P4P800 and Win95...

[Cloaked]

I realize the manual says that the P4P800 does not support Win95.

Having said that, has anyone tried it? Any levels of success? Got any
drivers to get things running?

The reason I ask is this:

We have configured a system which we are using for verifying O/S
compatibility of our software. We have chosen, at this time, to
include Win95 backward compatibility. The system is multi-boot using
BootMagic.

My initial attempt to get Win95 running on the P4P800 was a blowout.
After some reading.... and some more reading....

I loaded Win95 on a hard drive on a 200 MHz system. Then I applied the
AMD processor speed patch. Then I moved the hard drive into the P4P800
system.

Onward to the infamous "WINDOWS PROTECTION ERROR". After a little more
head banging, I discovered that the Win95 Motherboard Resource "Plug
and Play BIOS" was causing the problem.

So now I can boot Win95. But many of the motherboard resources are not
loaded, and I can't load the audio drivers, or the network card
driver.....

I do not believe that the Win95 installation, such as it is, would be
suitable for evaluatin the O/S compatability of our software.

If push comes to shove, we will simply keep a separate system for this
purpose, but it would be much more conveinient to have Win95 as one of
the Boot Options on the multi-boot system.

Any insight greatly appreciated.

 

[Maximus]

I also tried to install Win98 and WinME, but all fails on P4P800 DLX.

Perhaps you should go for Win2000 or WinXP. Do not bother to waste your
time.

 

[Cloaked]

The system currently multi-boots Win98se, Win 2000 Pro, and Win XP Pro
flawlessly.

The point was to try and make a single system usable for all software
testing and compatibility - if possible.

I realize Win95 is "dead" as far as Micro$oft is concerned, but they
can deny it all they want - it is still a legacy issue.

For us, there are a number of users who still have not upgraded, and
appear to have no intention of doing so (perhaps until their hardware
dies??)

The issue is one of marketing. We do not want to exclude ANY customers
simply on the basis of the O/S they are using. Now, it MAY come to
that. Perhaps it is inevitable. But until an "executive" desicion is
made that Win95 will not be supported - thus excluding a segment of
our market - then I gotta gove it a shot.

 

[Scarletdown]

(e-mail address removed) (Cloaked) wrote in

The system currently multi-boots Win98se, Win 2000 Pro, and Win
XP Pro flawlessly.

The issue is one of marketing. We do not want to exclude ANY
customers simply on the basis of the O/S they are using. Now, it
MAY come to that. Perhaps it is inevitable. But until an
"executive" desicion is made that Win95 will not be supported -
thus excluding a segment of our market - then I gotta gove it a
shot.

Don't forget Linux. With IBM and Novell starting to push for Linux
on the home desktop, and with Linux having a tremendous piece of the
server market, Linux users are going to become a considerable market
segment to consider.

 

[Anthrax442]

The system currently multi-boots Win98se, Win 2000 Pro, and Win XP Pro
flawlessly.

The point was to try and make a single system usable for all software
testing and compatibility - if possible.

I realize Win95 is "dead" as far as Micro$oft is concerned, but they
can deny it all they want - it is still a legacy issue.

For us, there are a number of users who still have not upgraded, and
appear to have no intention of doing so (perhaps until their hardware
dies??)

The issue is one of marketing. We do not want to exclude ANY customers
simply on the basis of the O/S they are using. Now, it MAY come to
that. Perhaps it is inevitable. But until an "executive" desicion is
made that Win95 will not be supported - thus excluding a segment of
our market - then I gotta gove it a shot.

No offense, but Windows 95 has been dead for some time. I realize that
there are people that are still running it, but those people are probably
also running Pentium I/II's and K-5/6's. Your best bet, if you really need
a semi modern machine to run Windows 95, is to try and find an old Pentium
III machine, maybe in the Ghz range or so. You really need older hardware
to run older OS's properly. There was just no way Microsoft could have
written 95 to be compatible with hardware that wouldn't be released on the
market for another 8 years or so. Hope this helps.

 

[Cloaked]

No offense, but Windows 95 has been dead for some time. I realize that
there are people that are still running it, but those people are probably
also running Pentium I/II's and K-5/6's. Your best bet, if you really need
a semi modern machine to run Windows 95, is to try and find an old Pentium
III machine, maybe in the Ghz range or so. You really need older hardware
to run older OS's properly. There was just no way Microsoft could have
written 95 to be compatible with hardware that wouldn't be released on the
market for another 8 years or so. Hope this helps.


--
Anthrax442

"Well, throw in a rectal exam, and this'll be the best day ever!"
Xander Harris

No offense taken. As it stands now, I have a separate 200MHz PII box
which has been configured. This will do the job, it is just not as
conveinient to be playing musical hardware.

Just the way it goes I guess.

Thanks to all who responded.