Realistically speaking, can I daily-driver this bad boy over here?
>>101556300Realistically? No. The vast majority of current Windows software uses Windows APIs that were not present in 95, and internet standards that had yet to be invented. You might be able to find some software from ~15 years ago that might still have 95/98/Me support, but you will probably have to go back even further. Software that old is not guaranteed to be able to interact with modern infrastructure. You would constantly run into enough trouble that you'd be better off using one unstable Linux distro or another just to get something that breaks less.
>>101556300Depending on your work and tasks, but basically yes. You'll be limited compared to a newer OSs of course.
>>101556300realisticly speaking youd have issues even running it on slightly newer hardware in the 90s. Like it really didnt like AMD K6 processors for example. So it is unlikely that you could even run it today.>but virtual machinethen it would depend on what you use it for
considering your root certs expired two decades ago you're limited to web1.0 websites that don't have https
>>101556300South West airlines looking to upgrade?
>>101556300depends on how terminally online you are
It's better that you would at least do Windows 2000. There is the blackwingcat's extended kernel.
>>101556300If your use case is a typewriter, then yes.
>>101556300I have an old 486 machine with this OS and I use it for coding and as a typewriter
>>101556300What do you want to do? Anything offline should work provided the software to do it existed in the 90s. Office work, dvd cd and mp3 playback, old games, and image editing should all work fine. Online things is where you'll have problems. Web browsers that support Windows 95 are few and extremely limited. There's retrozilla and old versions of kmeleon, both if which are firefox forks based on incredibly old versions. In addition to their extremely limited rendering engines they also do not support tls 1.3, only 1.2, which blocks off most of the web. Arachne, which is a DOS browser, can be hacked to support tls 1.3, but its renderer is even more limited. The DOS version of Links should work with full tls support, but its text only. If you're willing to cheat and use a raspberry pi or second pc then you can run browservice and use modern chrome on the Pi through Internet Explorer or Netscape on your PC. That does basically everything but video playback.
>>101557236Root certs don't matter if you're not using Internet Explorer, but there aren't any fully functional up to date browsers for windows 95. The closest you'll get is tls 1.2 only Firefox ports and Links.
>>10155768898 and ME have KernelEx. 95 is shit out of luck though
>>101556300what does 'daily driver' mean? If that involves the internet, no. Unless you're a super hacker and can backport a ton of shit from the future onto a proprietary OS that was already an unstable jankfest to begin with.Also if you're just dicking around offline I'd recommend the old version without IE, IE is super annoying and likes to get in the way and doesn't even work anymore anyway.
ye
>>101559332The uninitiated reader should take note that on the pictured instance of 4chan the 'post' window is conspicuously closed.
>>101559395?
>>101559465He can't post here with the browser he's using, only read. K-Meleon is barely functional on the modern internet.
>>101559395He could post if he paypigs. Alternatively if has a raspberry Pi, he can run Chromium on that and then control it using IE. Effectively letting him post from Windows 95.
>>101559642I'm very interested in that Pi solution, do you have examples of that being done?
>>101559332>640x480
>>101559704>>101559642At that point you're not even using your computer to browse anymore so what's the point in running W95 aside from being a poser?
>>101559704The github has good documentation https://github.com/ttalvitie/browservice/ and here's a Michael MJD video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MjZdKtv9akI haven't used it personally though since I prefer to do all my browsing natively.
>>101560438Its just as much running on your pc as Opera Mini is running on your phone. It lets you view modern web content on your legacy pc, which means you don't have to switch computers when you want to browse the web. Everything done locally is still done locally, its just web browsing (which requires connecting to remote servers anyways) that requires connecting to another machine. If you already run a home server its really not that much extra work to run browservice on that server.
>>101560438Spinning up a VM for it on my home network hardly seems any different than doing anything else on my server. Thin client browser! It's 1999+25!>>101560459Looks cool. Can I connect multiple machines to the same server?
>>101560643Dunno, like I said I try to do all my stuff locally. My advice is read the documentation on the github.
>>101556513You sound like a complete faggot desu. Guess what I'd run? Your ass -- through. Let's see you complaining about software incompatibility then, lol.
>>101560746trying to do stuff locally is a pointless endeavor in my opinion, but I can appreciate the sentiment. Thanks for the tip anon, off to rtfm
>>101560784Do you mean you'll run him through with a knife or with your dick?
>>101560776go back
>>101560794Meant for >>101560776
>>101560784>trying to do stuff locally is a pointless endeavor in my opinion,Its partly tism and partly that I don't have a home server or a place to put one. Plus my current daily driver is a P4 machine, so it runs a browser locally just fine.
>>101560843Having a server helps a lot. Virtual machines make everything easy. Wish I had room for a rack though desu, I have rack mount ewaste and racks, but the racks live in a shed because I have no room inside...P4 is more than enough if you're running full fat software, but if you're running an old OS or trying to keep your unix-like free of freedesktop you basically can't run a browser that works.
>>101560905>but if you're running an old OSXP works just fine for me, and I know that the same browser I use also works on 98 with KernelEx. The only issue I have is that its a bit slow loading webpages.
>>101560977Cloudflare-janny lets you through to post here?
>>101560999It usually does. Sometimes cloudflare gets pissy, but that's more to do with it being a palemoon fork.
>>101561041Which one? I can't get through with arcticfox on my otherwise up to date netbsd machine.
>>101560977What can you even do on XP
>>101561057Roytam1's Serpent fork. It works on XP, and should work on 98+KernelEx as well. He's got SSE2, SSE, and IA32 win32 builds available, but if you want it for netBSD you'll probably have to build from source.
>>101561150Yeah I've used Roytam1's Serpent, but I had a hard time getting it post. Amusing it works with 98 KernelEx, I couldn't get it to work with BCW's 2000 KernelEx (although I could have been doing it wrong, all the instructions are in Jap or Engrish.)He has a build that works without SSE2? Is he a fucking magician? I assume being a Wintard you wouldn't know how much ram it needs to build...
>>101561094NTA but XP is still pretty capable all things considered, there’s still a few web browsers for it that have fully modern feature sets
>>101561094Basically anything I want to, aside from playing new games. I can watch movies and listen to music with VLC, write with Open Office, bowse the web with Serpent, draw with an old version of paint .net, 3d model with an old version of blender, download torrents with free download manager, and play most games made before 2014.
>>101561191>Yeah I've used Roytam1's Serpent, but I had a hard time getting it postI try to keep it up to date. Posting does break every now and then, but roytam's pretty quick about fixing it (when the problem is on his end). It could be that your CPU is too slow to complete whatever challenges cloudflare requires.>He has a build that works without SSE2?He has a build that works without SSE, so probably. I know he's currently one of the lead devs for Kmeleon, so that's probably where his knowledge of the old magics come from.>I assume being a Wintard you wouldn't know how much ram it needs to buildNever built it myself, but his github's build section just refers to the Palemoon developer site, so I'd assume its the same as regular Palemoon/Serpent, which is 6 GB according to their build requirements.
>>101561398Yeah, the slow CPU thing is what I think is getting me. Fucking Cloudflare, computers I was using less than 5 years ago to shitpost can't get past the turnstile anymore. Anything below a ghz is fuck.>6 gb ram to buildYeah, I don't think that'll work out on my 256mb of ram. I guess it's browserve on my homelab.
>>101561431>Fucking Cloudflare, computers I was using less than 5 years ago to shitpost can't get past the turnstile anymoreI think its actually gotten better in the last year or so, at least on 4chan. For a while posting was impossible even on 1.66 ghz atom machine, but now it works just fine. Still unnecessary difficult for what it is though. Cloudflare is the great satan of the modern web.>Yeah, I don't think that'll work out on my 256mb of ram.Couldn't you build on another system targeting the system you want to run it on? I remember a guy doing that so he didn't have to wait months to install Gentoo programs on a Pentium MMX machine.
>>101561500I could crosscompile, but's always a bit of a pain in the ass. Will have to look into it, I want to shitpost on my 25 year old computers.
>>101561565What's the CPU on the computer you want to shitpost with?
>>101561613A couple 300mhz celerons and a 900mhz atom. I suspect I wouldn't be able to get past the captcha on the celerons but there might be hope on the atom.
>>101561637I post fine on here with a 1ghz via Eden dual core on XP, you could probably go a lot slower and you’d just be waiting moreI’ve posted here in the last from a super socket 7 system with a 266mhz cyrix mIII running xp
>>101561637You might be able to overclock the Atom. Its what I used to do on mine to solve captchas before gookmoot fixed them. Those Celerons probably won't be able to, and probably won't be a fun experience using on the modern web either. You might be able to upgrade to a Tualatin PIII though if your socket/slot supports it (or if you feel like using an adapter).
>>101561668Huh?
>>101556300Upgrade to Win98SE
>>101561684I would strongly recommend against overclocking older atomsYou can only overclock the front-side bus on most boards and it tends to make things extremely unstable. 50% of the time the overclock won't even apply and simply locks up the systemoverall not worth the hassle
>>101557688What's a baby duck?
>>101558787this
>>101559642Wasn't there some anon that occasionally posts from an Amiga and his solution was some weird javascript injection or whatever?
>>101560776based
>>101556300Realistically speaking you're too dumb to even daily drive windows 11
>>101561215>default new user xp skincringe-o-rama
Go with Windows NT 4 or Windows 2000. The DOS kernel is dogshit.
I'm pretty sure you could just download some loonix distro and make it look identical if you just want the aesthetic
Daily driving - probably not,But Firefox 31 at least-https://retrosystemsrevival.blogspot.com/2021/09/firefox-318-esr-for-windows-98seme.htmlNeeds KernelEx.
>>101556513just try retrozilla, brohttps://github.com/rn10950/RetroZilla/releases/tag/2.2
>>101559332I still cant tell if this is proxima64
>>101564498>some loonix distro and make it look identical if you just want the aestheticlol nofreetrannies always screw up, they just stop trying when "it's good enough" so it ends up looking and feeling half-assed
>>101563957https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)#Baby_duck_syndrome
>>101556513Chanks, That-gpt!
>>101564459win95 does not run on DOS, that is a myth.
>>101567180you can literally exit to command.com, anon
>>101567180In Windows 95, after the initial boot tasks, MS-DOS 7.0 provides several low-level tasks, these tasks include:>File System Access:File Allocation Table (FAT) Management: MS-DOS handles file system operations on FAT16 and FAT32 partitions. This includes file creation, deletion, reading, and writing.Real-Mode Disk Access: Provides basic disk access routines used by DOS applications and utilities.>Device Drivers:Real-Mode Device Drivers: MS-DOS can load and manage real-mode device drivers (e.g., for older hardware like certain types of network cards, sound cards, and disk controllers).CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT: MS-DOS processes these configuration files to load drivers and set system parameters before transitioning to Windows 95.>Memory Management:Conventional Memory Management: Manages the first 640 KB of memory, which is critical for running DOS applications.Upper Memory Blocks (UMB): Allows the loading of drivers and TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) programs into higher memory areas to free up conventional memory.>BIOS Interface:Interrupt Handling: MS-DOS handles interrupt requests (IRQs) and provides an interface to BIOS routines for hardware communication.Real-Mode BIOS Calls: Allows DOS applications to use BIOS services directly.>Command Interpreter:COMMAND.COM: The MS-DOS command interpreter remains available, allowing users to execute DOS commands and batch files directly from the command prompt.Batch File Processing: Executes legacy batch files (.BAT) used for scripting and automation.>Application Compatibility:DOS Box (Virtual DOS Machine): Windows 95 uses Virtual DOS Machines (VDMs) to run DOS applications in a controlled environment, providing the necessary DOS functions.>Legacy Hardware Support:Non-Plug and Play Devices: Supports older hardware that may not have Windows 95-compatible drivers.Direct Hardware Access: Some DOS applications require direct access to hardware, which MS-DOS facilitates.
>>101567215The option does not actually exit to DOS, rather it restarts the computer into dos. You could add that feature to any operating system. Win95 uses DOS as a boot loader, back in the day, I used to boot linux from DOS using loadlin, if you felt so inclined you could modify linux to have an exit into command.com option.
>>101567331>it restarts the computer into dosNo, this is simply not true.
>>101567331The real question is if there's a loadlin equivalent for a BSD...
>>101565545its a normal windows 95
>>101569009I mean the guy making those screenshots, he posted more in a thread a while agoThe images he made in photoshop resemble proxima64/nicholas fedorovs style
>>101560776how do you breathe this much plebbit and not die
