I finally upgraded my 486 from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95. Did I make a mistake? (486DX4-100, 32MB RAM, 500MB HDD, ATI Mach64, SB 16)
Posted by Big-Perrito@reddit | retrobattlestations | View on Reddit | 60 comments
sneekeruk@reddit
With a bit of hackery and a few patches, you can run win3.11 from win95's dos 7. That way you get the best of both worlds. I'm doing the same with a p233mmx and win3.11 runs fine, I've even got my nvidia quadro 280 (basically a pci geforce 5200) working under 3.11.
JimJohnJimmm@reddit
I dual boot my machine, so i can still use both 3.11 and 95
jrubin6502@reddit
Windows 95 was the reason I switched to Linux
glwillia@reddit
same, in 1995. i used slackware, and eventually ran it dual-booted with NT4
Then-Bookkeeper-3754@reddit
What you guys are talking about? Looks like you are talking about Slackware in the past tense. LOL I switched to Slackware in 95 and am Still in Slackware till now…
Big-Perrito@reddit (OP)
What did you run in 1995? Slackware?
jrubin6502@reddit
Yup, Slackware
windows98seuser@reddit
Probably. I installed Slackware on a machine with these specs a few months ago. Pure torture :D
Big-Perrito@reddit (OP)
We may have reached 'the year of the linux desktop' these days with our polished distros like Mint, but in 1995... the only people trying to daily drive linux were masochists.
zPacKRat@reddit
That's a fact, I remember running slack in 97 or 98, hey let's compile that app, wait let's sort out the dependencies. Fuc this is a pain to WOW it works.
1967427@reddit
95 rocked. Linux absolutely stunk back then.
GonWaki@reddit
Put OS/2 on it!
Most-Row7804@reddit
I really could use this machine right now to recover my locked Zip discs since modern windows does not load the Zip utilities software and I can’t unlock the zip discs. 😑
AustriaModerator@reddit
w95 uses the dx4 better than 3.1. in my opinion, its the better choice from 100mhz and 32mb ram onwards.
Super_Stable1193@reddit
Can't remember the 80486 did do something with the GPU(acceleration).
It was always the CPU that bottleneck's
AustriaModerator@reddit
how is your comment related to mine?
DAN-attag@reddit
That person probably thought that DX4 is about DirectX 4 but not about 486-DX4
TheGillos@reddit
Windows 95 is the way to go.
dtekle_54065@reddit
Yes, time to play the Windows 95 song: Link - Youtube
TheGillos@reddit
Haha, how dare you!
You must be a Mac.
dtekle_54065@reddit
If you enjoyed the song, you will LOVE the Winsongs 95 and I think we're clone now! ;-)
johncate73@reddit
Win95 will work just fine on a DX4-100 with that much RAM. If you decide you preferred Win 3.11, you can always go back.
WingedGundark@reddit
I don’t think it is a mistake, because those faster 486 CPUs were marketed as the budget option for Pentiums and providing capabilites to run Win95. However, I don’t see much point in it. Performance is just about adequate on some very basic desktop applications, but for many windows games 486s are woefully underpowered. In early Win9x era most games were still released for DOS and considering the limitations of the 486 hardware, win95 is quite unnecessary bloat IMO.
My fastest 486 currently is AMD 486-120, 256kB cache, S3Trio64V2 PCI graphics card and I haven’t even considered installing win9x on it. But do as you like and if you find it useful, then good for you.
Xiardark@reddit
I agree with you. I tried Diablo 1 on a dual boot 100Mhz 486 with 32MB RAM, but it was slow even for that era. I admit I don’t have more than 16k cache as I haven’t looked up the chips for it.
StarCraft 1 also runs a bit slow. Plain 95? Not bad.
r0bertaMuld00n@reddit
Upgraded? Next time install System Commander 2000 and run both
FunkyFarmington@reddit
Oooh, look at mister moneybags over here...
My gawd. Back in the day this was my dream system.
Super_Stable1193@reddit
With 32mb ram W95 is better, W3.11 goes to max 16mb.
Top_Investment_4599@reddit
Yeah. It's functionally better. As long as you keep your 3.11 installs and drivers around, it's great.
gudatcomputers@reddit
I ran it on DX2 66 with 8MB and a 1MB Cirrus Logic GPU. it was fine
T1m3Wizard@reddit
That's a beautiful sealed windows 95 box right there.
robvas@reddit
Run both!
Also if someone breaks in your house you can hit them with that Office box and kill them
VivienM7@reddit
I miss the days when there was a 900 page manual for software you could actually read…
kY2iB3yH0mN8wI2h@reddit
huh?
FireZoneBlitz@reddit
I had a DX4-100 back in the day that came with 3.11 and I upgraded to 95. Ran perfectly.
Lumornys@reddit
It was part of original experience, so now you know how it feels to upgrade Windows 3.11 to 95 ;)
You can always dual boot, one way or another…
glwillia@reddit
absolutely not. 95 is better than 3.1 in every way, and i’d only recommend 3.1 on a 386 or on a machine with less than 8MB.
arpeas@reddit
Oh hey, I have the same case but slightly taller and with a 3rd 5,25 inch bay. Do you perhaps know who manufactured them? Very nice setup you have going there BTW, and with specificatons similar to the one I have in the similar case :-)
Guilty-Shoulder-9214@reddit
Should be good. Personally, I’d also dual boot it with Windows NT 3.51, but that’s just me. Technically speaking, you could go to windows 98, but I wouldn’t advise it as there would be little to gain. It’d run reasonably well, at least in vanilla form, but yeah…
ApatheistHeretic@reddit
If memory serves, Win98se was the most stable pre-NT kernel windows OSs in existence. Maybe upgrade to that?
klapaucjusz@reddit
Instead of dual boot, I had microSD adapter in mine, now switched to SATA adapter in old beige HDD bay and use it with SSD.
GritsNGreens@reddit
Dual booting is ideal, I’d also keep a pure DOS partition with BootIt.
Guilty-Shoulder-9214@reddit
Ngl. I’d also test ArcaOS on it, since it’s supposed to have full win16 compatibility while retaining OS/2 support but also support for newer apps while also still receiving updates and support.
GritsNGreens@reddit
I remember looking at that but you have to pay for it right? I am just shy of that interested, but it does sound cool!
LousyMeatStew@reddit
Windows compatibility was included in OS/2 2 and higher. You can find Warp 3 for free on WinWorld, that's probably the best version to use for the DX4
st4rdr0id@reddit
W95 computers still look modern when the beige has not yellowed. There is something to the design of those cases and peripherals that got lost around 2004 with all those cheap blacks and mobile phone-like cases.
retropassionuk@reddit
Nope. I upgraded with a dx2/66 and 8mb ram
not_that_kind_of_ork@reddit
It all looks so clean! Literally, that keyboard is pristine!
Wackadoodle1984@reddit
I love this. The 486DX4-100 was such a great chip and such a good value for the money at the time. It was the first computer I built where I installed Windows instead of DOS. It was just way too fast to waste on a single task. Linux wold have been a good fit too at the time, but not enough software was available for Linux at the time, or maybe I just wasn't good enough at Linux yet. (I did run Linux on my 386 full time.)
I started with Windows 3.1 and then 3.11 on my 486DX-4 100 when I built it and then upgraded to 95 when I could and it was the right choice.
Calm_Apartment1968@reddit
Why YES you did make a mistake. The only good version of Windows 95 is Win98 Second Edition.
Wackadoodle1984@reddit
I still have my Windows 98SE CD for that reason. To me it was the "Windows 95 with most of the bug fixes already applied" OS that I used on everything for a very long time. It was definitely a fast track to getting a working system.
Not sure I ever ran it on a 486 though, I think I had upgraded my DX4 before 98 came out.
WingedGundark@reddit
Starting from OSR2, win95 is just fine. Also Win98SE is impossible to run in any practical way on such slow system in any case. I wouldn’t even think installing it on anything but perhaps the fastest Pentiums, but preferably at the minimum on Pentium 2 level systems.
Only option to make it work would be to use 98lite micro install which would provide similar performance to win95. This is what I use on my pentium class systems that were designed for Win95: you get all the benefits of 98SE with win95 gui and very close the same performance as win95.
TheBlueAndWhiteOwl@reddit
How long does it take too boot Windows?
jhaluska@reddit
Nope. My first Win 95 experience was on 486. It was such a big multi tasking improvement.
CrazyComputerist@reddit
What a sweet setup! I think 95 will be more useful. Lots of stuff that can utilize that CD-ROM drive.
BcuzRacecar@reddit
beautiful setup
Hey-buuuddy@reddit
32mb ram you’ll be fine with win95. 8mb was more common at the Win95 release date. Make sure to get those service packs loaded for usb support.
temalyen@reddit
Windows 3.1 wouldn't know what to do with that processor. Performance wouldn't be awful, but I doubt it'd be optimal.
Also, multitasking in 95 is far better than in 3.1, which will benefit that processor. I remember I had this one program that created MP3 files from MIDI and it'd completely freeze the computer while it was working on 3.1. The mouse wouldn't even move. When I tried it on Windows 95, I could actually do things while it ran.
pinko_zinko@reddit
Way overpowered for 3.11 IMO. I think you did well.
lrochfort@reddit
I have that case!
It was the PC that lived inside a drum scanner
AyrA_ch@reddit
I don't think so. Had a laptop with the same CPU and it run fine.