Rick's observbation is eminently correct, to my knowledge. Maybe the
problem is one of symantics. I've bought a couple Win95B (OSR2) CDs from
an ad by a local computer shop, and successfully installed them (at the
time, several years ago, I didn't realize that they were supposed to be
sold only as OEM).

I modified the Win95B Install diskettes to suit my needs. I presume
you're correct that Win95B was a "full system," as I always installed it
as a full system (however, I've ALWAYS installed Windows "updates" as a
full system, even if I had to install it as an upgrade first then make an
installation diskette so I could reformat and reinstall "clean."

This doesn't change my opinion for many folks, Win95B - especially using
the FAT32 option - is the best for older systems because it has FAT32,
minimal bugs, and uses less computer memory and HD space. (Actually, if a
user doesn't need all the modern bells & whistles, 95B is still a good
OS.)


On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:24:20 -0400 Rick Glazier <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
> This is an oxymoron...
> Win95B is an OEM only release and was never meant to be
> a direct upgrade path from Win95 or Win95A.
> While it can be "forced", it is not something a casual user is
> capable of doing easily. It also does not automatically convert
> the file system to FAT 32.
> Since it was only available as a "full" version, I doubt if the term
> "upgrade" would fit at all...  Just my $.02     Rick Glazier
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack R Payton" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Win9x? Win95 lovers can upgrade to Win95B (Win95 OS2). It has
> fixed most
> > of the Win95 problems, but has the Win98 FAT32 and some of Win98's
> > upgrades, but none of the instability problems of Win98. Kinda the
> best
> > of two worlds, at the time.

                Curious about the people moderating your
                   messages? Visit our staff web site:
                    http://freepctech.com/staff.shtml