Thread 106368537

What went right?

Highjacking the thread to ask an actual question: what is the best way of running this on a (not particularly powerful) laptop? Is Dosbox-x good enough?

I mostly just want to mess around with it, and possibly run some old scientific software to read some files written in an obsolete proprietary format.

The day Salty Nutella took over as CEO. They're doing what the west couldn't do, make Windows work.

>>106368645
Get over your obsession with old OSes

>>106368794
As I said in the other post, I want to run some old scientific software that was never updated since Windows 98.

>>106368537 (OP)
W95 was peak UX.

>>106368645
If your files can only be read by software running on Windows 95, that means no one ever bothered converting them to a modern format.
Which means they weren't that important and are now completely irrelevant.

>>106368645
The most accurate way is with 86Box but you need a good CPU for that
Haven't tried DOSBox-X but apparently it does have Windows 9x support

>>106368968
The software you're looking for is called Virtual Box

>>106368645
86box, although a VM is certainly faster
for a VM I think you need vmware, afaik there is no proper drivers for win9x on virtualbox

>>106369138
The gist of it is, my lab has been moving some equipment over to a new data acquisition software (finally), however all the data acquired up to last week still requires the old Windows 95 software. The old computer still works *for now*, but I want to have a plan b in case it kicks the bucket. The files itself can be exported to plaintext, but it has to be done manually for dozens of file, nevermind actually cleaning them up so they can be fed into another program.

>>106368537 (OP)
98 is better, then it peaked at 2000

>>106369396
98 and 2000 shouldn't be compared directly as 98 is DOS based and 2000 is NT based
2000 is a good OS but if you need DOS compatibility 98 is a better choice

>>106369169
Not him but I thought Virtualbox/VMware were shit for 9x and only good with XP and newer

>>106368794
you insufferable cunt, stfu. get out of the thread if you don't want to talk about old os's. you're missing an update, go check for it.

>>106369169
> what's a serial port
hey retard, some people like old os's because the hardware they are using is connected to machines from 30 years ago. does your virtual box allow the a spectrometer to work? stfu.

>>106368794
Shouldn't you be busy updating your Windows 11?

>>106368537 (OP)
IBM fumbling bigly when they made OS/2's TCP/IP stack a separate package and asked you to shell out $100s to install it.

>>106369143
Exactly my point. That's a 1-week-job and there's been 30 years to do it.

>>106368537 (OP)
it it's 97 variant it was the absolutely the most perfect system microsoft created besides the nt. 98 was bloat, 2000 was too nt-sque, xp was sweet spot again but much uglier (nostalgic now).

but yeah, 97 or xp is where the development should've ended as engineers produced ideal way to interact with the computer. everything else should've been security tightening and hardware support. that shit boots in a second.

>>106368537 (OP)
It had an extremely intuitive GUI and a lot of hype marketing.

>>106372449
It was also the last time they put in a ton of effort researching their own UI. Fast forward 2-3 decades and you now have:
>2 control panels
>2 layers of context menus
>a taskbar that's neither movable or resizable
>30 years accumulation of incohesive design languages
>ads
>an interface written in webshit

>>106368537 (OP)
alot.

>>106369143
Not when it comes to Win95 specifically. Runs at fullspeed on an Intel 5 laptop if you know how to set it up.

>>106372275
2000 was perfect. No bloat, no networking limitations, stable, and clean look. XP was trying to bridge the gap between ME and 2000, which it eventually did, but 2000 was every bit as capable in the multimedia department, so unless you digged the media center slop or whatever, 2000 was still the better choice until compatibility issues began to arise like 15 years after it's original release.

>>106372275
>but yeah, 97 or xp is where the development should've ended as engineers produced ideal way to interact with the computer.
It depends on what you mean by development. If by development you mean core functionality, then yeah, I agree, mostly, but not completely. In the context of office computing, some of MS recent programs like Teams are nice. Yeah, I'm sure there's FOSS software with most of the same functionality, but in office computing, Teams just works. The file sharing and stuff is really nice, too. Again, all of this could be done with third party IM software, but having a first-party program that's so tightly integrated has been useful.

Of course, software packages like office have deteriorated greatly, and older versions are much better and more usable.

>>106374530
>unless you digged the media center slop or whatever
I actually did like this, especially in the Vista days. I remember using it extensively with my brother way back when. Obviously, there was probably better software for it at the time, but it just worked (mostly).

>>106369180
>for a VM I think you need vmware, afaik there is no proper drivers for win9x on virtualbox
Seems like it works, but yeah: You do have to do some legwork in Virtualbox: https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=9918

>>106369107
*2000

>>106369107
*2000

>>106375197
>>106375204
what

>>106369180
>for a VM I think you need vmware, afaik there is no proper drivers for win9x on virtualbox
the VM situation has generally been easier with the SoftGPU project recently
https://github.com/JHRobotics/softgpu
but virtualizing it under a modern CPU (think from Ryzen-era/10th gen intel and beyond) or one with a higher (>2GHz) clock speed will be painful without patches
https://github.com/JHRobotics/patcher9x

>>106374530
i can't remember precisely now, but i think 2000 still had problems with drivers and usb that xp corrected. yes, lookwise it was far superior to xp

>>106368537 (OP)
SOVL

>>106376624
I used the patcher and it did nothing, I can still only boot 9x OS in safe mode for it to work.

>>106368645
already been done and packaged so you don't need to do it yourself
but it won't get you hardware acceleration for gpu
archive.org/details/windows-98-in-dosbox-x

>>106374530
>>106377132
No need to exaggerate when all what you probably want is the classic theme to be identical to 9X.
https://www.deviantart.com/vertigosity/art/Inexperience-Patcher-0-7-2-27939557