BenoitRen

I doubt (s)he was looking for a command line shell. The real thing is always better. DOSBox is quite slow in comparison. I think it's possible to apply hotfixes in Win9x' install CDs as well. Dual and quad core processors won't necessarily make your computer faster. Not to mention that XP will still bog down one core more than Me will. A 'modern' video card only matters if you like to play recent games. Just because it's cheap doesn't mean we want our OS to use more of it. We have our own files to store. NTFS is proprietary, less secure (you can hide things in streams), and benchmarks show it's not as fast as FAT.

There's another problem that I'd like to fix. When I do a Replace All operation, the control scrolls to each instance of the text in the file before replacing it. The scrolling happens automatically when the EM_EXSETSEL message is sent. This slows the replacing operating a lot. I've looked for other ways to replace text, but I haven't found anything. There doesn't seem to be a way to prevent the implicit scrolling either.

Looks like I wasn't accepting cookies from MSFN anymore. I allowed them again, and it works fine for now.

Is this issue ever going to be fixed? It's been a half year now.

Wow, it's been a half year since I posted in this thread. I've made some small changes since then to have my program behave more normally, but nothing major. I did find out how to enable the opening of large files, though. Which leads me to the current problem that's been bugging me for some time... I can't save large files. It gives an error. So I finally investigated using GetLastError() and FormatMessage(), and it turns out that the buffer I'm allocating it too small. I'm not sure why. A DWORD is 32-bit, which should be able to have a number as large as 2 GB, no? Anyway, this is the function I use to save a file, slightly altered from theForger's Win32 API Tutorial: BOOL saveFile(LPCTSTR pszFileName) { HANDLE hFile; BOOL bSuccess = FALSE; hFile = CreateFile(pszFileName, GENERIC_WRITE, 0, NULL, CREATE_ALWAYS, FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL, NULL); if (hFile != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) { DWORD dwTextLength; dwTextLength = GetWindowTextLength(g_hRichEdit); if (dwTextLength > 0) { LPSTR pszText; DWORD dwBufferSize = dwTextLength + 1; pszText = GlobalAlloc(GPTR, dwBufferSize); if (pszText != NULL) { if (GetWindowText(g_hRichEdit, pszText, dwBufferSize)) { DWORD dwWritten; if (WriteFile(hFile, pszText, dwTextLength, &dwWritten, NULL)) { bSuccess = TRUE; } } GlobalFree(pszText); } } } return bSuccess; } Despite previous Google searches being fruitless, I decided to try again. This time a message board thread suggested a solution. I looked at the EM_STREAMOUT message, and from there figured out how to make a callback function and correct my file saving function. It now works great.

What I'm saying is what I concluded after using RegMon and FileMon.

Yes, applications look in that registry list first for any DLL. If it finds it there, it will look for it in the given path. Otherwise, it looks in its directory, the desktop, and then the system directory.

The French version of that page exists (just add fr to the URL), but it also points to the English download.

WINDOWS\SYSTEM for Win9x. WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 for WinNT.

"awful lot"? Only 10 if you don't include DirectX 8.0a but do include the couple security updates. They're easily found as well.

Not really. Looks like I was. I looked at the page again closely, and chubby removes Active Desktop and View as a Web Page. Because, like me, you didn't want to confirm your birth date just for that? I did. I used to run Win98 FE. When DOS programs switched to 320x240 resolution, the screen would remain black and freeze. No such problem with Win95. http://toastytech.com/guis/medos.gif Definitely wrong! Running happily with 160 MB of RAM here with no tweaks needed.

I Googled this, and while you can remove Internet Explorer itself, you can't remove the web crap without switching the shell. Please don't selectively read my posts. I asked you what proof you needed. What would convince you, save for me filming the install process with a video camera? This doesn't make any sense, because Windows 98 is not optimised for anything newer than a 486 CPU. A higher clock speed will not suddenly make Win98 faster than Win95. Yet you're advocating Win98 only if it's stripped to what Win95 was. Except for the better USB support, of course.

What kind of proof are you looking for? I reinstalled Windows 95C many times years ago, and I never had IE4. But one time I left the CD-ROM in the drive, and then I saw the horror. What the installer does silently install is IE3, and you can prevent that by editing the setup ini file without any side-effects. IE is integrated into Win98's shell. You can't get rid of all of IE unless you change the shell, in which case most use Win95's shell. So why not just use Win95 instead? Considering the bloat that each Windows release brings with it, I find that hard to believe. My Win95 PC shuts down in only 2-3 seconds. There is no smaller hard drive support. With LLXX's patch it can even support HDDs larger than 137 GB. There is no web crap. Windows 95 can still be quite useful. This is a lie, as evidenced above.

JustinStacey, I find it contradicting that you would recommend Windows 98 for that computer, but not Win95C because of web integration. As you know, Windows 98 comes with web integration out of the box. At least in Win95C it's possible to not install IE at all. In fact, if you don't leave the CD-ROM in the drive on the full boot, you'll never see IE4. Win95 will not only be faster, it will be pretty much clutter-free. No giant toolbars and web integration. No Start Menu with a mind of its own to confuse you. It'll be more stable to as well.

Indeed, it's a timing error in a system file. What you do is boot into DOS and replace IOS.VXD with the patched version manually.

You don't seem to browse this forum enough, as I'm only partially incorrect. Windows 95 OSR 2.x' USB support patch installs a newer kernel that has basic support for WDM drivers. In a way, this is true, but don't underestimate Windows 95's ability to work with lots of USB flash drives!

As a Windows 95 OSR 2.x user as well, I recommend Windows 95. I feel they got it right with this version. Of course, the downside is that less applications support it. In the end, it really depends on what you want to do with it. Lacking driver support isn't really a conspiracy. Windows 98 has much better support for a better driver model that was borrowed from the Windows NT line. Many drivers are written in this new structure.

Err, ReactOS is a clone of Windows NT, which has what we're specifically concerned about...

In IE, that is. Probably the only web browser where disabling JavaScript is worth it.

Do you mean JavaScript? Because that's definitely for the paranoid. But I will concede that some sites out there throw too much of it at you, which bogs everything down. Blocking ad scripts isn't enough.

It sounds like you might like Haiku. It's based on BeOS, an actual home OS. There are permissions, but they don't restrict you, as they're only there for POSIX support. Haiku is still in development, but it's definitely something to watch.

Well, duh. But we are not average users.

I'd think your problem is because of the buggy mess that is the IE4 desktop 'update'.

People refused to buy computers with Vista. Come on, most people don't even know what an operating system is.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. Browsing the web doesn't mean downloading tons of executables from unknown sources. The web of HTML documents, images, CSS, and JavaScript. When you download an executable from the web, you do so from a trusted source. With P2P, all the sources are untrusted and unknown.