• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Anyone try a much faster motherboard for Win95 ?

R

Ragooman

Experienced Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
162
Location
Pittsburgh,PA
I was curious about this. I was looking into building a Win95 box to run some old network games. And if anyone has tried to install Win95 on a faster motherboard. I seem to recall something inhibiting Win95 from being installed on newer motherboards, back then, when the newest OS was Win98. Perhaps, it was the Pentium I or II motherboards. I was trying to see if there was a webpage showing a compatibility list regarding motherboard types and speeds.

Then I come across this webpage, it's a ridiculously fast patch for Win95. It mentions in there about a 350mhz limit for Win95. I'm not ready to try this just yet.
Windows 95 2.1GHz CPU Limit BROKEN !
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/141402-windows-95-21ghz-cpu-limit-broken/
 
What, mandatory IE and webby desktop isn't a good reason to stay on 95? :) :flamethrower:

Yes, the amdk6upd.exe is needed for CPUs faster than ~350Mhz and, and above ~2ghz you will also need a patched ndis.vxd-4.00.1114.

Of course in the bigger picture, you will need to check that the various components such as video, sound, network, IDE/SATA, etc, have 95 drivers or can be switched out with 95 compatible parts.
 
SomeGuy said:
What, mandatory IE and webby desktop isn't a good reason to stay on 95? :) :flamethrower:
Click to expand...

Yeah, one of the first things to disable when you install it. :wink: I like 98SE because it implements the minidriver model which is compatible with XP. So, for example, I run a Linksys WMP-54GS on 98SE using the XP drivers. No problem, even though the driver CD doesn't say that it will work.
 
I don't think I've ever run 95 on anything faster than 200MHz, but I had an 800MHz Celeron system running 98SE that I used as a reliable secondary computer for many years until the power supply went haywire in 2011. By that point anything less than a Pentium D or so was insufficient for modern web browsing, but I got a lot of mileage out of it and even had it serve as a computer for my younger brother when he was living with me.
 
Ragonman thanks for pointing that patch out. Might play with it at some point. Only Win95 box I havein the house is a P75 Compaq all in one to was My Win98FE box is still running strong on a Celeron 400 something with the majority of the "features" disabled.
 
Ragooman said:
I was curious about this. I was looking into building a Win95 box to run some old network games. And if anyone has tried to install Win95 on a faster motherboard. I seem to recall something inhibiting Win95 from being installed on newer motherboards, back then, when the newest OS was Win98.
Click to expand...

The only thing I remember is that AMD processors were incompatible back then.
Intel had deliberately made the loop-instruction slower on their newer systems. This is because loop was often used for small delay loops when communicating with other devices.
By making this instruction relatively slow, even very fast CPUs would not fail with that type of code.

AMD however thought it was a good idea to make loop as fast as possible. Which means it broke down on a lot of such code.
That must be what that AMDK6UPD.EXE patch tries to fix.
 
The main reason why I like to stick with Win95 is I recall some compatibility issues with several network games when tried on the newer Win98. This happened even when using the Win98 compatible mode. I never had much confidence when trying that. I never investigated that problem completely, just simply out grew those network games. Most of these network games we used were only played on a Lan back then, such as Command 'n Conquer, or Pod Racer. And then there's not much call for web browsing here. I figure I'll try an ordinary motherboard at first to get a couple systems going, just to get a Lan running. Thereafter I like to look into the speed patches for a faster motherboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top