From: a@a.aaa   
      
   "Local Hooligan"  wrote in message   
   news:bx8Xb.2614$tL3.1692@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...   
   > Just curious, thats all.  I continue to use it because is the only OS that   
   > runs reliably on my 83MHz 486-based computer.  I am running windows95a.   
   >   
   >   
   Because its got more raw power in the core to get the job done without   
   straiing resources.   
   Even Microsoft admits it never reached the full potentual of MS-DOS.   
   FAT 32 On win95b (plus basic USB support) is still better than windows 98   
   1st edition bloat.   
   direct x 8.5 is not a very old sub version.   
   AGP is supported with many hardwares till 2002 or newer and can potentually   
   benefit enough to stay in high end status with the core.   
   Onboard ac '97 audio sucks compared to ISA 16bit sound.   
   MP3 works by default in win95b windows media 7 makes it better with codec   
   support for even windows media 9 content.   
   You can mirco-size windows 95b to 5mb in  size.   
   4mb PCI / AGP graphics accelleration benefits from heaps of spare cpu   
   cycles.   
   open source sofware works fine on windows 95 and is still the best bet   
   default platform of installation creation for all windows versions because   
   of backwards compatability with introducing less time ironing out bugs   
   installing on the newer oses.   
   my opinion only.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)