BenoitRen

What are these Win95 D and E versions you're talking about?

Attempt dismissed. Windows 2000 was for business, whereas Windows XP was for the home user.

Bad analogy, because Windows XP's image is pretty good right now. The difference is that Windows Vista is still a pretty new OS, and that it still has a bad image.

There's still nothing telling us that Win9x is vulnerable in the first place.

I use an S3 Virge with 4 MB of VRAM, piggy-backed by a 3dfx Voodoo 1 (4 MB).

Lock down IE so it can barely do anything, and use an alternative web browser like Firefox or SeaMonkey. You can use the Adblock Plus extension for the two mentioned to block ads if you want.

Thanks, herbalist. That's a neat tool. One issue, though: the memory amounts per process don't add up. I count about 40 MB used by the processes, and there is 40+ MB of free memory. I wonder where the remaining 80 MB went.

Mostly experimentation, and some online reading.

The Constructor demo never worked on my computer, weirdly enough... Dungeon Keeper, Fallout, Fallout 2.

It depends. If you like the whole add-ons scene, go with SeaMonkey. If you like all of the options being available via the GUI, go with Opera. There's more to it, but those are two important features. About one year ago they were going to add tabs, but I don't know what they're up to today. They have this "layers" thing that kind of behaves similarly, though.

I figured out why FLV files don't play after seeing that beta3 is supposed to support them as well. According to AVICodec the container type is DSH, which I guess WMP 6.0 doesn't support. I've installed the latest VLC that works under Win95, which is version 0.8.4a. It can open them fine, so I no longer need beta5 of ffdshow, though it would be nice.

Thanks. Extracting went fine. I moved the necessary files to their directories. Next I used wininit.ini to replace files at boot. 8.3 file name limit reared its ugly head. Aside from that, the files were copied successfully, except for one, which I could do manually. Now my ffdshow installation is broken. I tried to register ffdshow.ax, but it returned an error. The error messages from the codec configurations suggest that the cause is a missing API. **** it. Note: I didn't go through the registry instructions because they were complicated, and I assume I got pretty much everything from beta3. I just used Dependency Walker. ffdshow.ax can't find the following APIs in SHELL32.DLL: SHBrowseForFolderW SHGetPathFromIDListW Shell_NotifyIconW I had the impression that other people were able to use ffdshow just fine, though they were using Win98. Yet these are *W APIs, only available on NT5 and higher. Looks like more forced dropping of Win9x support.

They use Inno Setup. You can find the setup files at the ffdshow tryouts SourceForge project.

I'm using ffdshow beta3. When I saw beta4 was out, I tried to install it, but got an error. Recently I downloaded beta5 on my WinXP laptop, and saw they had added recent FLV file support. Today I tried to install beta5 on my Win95 machine, but it fails with an error that it couldn't import the WinCPUID.DLL file. Running Dependency Walker on it reveals that it can't resolve some SetAffinity API in KERNEL32.DLL. I can't extract the setup file. The beta3 setup didn't use this DLL. Unofficial SVN builds fail with the same error, except for one that does a braindead check on the OS version, complaining that it's not at least WinNT 5.0. Does anyone have any ideas on how to bypass the setup file?

No. Different OSs have different functions, advantages and disadvantages.

I don't have IE on this system. I'm saying that the CheckBadApps keys have sub-keys with entries.

XP and Vista may be inefficient, but at least they can see both cores and make use of them. XP will assign programs to a core. Vista will balance the load on both. You know, instead of all this multi-core nonsense that is obviously meant to appeal to the customer marketing-wise (because they couldn't increase the Ghz much anymore to appeal to "numbars goin' up!" sentiment), they should capitalise on the architecture. A Core 2 Duo of which a single core is used will beat out a Pentium IV of equivalent clock speed just because of better architecture.

LCD monitors are different than CRT ones. They have a native resolution. All others are scaled.

In my Win95's registry, the keys do have values associated with them. I think they are there to enable hacks for old, badly-written programs so they would work.

That's just FUD fed to you by Microsoft and hardware vendors. Why do we get newer hardware? To make our programs run faster! We do not buy newer hardware for a newer OS and newer programs. Now, some things the OS should be upgraded for. Like RAM and HDD barriers. But new because it's new is stupid. No. If you care about the data, you put it on EXT2 or some other open file system.

In the context of this thread and forum, you pretty much are. You started the argument. The burden is on you to back it up. This has been claimed in the past, but never proven. Since the Win32 API has a lot more than Win3.1.x' API, this doesn't seem likely at all.

I wonder what the point is to make a thread asking this question when you've already made up your mind as to the usefulness of the OS. But do you have a fully functional system? I don't think so. While you do with Win9x, using the same amount of RAM and HDD. Plus, if you want to talk about slimmed down installs, there's Mindows, which can fit on a 1.44 MB floppy. Okay, you don't know what you're talking about, and got this from popular culture. Win9x is not a shell. It's actually a marriage of DOS and Windows, pretty much. So what? Just like support for Win9x, it won't last forever, and WinXP will likely be dumped along with all other previous versions of Windows, and Vista users will laugh at you for staying with an unsupported OS. At least I'm allowed to use Win9x whenever I please, not having to deal with activation. You don't get that with WinXP. Yet your own article says: I find Internet security to be more important than local security. Win9x is a home OS, and if someone gets local access to your computer, no matter your OS, it's game over. Personally, I use Windows 95 because it has worked well for me for over 10 years, and still does. It's fast, with a clean UI, and DRM-free. A more recent version of Windows won't improve my computing experience at all.

! That explains why mine never worked.

This was actually known for a couple months, now.

There's your problem. Remove Active Desktop/IE4. Hell, install it without any IE for disk space savings.