NoNameNeeded

Yes, I cut the text file into two halves and now it works. But it means that I have to start the application twice, one with the first half, one with the second half of the text file. There is no way to raise the maximum number of items?

Can anyone tell me why this application won't work on Windows 95? Seems like it has some memory issues but is there anything that could be done about it? http://www.webring.org/l/rd?ring=ansax;id=13;url=http%3A%2F%2Flexicon.ff.cuni.cz%2Fapp%2F (none of the versions there work)

Since there are thousands of different versions out there, I don't know which is which but I found out that this one... http://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk55-win32-git-20190824-978d4a7da-xpmod.7z ...works better than this one... https://o.rths.cf/basilisk/basilisk52-g4.4.win32-git-20190907-6db06749e-xpmod.7z ...even though the latter one is the newer version (or seems to be the newer version, according to the date) In the version from sept 2019 zooming in or out in google maps using the mouse wheel doesn't work (like in a much older version I found) but it does work in the version from August 2019.

I certainly wouldn't install it, at least not on a real computer. Windows 95 is rather finicky when it comes to updates. Updates might render some applications or games useless or might slow down your computer significantly or just cause other seemingly inexplicable problems. Just install the updates you really need and don't go for the most recent files just because they're newer. Even if you don't run into any incompatibility problems newer system files might slow down your computer (as mentioned above). Recently I updated the Common Controls Library with an update called 50comupd.exe (it seems to be a well known update). It is needed to run some newer applications but on a 486 you just don't want to install it because it slows the explorer down like you wouldn't believe. Before the update it was snappy, after the update the explorer slows down to a crawl. Since I knew which file had been updated, I was able to replace the newer file with the older one but of course you wouldn't know that if you installed all the updates at once.

I'm sorry but I really don't know an answer to that. I think a lot can be achieved (just think about KernelEx) but I know way too little about that stuff.

It doesn't work. I've just tried it on Windows 95B. Throws an error about a missing function "IsDebuggerPresent" which I could "fix" but it still won't start.

I doubt that since it even runs on Windows 95.

I've just downloaded this browser and as far as I can tell it seems to be working fine (on Windows 95B from '96). It's a nice idea to have a basic browser for Windows 95 but I think it would even make more sense to use something like KMeleon because as far as I know it uses Windows stuff as a GUI and not the XUL stuff that all these Firefox derivates come with. What this means for the end-user is that it uses less memory and launches faster and that really is quite an important thing on an older computer. Just saying...

I wish I could find a link but there is someone somewhere who allegedly got (a browser based on) Firefox 53 to work on XP. It's not a normal version, it uses some linux-like stuff and you can't just install it like a normal Windows application and therefore I couldn't get it to run. But anyway, has anyone heard anything about that?

I don't use Windows 98 but Windows 95. Of course, I don't use it on my main computer (even though I have a few virtual machines that run Win95), but 1 or 2 years ago, I bought an old laptop, just for fun. And then I thought, why not putting it to use as it was meant to be? So, now I really use it as a computer that I can take anywhere to work on Word document or to view PDF files. And except for the battery life I think I'm not really worse off than other people who also use Word and pdfs, so it doesn't really make that much of a difference (but I don't have to struggle with ribbons in Word, which is a good thing) From time to time a get strange looks and some people have asked me if my laptop is some kind of new retro-looking device and OS. It's not, it's as old as it looks.

Why is it a recommended update? It seems to be the version from ME. Does it do anything better than older versions?

I've changed these settings to new values now. I don't know what they do, all I noticed was that if I set them to high the app won't start because it doesn't have enough RAM, but now it works and doesn't use more RAM then before. I can't say it's perfect because I've encountered a BSOD again but only once even though I opened and closed the app at least 20 times in a row. So I don't know what these settings do but they seem to mitigate the problem.

Oh and one more thing. In CFF Explorer I found something that's called "Native Win9x driver" I just applied this setting to my application and even though the BSOD did show up once, I was still able to get back to a (somewhat screwed) Windows and restart the computer which is already a bit better than having to reset the machine.

Sometimes, when a BSOD occurs and I hit enter several times I get to see an interesting picture. This time, it looks like a giant M..:) To me, it seems like this has something to do with either gdi or the graphics card (or both). I've already updated the driver but what's interesting is that these BSOD occur both on a virtual machine running Win95 and also on a Pentium 1 laptop so even though the graphics card and its driver differ a lot, the BSOD is still the same.

Yes, but even with the redirections you suggested, these random BSODs still occur. So, that can't be the solution. I'm afraid there just is no solution. It's just that this application wasn't made for Win95, that's the bottom line. But it was worth a try. P.S: I also opened the file in CFF explorer and kicked out msimg32.dll After all, Win95 doesn't come with msimg32.dll (which is related to gdi.exe) and the application uses only two functions so I just removed it to see if the BSODs vanish. They didn't. But again, it was worth a try.