... you'll be much better off buying a new PC. Anything that would have come with Windows 95 is much too slow to run XP.

XP has many advantages over 95... native USB support being the biggest. Not to mention support for larger hard drives, better video / gaming support, etc etc. Windows 95 also only supports IE 5.5... which will not work with a lot of webpages anymore... most require IE 6.0 or greater.

Thank you for response
m
0
l
Related resources
December 20, 2009 9:53:08 PM

"Larger hard drives" is false. W95's limit is 2TB like XP, provided the Bios or the driver (notably Intel Application Accelerator) allow it.
m
0
l
December 27, 2009 2:50:34 AM

So Windows 95 supports drives larger than 40GB? Are you ABSOLUTELY sure of that? Because MS didn't introduce 48-bit LBA addressing until Windows XP Service Pack 2. Sure, you could probably use a drive overlay... but a computer so old that it came with 95 certainly wouldn't have a BIOS capable of supporting larger drives... let alone the OS itself. (Of course an overlay would again work... but I'm referring to NATIVE support, not 3rd party support).

Not to mention that FAT32 is also a limiting factor...
m
0
l
December 30, 2009 4:03:03 PM

Zoron, I'm sure, yes. Because I tried it by myself.

- Fat32 goes to many terabytes. Xp limits its creation to 32GiB.
- An Overlay needs no Bios capability. That's its purpose.
- Lba48 overrides the 128GiB limit, no relation with 40GB.
- Win 95-98-Me have NO Lba28/Lba48 limit. It appeared with W2k.
- Win 95-98-Me have a 32 bit limit to Lba, just like W2k-Xp-2k3.
- I ran W95b on 160GB, it was stable, even after writing on the whole disk.

Zoron, everything you write refers to Xp and successors, so why do you write again and again in the W95-98-Me forum?
m
0
l
December 31, 2009 5:08:41 PM

Ok... first you say there was no limit, then in your next point you say there was a limit... which is it?

As I said, I was referring to native support, no drive overlays or any other workarounds. A computer that is old enough to have come with Windows 95 won't support large hard drives natively. You cannot argue that point, no matter how much you'd like to try.

Quote:
The FAT 32 Limitation (124.55 GiB / 127.53)

Although many of the limitations imposed by the FAT 32 file system are outlined above, this particular limitation is actually imposed by one of the disk tools included with Microsoft Windows® 95, 98 and Windows® Millennium Edition.

The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB).
There are no fixes or work-arounds for this issue!


As for referring to XP, did you not read the OP's question? He asked about upgrading to XP. So of course I have to refer to XP to answer his question. Quit trying to turn this thread into an argument over semantics. Windows 95 is all but useless as an operating system nowadays... but I still do try to offer help to any that might still be using it. I always recommend that they get something newer if they can; especially if they're going to be on the internet.
m
0
l
February 5, 2010 3:55:17 AM

Funny, I would have reccommended they get Win98/98SE/ME/2000 as it would run faster than XP on older hardware and has native USB support. If a Mass Storage Drive (USB Flash Drive or USB Hard Disk) is the goal, I suggest WinME/2000 I don't know very many reasons to go to XP/Vista unless you have a program that requires it. Even then there are always alternatives worth considering...

Retro computing enthusiast's motto:
Don't chuck it unless you let the magic smoke out...

BadAlias
m
0
l
February 5, 2010 8:18:04 PM

A computer running Windows 95 would likely have issues with Win 2K as well... Win ME is something I'd NEVER recommend to ANYONE. If the computer came with Windows 95, then it's just not worth the effort to upgrade it to run Win 2K or XP (since it would need to be upgraded, if it hasn't already). Posting the specs of the computer would give us a better idea as to what to recommend.

I have nothing against people that want to run really old hardware... I just don't like fixing it. It is almost impossible to get some of the components that these computers use.
m
0
l
February 6, 2010 4:47:19 AM

I feel that my OS suggestions are far more affordable if they are looking for a low budget update than replacing a system... They should work fine unless they have really old hardware from the early days of Win95. Even then there are minor upgrades and tweaks that work wonders...

WinME actually works pretty well on older hardware. And from what I've seen & heard, if 2K is unstable then ME will work well, and vise-versa...

Finding old hardware is easy, just look on ebay or take a stroll behind your local independent PC shop on garbage day... It's also far less expensive to maintain if you're not paying someone else to do it... (If you're paying someone else to do it, keep a bit more up to date...)

If you can't hack it in the "old" pool, don't pressure those that can to get out...

BadAlias
m
0
l
February 6, 2010 7:35:52 PM

I can "hack" it just fine. I'm just one that believes in a progress. Working for a business, I need a reliable source of parts, and I don't consider eBay reliable enough to trust it for my customer's needs. Now if they want to go ahead and order the part from eBay, then that's completely up to them. If it were for my own personal systems I wouldn't mind either... but I'm referring to systems that customers bring into the business.

Add to that the old stuff is not covered by any sort of warranty and if anything goes wrong (which it will), then you're out whatever you spent plus you have the need to replace it yet again. Sure a hard drive for $10 sounds great... but not if you have to replace it more than once or twice. At least if you buy new, you have the opportunity to get 3 years worth of warranty and not have to worry if something does happen to die before it should. Used hardware is going to fail that much more quickly.

Windows ME was a horrible OS. I have yet encountered anyone that had it running flawlessly. Win 2K was much more reliable... but the system requirements are a little steeper. A Pentium II or III with 512MB of RAM would be my recommendation.

If you have a lot of spare time on your hands, then by all means go and hunt for the old stuff. Not all of us have the time we'd like to tinker around with old especially since we have to keep up with the new.
m
0
l
February 6, 2010 11:13:54 PM

Yeah, I didn't mean to start a post war... I merely meant to say that those that can do with old hardware / software shouldn't be pressured to upgrade when they don't need to.
m
0
l
February 7, 2010 8:52:00 PM

I can agree with that... if what you have does what you need and does it as fast as you like it, then you shouldn't feel any pressure to upgrade. Personally, I like the latest and greatest, but I do realize it's not for everyone.
m
0
l
March 11, 2010 2:32:48 AM

Go for it but you will miss old 95!
For you would have too upgrade your Hard Drive and Ram too!
to 10gb Hard Drive 20gb and up is best 124 mb of Ram 1gb is Best!
You Can buy a Old XP for $100 up to a new one for $300
and Network it to that Old win98 would be the best way to go << Hmm
m
0
l
March 11, 2010 2:00:07 PM

Ok, I really feel people have a misconception as to what the requirements for XP are, so I looked them up...

(quoted from a "Windows XP Quick Reference" thingy I got in a store when XP was the latest thing...)

Quote:
System Requirements
To use Microsoft Windows XP, you need:

- PC with 300 MHz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel(R) Pentium(R)/Celeron(TM) family, or AMD K6(R)/Athlon(TM)/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
- 128 MB of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
-1.5 GB of available hard disk space*
- Super VGA (800 X 600) or higher resolution video adapter and monitor
- CD-ROM or DVD drive
- Keyboard
- Microsoft Mouse or other compatible pointing device

Additional items or services may be required to use certain Windows XP features

* Actual requirements will vary based on your system configuration and the applications and features you choose to install. Additional available hard-disk space may be required if you are installing over a network. For more information, please see www.microsoft.com/windowsxp.

"Windows XP Quick Reference" (C)2002 Microsoft Corporation...

Notes:

1) In personal experience, M$ generrally over-estimates their own requirements, but I don't have specifics here, YMMV.

2) From personal experience, I know that it can be run in 640X480 resolution if need be (That's what Safe-Mode uses)

3) Where it says that 1.5GB of hard drive space is required, I'm not sure if that includes the old 25% extra for a swap file, etc rule of thumb that I've never actually tested to confirm or seen listed on the M$ website (I've never looked) but even so that's only 2GB... Far more likely to come by in an old system like that... (If you have to buy a new hard drive, then you will get bigger for less (more GB per $) with a brand new drive, but then you're likely looking at a new system to run a brand new drive...)

4) From what I've read, (Sorry, no specifics here either) WinFLP has similar (only slightly lower) requirements to WinXP, you may find it's only beneficial if it won't run XP but it's close...

5) Compatibility is an over-rated b**ch!
m
0
l
March 11, 2010 2:11:58 PM

I still say go for WinME or Win2K...
m
0
l
March 11, 2010 8:50:37 PM

Win 2K is a good suggestion... stay far away from ME.

I still like Win 2K... might not be as "fancy" as XP / Vista / 7, but for me it was a good, solid OS. I've developed a real distaste for anything based on the 9x kernel; not to mention FAT32 vs. NTFS.
m
0
l
!