BenoitRen

DOS in Win9x always runs in a VM of sorts. It's not new for WinME.

As simple as Notepad? The ones I tried weren't, save for NotepadEx.

WakePup can boot Puppy Linux sitting on a CD or USB stick by booting it from floppy. It uses FreeDOS for this purpose. So why wouldn't it be possible for other OSs?

I'm irritating for stating the truth? IE is integrated into the shell. explorer.exe and shell32.dll ARE IE by Win98. You can't avoid them unless you use a different shell. It doesn't look like IEradicator magically provides a new shell for you. Why do you think it's popular to use the Win95 shell on Win98 if you want to get rid of IE? Also, if you leave MSHTML.DLL on the system, which undeniably is part of IE, you haven't fully removed it.

That helps a bit, but not completely. How can I make sure that the entire text has been loaded before I do this? Also, shouldn't there be a message that I can use to force it to recalculate its scroll bars? I wonder if I'm the only one who's ever had this problem. I've Googled it again, and no one seems to have had a similar problem.

Weird. I would have said that it's the maximum file size limit you're reaching, but if it's every couple words...

This is false. IE is integrated into the shell.

Wrong. It's because Win98 support was extended back in 2003. By the way, Win9x is also Win95, you know. That support was dropped back in 2001.

Yes, I used SetWindowText. Okay, rewrote the loadFile function to make use of EM_STREAMIN. But it doesn't seem to have changed anything. I even tried an extra UpdateWindow().

No, it won't.

Thanks. I really should read through my course of C again when it comes to pointers and strings. That, and read the documentation better. I didn't note that the end result is stocked in the first argument. LoadAccelerators() requires an accelerator table, which I don't have. I tried with my menu resource anyway, and it didn't help. What's strange is that the accelerators for Cut, Copy and Paste worked when I defined them. They didn't work at first. EDIT: I researched more about this on MSDN, and it turns out that I do need an accelerator table. Including the text in the menuitem doesn't magically activate it. It was too good to be true. So now the only issue is the bad scrollbar calculation. I've just seen it a couple times with the vertical scrollbar as well. It's getting worse.

While looking at the documentation for EM_HIDESELECTION, I've noticed that it also has the ability to change styles. I looked further, and found the ES_NOHIDESEL style. I found it easier to just apply that directly when the control gets created. That and focussing the dialog after I'm done takes care of that problem. I've implemented the "Search next" menu item that I forgot about, and it works fine, but for some reason pressing F3 doesn't activate it, even though I've altered and recompiled the resource file. It shows on the menu, too. MENUITEM "&Volgende zoeken\tF3", ID_SEARCH_NEXT There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this...

Then maybe she'd like another web browser. Like Firefox, SeaMonkey, or even K-Meleon. That doesn't matter. It's still a shell for IE, full of holes and bad web standards support. There's no trace of IE on this machine, and I use SeaMonkey. No anti-virus, no software firewall, but behind a NAT router. No P2P, no download of attachments, remote content in e-mail is blocked.

I can't stress enough how MSN is widely used in Europe, that's all.

This thread doesn't convince me how Win9x is better. It convinced me that your practice of security is seriously lacking. Seriously, using IE6 Pre-XP SP2?! That's just asking for trouble. It doesn't matter if the machine was just installed; you could have dropped Opera on it through a USB flash stick. And instead you gave her Maxthon? You do know that it's just a shell for IE, right? It's almost as worse.

Thanks. I've rewritten my program to make use of this instead. It's done now, save for the same quirks. Tried it. Didn't help. Now that I've rewritten the findreplace code, the RichEdit is automatically focussed when I receive feedback from the dialog. Not sure if I should focus the dialog back. I have one more minor problem now. The message box I show after having done the Replace All action doesn't show all the text. int replacements = 0; char strReplacements[17]; itoa(replacements, strReplacements, 10); MessageBox(hwnd, strcat(strcat("Kladblok is klaar met het doorzoeken van het document en heeft\r\n", strReplacements), " wijzigingen gemaakt."), "Kladblok", MB_ICONINFORMATION | MB_OK); After the number I get nothing. It must be some silly mistake with strings, but I don't know what it is. Thanks for your assistance so far.

Eh, a country that has only recently joined. Yes it can. Take a look at Mindows. By the way, I've discovered a couple days ago that youconvertit.com exists for converting Flash videos into something I can watch. I knew of vixy.com, but that only converted to formats that demand a lot of your CPU.

BZZT! That price goes to Windows 95 OSR2, which barely needs tweaking, and only a couple updates.

My fault. My comments about SMP... So you only mean Flash video, then? I guess that could work. But Flash in itself is still a hog, and can still bring a recent CPU to its knees. Fact is that if Flash was designed better and more efficient, it would also run well on about 366 Mhz. Welcome to Europe, I say. "Yahoo!"? What's that? It's all MSN here. Win98 can fit on a floppy.

That's an unfair proposal. Flash is a CPU hog even on recent hardware. It's not even hardware-accelerated. Did you actually test this, or is this just an assumption? This sure isn't true in Windows XP, which has a bit better multi-tasking than Win9x. I tend to think that an application being able to take over the CPU is a flaw in the OS, not because single-core is bad.

Sure, but that's because Vista is a hog. Single-core has always done multi-tasking well on modern OSs. Ready to die? Yeah, right. Still works great. I bet even our dinosaur (AT286) would still work great if I replaced the BIOS battery. The only parts I had to replace so far was hard drive that got too many bad sectors and a PSU that failed. Those are still readily replaceable, especially the latter. Single-core already handled that fine. Which is also much slower. Think again. There are a lot of false positives.

I use Windows 95 because that's what I've always used on this computer, and it still works fine for my needs. Not if you don't install the IE4 shell. None of that matters if your computer came with Win9x and works fine with it. Now, peripherals can be a problem, but if you needed a printer and/or scanner, you probably already own them (I do). Most of the remaining hardware you'd want to use consists of flash memory which can be made to work. By the way, I consider SMP support to be for servers, and not home use. This SMP business is just part of the perpetual upgrade cycle, trying to sell use newer CPUs over and over because increasing clock speed is getting hard. I wish they'd sell on architecture instead. A Core 2 Duo at 1.8 Ghz using only one core is faster than a Pentium IV at the same clock speed. Software support can be an issue, but it hasn't really been a problem for me. I've always got my other computers as fallback anyway.

I don't know how to help you in the first place. Win98 installs IE4, not IE5.5, which does come with the update.

Integrating the Desktop Update? Very bad idea. You might as well use Win98. Not much point in using Win95 if you're going to wreck it with IE.

Maybe defragmenting the hard drive helps? The only thing I know of that would slow down start-up time is if the NIC can't get an IP (if it's not configured with a fixed one).