Windows 95 support?

[BHTY]

I understand the trouble with non-PNP hardware being detected during the DOS-based installer and that posing an issue, but fundamentally, don't all PCs have pretty much the same non-PnP hardware? The I/O ports and memory regions and IRQs used for the most fundamental PC devices are pretty much the same on all PCs (basic VGA, COM ports, keyboard, floppy, disk -- even if there's no IDE compatibility, there's always the real-mode mapper --, etc), so is there really much to worry about?

Maybe I'm missing something, but what is stopping someone from using this tool to deploy a "generic" Windows 95 image (i.e. with no drivers installed but the most basic ones applicable to every PC) and then installing the drivers on top of that?

[oerg866]

Fundamental architectural differences between 95 and 98(SE) prevent this from being a thing without substantial development effort on both sides (image creation + installer support).

So, no, it will not happen. Compared to 98, Win95 is very incomplete, buggy and not even faster if you install a Micro 98 variant. There is no real benefit to a Win95 QuickInstall at all.

(and this, again, is Q&A, not a bug tracker issue...)

[BHTY]

Sorry about posting this in issues. I'm curious about the fundamental architectural differences you're referring to.

I suppose Micro95 though is pretty much the generic Win95 image easily copyable to target machines, so arguably it's academic.