Leaderboard

I queried this on the GPU-Z forum as there's no mention in the 2.41 changelog of XP compatibility being withdrawn. One of their mods said that XP was still supported, and would be "for as long as possible". I unpacked the 2.41 file with Universal Extractor, and when I run the unpacked version I get the message "The helper module .NET Framework 4.6 could not be found" so I guess that's the problem. I don't think .NET 4.6 is available for XP. I've made them aware of this. Whether they can fix this, and will, remains to be seen. Addition - Also I'm getting in the Windows System Event Log "Application popup: GPU-Z 2.41.0_unpacked.exe - Entry Point Not Found : The procedure entry point AcquireSRWLockExclusive could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.DLL."

M.A.T. has responded, apparently: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?p=218855#p218855

An oddity for sure, but an actual ability to get an HTTP 418 response on a live website... at least until it is fixed, if ever. HTTP 418 response code is "I'm a teapot" or the server refuses to brew coffee because it is a teapot. Which is... apparently... a legitimate HTTP response code: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Status/418 At this very moment, this is the response code you get if you try to view the License Agreement on glass8.eu.

This from the GPU-Z developer. "Grrrr .. all I did was update my Visual Studio 2019 version to the latest, without touching the compiler (still using v141_xp). But apparently they made some change that uses this API call*, which isn't available on Windows XP. Will search for a solution." *AcquireSRWLockExclusive

Not so easy, you need to program the whole HTCPCP protocol and stack, if you want to do it properly ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_Text_Coffee_Pot_Control_Protocol The google implementation is still online, however: https://www.google.com/teapot jaclaz

Great info always, thank you :-) (little sidenote: sid is just for tracking, not needed in url)

Yep . If we draw a line in or around 2002-2005, I would say that *any* machine around that time is: 1) still compatible with win9x/me and DOS (including drivers and what not) 2) runs waaay faster than *any* machine that actually used to run DOS/9x/Me Now, how much does it cost such a machine? I would say with anything between 0 and 50 bucks you can find one, let's double the higher estimate to 100 so that you can possibly replace some parts.(let's say the PSU and the disk). Is this money worth it? IMHO (and as many MSFN members know, I am, besides old and grumpy also cheap ) yes, it is fully worth it[1]. I can understand (and actually extensively use) VM's and similar for the convenience of running another (oldish) OS in a window in the "main" machine for quick tests, experiments and what not, but unless you have a very powerful machine, and an OS and virtualization/emulation software capable of managing it, the experience - particularly with sound and games - won't be the same as the "native" one. Running on DOS (or Win9x/Me) a VM or emulator to run a DOS (or Win9x/Me) game makes very little sense. I am not at all familiar with Dosbox or Dosbox-X but as a rough estimate I would say that a VM/emulator will be some 30% slower than the corresponding "native", possibly with the exception of disk throughput, as you can use a ramdisk in the VM (depending on the "outer" OS, i.e. if it can manage large amount of memory - which is not hte case for Dos/9x/Me). jaclaz [1] for *some reasons* I am particularly fond of old VIA mini-itx motheboard that with a C3@600 Mhz can also be fanless and - last time I checked - worked just fine with Dos/9x/Me with a decent enough speed, surely not gaming machines, but powerful enough for classic games, as well, there are a number of suitable "thin clients" around that can be made into nice Dos/9x/Me retro game machines, example: https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=49092

I no longer own rths.ml / rths.cf domains.

here it goes: https://www.file-upload.net/download-14658807/SumatraPDF3.3.zip.html the sumatra author has added a the jpeg XR format it doesnt look to bad when you compare jpg. jpg2000, orginal, jxr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XR#/media/File:Comparison_between_JPEG,_JPEG_2000_and_JPEG_XR.png there is a .jxr file in the zip file nearby

This sub-forum is led by the creator of the program in question. I have severe doubts that they will post the details on how to disable the watermark, especially since the pinned FAQ specifically states that the only way to remove the watermark is to donate.

Dosbox on win98 sounds strange to me unless mean dos prompt aka dosbox. I remember nt and 2000 users having it but not 98. What is issue running dos games under Windows 98? Sound? Many ac97 cards had sound blaster emulator for sound. If mouse just make cutemouse load at dos mode. long ago I had 2.80ghz Pentium 4 478 and it ran dos games just fine on dosbox svn daum. It had Windows XP though and not 98 and dosbox was highly tweaked to use all cpu power

Emulating in this case, which is much slower. A system that still supports Win9x is likely slow to begin with. Big problem for late DOS games especially as far as emulation goes. On such system, it would be preferable to fix whatever issue you have that prevents running whatever you're trying to run natively as was meant to be. It's possible to have a computer that has no problem running graphically intensive games natively, but struggles with games in a DOS emulator, where a single core of the CPU is pretty much all that can be utilized to the max.

As a reason to run DosBox, my guess is to use it as a workaround for missing DOS drivers (sound, most likely).

Dosbox, that program isn't working out of the box properly. You must configure it first. I remember the "frameskip" option did improve the performance. You need a lot more computing power for the emulation of an elderly device (than the target has). What kind of hardware do you use for Windows 98? Also, some games perform very poorly in Dosbox. F1GP was one of them. You might be better off with the MS-DOS mode in Windows 98 for some games.

May I ask why? Are you surprised that virtualizing an OS is slower than native? jaclaz

I use D-Fend Reloaded, you can have separate configs for different programs, etc. Not updated recently, but it works for me.

Doom 64 on Steam works fine under Windows 7 and probably on Windows 8/8.1 as well. The fact that they only list Windows 10 under supported Operating systems section is odd considering they fully support Doom Eternal on Windows 7.