Francesco
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Francesco
-
-
real dos is still way better than dosbox,
dosbox is too slow
There are some alternatives, like a sound blaster emulator for XP. I never tried them but some of my friends told me that they're pretty fast. If you have problems you can still keep a real dos partition for games.
0 -
Only in certain situations; since NTFS is more complex it has a larger 'critical window' - where interrupted writes can corrupt the entire filesystem. What if that interrupted write happened somewhere in the journal file?The important advantage of the NTFS is however that since it's journaled it's way more reliable than FAT.Well if the journal gets corrupted there should still be the filesystem structure intact so nothing weird should happen.
On FATxx the amount of read/write activity done is far less than on NTFS, and the critical window is small.Most of the writes are cached so NTFS's critical window isn't much bigger. However you still have to be 2x times unlucky by having both a journal corruption and a filesystem structure corruption together.
0 -
to Francesco:
Nvidia cards are not supported, but Ati cards are still supported as long as i know (i have Ati Radeon 9800 and i downloaded universal driver - downloaded files for winxp and 98 was identical - month ago?)
This is why I said "On the recent games almost always you get better performance and more reliability with more recent drivers. On 9x ATI video cards after the 9800 and all nvidia cards that came out in 2006 are not supported. Same thing for recent nforce/ATI chipsets: they're not supported."
If WinPE is an application which has 800 megs (and maybe updates) i can remove all malware with less than 800kb of tools manually in few minutes. No file scans which takes long time, i just reboot to dos mode.WinPE is not an application it's a sort of live version of XP where you can add and run plenty of applications. With some plugins you can enable plug&play, explorer/IE and many other stuff to make it work like a nearly-full XP environment booting from CD. It may take more to boot however you can use plenty of stuff you can't use on DOS (you can even get some games like quake3 running on winPE and this says it all).
That winXP runs better on newer hardware is myth. I have P4 with 2Ghz processor and 512Mb of ram with winXp in my office. Also i tried XP at home on 800Mhz processor with same ram. Overall system performance was better at my home computer. Then i returned to Win98 and performance is much better. (i tried it with 3d game)Maybe because your office PC has plenty of cheap integrated hardware, bloated antivirus etc?
If Microsoft advertized that XP shall have better performance... it could, but it is not affected by hardware but by new features which are implemented to system (throught DirectX and other similar modules).It is mostly affected by drivers and OS features (like XP's prefetch, that is why XP usually gets higher scores on winstone benchmarks). After all the NT kernel doesn't have much higher added overhead compared to the 9x kernel.
Today all what is supported by Xp si althought supported by 98's community, or is it not necessary for me as user (some parts of XP - applications which are included in it).All? What about applications like Diskeeper 11, Office 2003/2007, NETFX 3.0, visual studio 2005 etc? Even firefox 3.0 is going to drop 9x support.
What is not well known that many drivers for w2k or xp are suitable for w98se, even when hardware manufacturer does not offer 9x support
I use WDM driver designed for winXP on my sound card and on myTV tuner. Test showed me that these are the best.Those are usually very rare exceptions.
Althougt they do not have legacy support i have dos drivers active and i can use them in dos anytime i need.If you need dos support you can still keep a 9x partition for dos stuff like games etc. However on XP there are projects like dosbox that are getting better and better with each version.
Also i dont prefer performance. I prefer compatibility. What i found out is that it goes hand in hand with reliability and performance. Most trouble with reliability was always caused by applications, not only in win98 but also in higher versions...But an OS that can't be crashed or hanged by most applications is a step above the others, don't you think?
I've had my xp laptop running for entire months without a single shutdown (because I use hybernation) on 98 probably I would have been forced to reboot a few times in a week because of crashes or ram being eated up by leaks.
0 -
That's a feature created to make crashes efficient. Your system shouldn't crash to begin with. And if you claim XP is nearly uncrashable, it's pointless.
What if your PC power suddently goes off? What if the IDE/SATA driver messes up and starts writing everywhere?
You know that on FAT32 all the files in the directory structure are stored together? What happens if the power goes out and windows is updating for example the "last access" date of a file in a directory? The ENTIRE DIRECTORY could get corrupted and without journal all the file references would be lost.
Most people also seem to forget that NTFS is a proprietary file system, its implementation known only to M$ as a trade secret, while FAT is a partially patented file system whose inner workings have been documented all over. With NTFS, you need M$ to read your files, it partially owns them. With FAT32, I own my files and have full control over them.
And? That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of partition managers and recovery utilities that work perfectly on ntfs (partition magic, acronis (that is linux based), easyrecovery etc). And now linux has fully working read/write drivers for NTFS.
Only the data currently being processed, which on my computer is only the browser cache.Everytime windows accesses a file it updates the Last Access entry in the directory structure for the file, during some boots windows back-ups the registry, etc.
Indeed, why use Win9x, NOT why NOT to use it.If there are people giving PROs about 98 there has to be somebody to point also at the CONs, don't you think?
Games belong on consoles.
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_...pic_id=24525221 what about these games? Are they all coming to consoles?
And if you really need your Oblivion fix on the PCs, you can run it with an older 32 MB graphics card while still looking awesome.Oblivion looking awesome on a 32mb card?!? Have you even tried running it on a 32mb card? Pratically you see only very-near things. Enemies and other stuff remain unseen unless you get very near to them. It's almost unplayable.
Great, a large boot CD-ROM, when a tiny DOS environment works just fine on Win9x.Since linux now has a full ntfs read/write driver you can use a nice linux bootdisk if you don't want a large boot cd-rom
Marketing at work, M$ needing to sell their newer product. Moving on.Marketing? I'd really want to see recent benchmarks of win98 with legacy drivers (because most hardware producers don't support 98 anymore) and xp with recent drivers.
Yet another reason to not use XP: it's bloated!But that bloat can be easily disabled from the services console. Can you say the same of the hidden win9x processes?
Doesn't beat ghosting.Even XP/2k can be ghosted. But what about all the up-to-date drivers that can be integrated in a XP install with the driverpacks?
Those newer drivers come with newer graphics cards.What?
I tried that before. Never again, it's a mess. Booting to DOS is much better and easier.A mess? With just the XPE plugin you can have an almost completely working windows XP (where IE, explorer and many other applications actually work) all booting from CD.
0 -
_beginthreadex is preferable over _beginthread and CreateThread? the reason behind this is simply that the C runtime library was first invented long before multithreading was available and as far as I am aware is not os specific.
_beginthreadex and _beginthread are preferable over CreateThread especially when using the CRT included with windows 98 because pre-7.0 versions had weird memory leaks. This doesn't happen on the CRT 7.0 included on XP that has been mostly rewritten (to make it more thread-safe).
Regarding performance http://www.devhardware.com/c/a/Software/Win98SE-vs-WinXP/I know you will say disable this service disable that service, but I could also minimise my 98 setup and boy would it fly.
Like I said before if you prefer performance over stability is a different matter. However if you actually test recent hardware, that has legacy drivers for 9x and a much more recent drivers on XP probably you would get different results.
Most PC users would prefer reliability against slightly better performances.
MS made a lot of claims about XP, it is in the interests of marketing to make something new appear far superior.Because it is in fact superior. Maybe in some cases it isn't as fast as windows 9x however in terms of stability is light years ahead.
Creating a barebones 98 install with any programs preinstalled is a snip, it is easy to copy to any machine and then run hardware detect ren setupx/4.dll etc.You can do that with XP too (with a tool called preinst) but I prefer reinstalling from scratch with the driverpacks so I get up-to-date drivers in each install.
I do not think i will be buying a copy of XP and then purchasing additional ram for my 98 systems that run just fine with what is already thereWell like I said if fine for you means only better performance it's all another matter.
0 -
ok i crashed 2k by taking some ram out going from 96 to 48 or something because i needed a 64mb stick
Have you tried running memtest86 after removing the ram stick?
nlite is easy to use but there are those utils do some of what nlite does for nt5x+ for 9xWell we were talking about the easiness of a XP install versus a 9x install. Using nlite that does everything is still easier than having to mess up with different utilities.
0 -
What about graphics and motherboard drivers? Nvidia and ATI stopped supporting Win9x. And as you may know often newer drivers mean better performance on games.
often but not always
On the recent games almost always you get better performance and more reliability with more recent drivers. On 9x ATI video cards after the 9800 and all nvidia cards that came out in 2006 are not supported. Same thing for recent nforce/ATI chipsets: they're not supported.
Actually there's adobe 7 lite that somebody in this forum released. It has most of the adobe reader features but loads faster and uses much less ram.actually adobe 7 has been run on 98
I was actually answering to the comment that acrobat 7 is slow (and 8 is even slower). I wasn't talking about application compatibility.
This is why I told that if you have very low ram you can try installing win2000 that has much lower hardware requirements.but it still crashed when i only had 48mb of ram
Probably because you have some bad drivers or faulty hardware (for example a broken ram stick) I have never seen a 2k crashing because of low ram.
With nlite you can do a completely automated install cd of 2000/XP with applications, updates and, if you use driverpacks, all up-to-date drivers already integrated.Those 2 utilities aren't as easy as nlite where you can integrate drivers/updates(and updates are really integrated in the cab files)/applications and configure every aspect of your xp/2k install.
also what if i dont want to download winPE its an 800mb download i thinkYou can build it from a XP cd using bartPE.
0 -
I have been using both OS for sometime now but some comments/replies are correct
But for someone to even suggest using winxp on 200MHz with 128MB seem far stretch.
This is why I told that if you have very low ram you can try installing win2000 that has much lower hardware requirements.
Yeah we know if u take away the services/updates/prefetch i.e strip it to barebone it can work but what the use??? u are not going to use them bare....The common user usually doesn't need many of the services in XP. You can disable plenty of services and still have plenty of uses for your XP install.
try installing adobe, ms office, directx, some codecs, media player and after a few weeks u get a lot of registry problem and it slow down to the point of frustrationI made clean installs on plenty of PCs and never got slowdowns because of the OS. The only PCs that slowed down were PCs where the users used P2P software that create a lot of fragmented files (but that happened on 9x systems too), PCs infested with malware or PCs that ran out of ram because of plenty of useless applications running in background.
To me win98 seems to handle better. Oh by the way dun use adobe, foxit is better and no memory hogActually there's adobe 7 lite that somebody in this forum released. It has most of the adobe reader features but loads faster and uses much less ram.
Another things is that i really have forgotten how many times i have reinstall winXp already.But I dun need to reinstall win98SE that much. I only reinstall it only after 6 months when my programs files clogged
And about the ease of reinstalling the Win98SE i guess it much faster and easy with a DVD as stated in my earlier reply.
With nlite you can do a completely automated install cd of 2000/XP with applications, updates and, if you use driverpacks, all up-to-date drivers already integrated.
Crashs??? Yup it seems that win98se crash more often than winXP but the problems seems easier to solve than winXPIt's almost impossible that XP crashes unless you have faulty hardware or very bad drivers.
WinXP just give u an error message and I just dun know how to solve it.Want an example?? ok here is one, I just wonder how many know how to solve it (of course someone understand the error but how many?) it quite common really
The instruction at "0x008b3b9e" referenced memory at "0x02aa2288", The memory could not be "read"
Click OK to terminate the program
Oh well that's an application issue not an OS issue (unless you have ram problems). If you get those kind of crashes with any application and also BSODs i'd suggest you to scan your ram with memtest86.
0 -
There are several reasons why i use windows 98 instead of newer win...
Pros
1. Compatibility
With some unofficial patches i am able to run newest games (such as Doom3, or Oblivion), and its real Dos compatibility grants great performance for oldest IBM PC based games. I can run programs from 1980 and newest ones on this machine in their native environment.
Also it still supports all file formats (which i have found) if you use suitable application.
What about graphics and motherboard drivers? Nvidia and ATI stopped supporting Win9x. And as you may know often newer drivers mean better performance on games.
2. Virus and system protectionMost new viruses and worms are working only in GUI mode, because they use system registry entries. Win98 supports real dos mode in which are these subsystems passive and skilled user is able to remove infection manually (with scanreg-restore, and manual erasement of virus files). System can be cleared in 15 minutes.
3. Dos Support
Win98 is the last OS which supports real dos. this grants many possibilities, not only by recovery from virus infection, but even if system is unrecoverably damaged. If you have backup of system you can just erase whole windows directory and replace it with backup (in gui repeat that action to repair "file~1.ext" names).
In dos mode is also possible to use internet browsers little bit safer, if you know that browsed web is infected, or if you need driver or file which is corrupted in windows and you need to replace it.
You can create a Windows PE CD to access your NTFS partition, fix the registry, restore your windows backup etc.
4. System performanceWindows 98 doesnt have so much spam in itself as newer systems. Also you can gain better control to tweak up the performance of system than in windows Xp (even throught config sys, and others).
XP is actually slower only if you run it on really old hardware without much ram or with really bad drivers. If you run it on recent hardware usually you get much better performance than win9x systems, especially since I told you before recent hardware is only supported on XP (and not only videocards, now even chipset producers are dropping 9x support).
Better performance than 9x was one of the things that MS continuosly advertized when XP came out:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/eva...erformance.mspx
Win 98 is not so stable, but it also have same potential, when something screws up it is instantly certain (system crashes and locks up), and it can be fixed in few minutes without reinstallation process. Also there is community which works on its upgrade. Many software and hardware limits have already been broken.You can fix XP very fast too with WinPE. I fixed plenty of malware-infested PCs with it.
0 -
You seem to be the master of generalization, which createthread() in our virtual address space leaks memory, please be more specific.
As long as I remember CreateThread()/_beginthread() leak some memory on Win9x this is why Apache has the following compile switch:
PMT_PTHREAD
This MPM is based on the PREFORK MPM and begins by forking the desired number of child processes, each of which starts the specified number of threads. When a request comes in, a thread will accept the request and serve the response. If most of the threads in the entire server are busy serving requests, a new child process will be forked. This MPM should be used on platforms that have threads, but which have a memory leak in their implementation.
With regard to ntfs or fat, both have there own advantages disadvantages. disk size,if you like to multiboot,non(sequential) write capability,if you like control from dos,if you have software to defrag mft, all come into the equation.The important advantage of the NTFS is however that since it's journaled it's way more reliable than FAT. Also it has some cool features like additional streams that can be used by antiviruses (for example kaspersky) to store checksum data to avoid scanning the same files twice.
Both types allow only the os to disk write and in my many years of experience fat(32) has never let me down.There are linux ext2 users that could say the same thing of ext2 because they have a stable setup: that doesn't change that with ext2 or fat32 you risk losing more data if the O.S. crashes or the computer is suddently powered off.
This forum has come across people like you before, it is all about choice, we have made our choice,you have made yours. The only difference being that you are posting in the forum of the particular os you have not chosen. Do they not talk much in their?If you didn't notice this thread is named "Why continue to use Windows 9x?" so I didn't come here accidentally saying that NT-based OSes are better without reasons just to p*** other people off. I answered in this thread because somebody asked why windows 9x should still be used and I gave my reasons not to use it, because it's unsupported and very unreliable.
If you prefer performance over stability it's your preference however that doesn't change the fact that NT based oses are years ahead in terms of stability.
0 -
There have been times when I had dozens of crashes and/or system freezes daily, while testing alpha builds of a certain application. Pushing the Reset button was a common task. Power outage was also common at that time. And guess what: my Win98SE is still there, with no format/reinstall/recovery, after 25 months.
It's almost impossible that on XP/2k an application can bring down the entire OS. Also you can still launch the application with the lowest priority to avoid it to slow down the OS.
Do that to an XP machine and you'll switch to Linux in less than a week.Why should NTFS corrupt more than FAT32? The point of NTFS, like any other journaled FS, is avoiding corruption.
An operating system is a frame. I need my system to run my chosen applications, not the OS and nothing else. Even if the hardware allows XP or 2k, I'd rather use the resources swallowed by the imperative antivirus and firewall on an NT system, for the running applications instead. Yes, I don't need AV nor firewall, and I'm connected to the Internet 24/7 and on a LAN. No, no router. Can you believe that? Why should I give up my freedom in exchange for a life of terror?MS know that. That's why they're doing everything they can to force users abandon 9x and "upgrade" to 2k/XP/Vista. They made a mistake: offered freedom to ordinary people and now they wanna take it back.
Life of terror? If you keep automatic updates on and don't use IE I really don't see how you can get infected by a virus on XP or 2k. And the firewall on XP uses a incredibly low amount of CPU since it just monitors open ports.
Also on Win9x there were flaws that let EVERYBODY access your file shares from the internet just by guessing the first letter of the password so Win9x wasn't magically immune of bugs (and there are plenty of worms that still infect win9x machines with shares turned on and no patches).
0 -
What's that? It's the sound of my point flying past your head, and you missed it!
Like I said before when the hardware allows XP (or win2k) to run I think it should preferred over 9x. I don't know how can you say that an OS is "running fine" when such OS stability can be compromised by any bad-written application. And as you may know finding an application that doesn't suffer memory leaks or doesn't have any bugs is very, very hard.
The only idea of using an OS that has memory leaks even when creating new threads (yes, win9x does) and that relies on a partition type that risks to get completely corrupted with each crash gives me the creeps.
0 -
Francesco, you don't seem to understand that it's useless to install XP on new or older machines.
Because the less ram and speed, the less XP is useful and the more ram and speed, the more w98 is stable.
Upgrading your system to make it XP capable just make it useless to install XP.
It's not useless XP is easier, extremely stable unless you have hardware with messy drivers and actually more supported by hardware manifacturers (so for example if in the future you'll want to buy a new usb printer/scanner for your pc etc you won't have any problem).
Generally XP is better i've installed it on very old machines like Pentium 200 mmx, celerons etc when tweaked down it runs very well (and sometimes even better) than 98/ME (and no, ME doesn't always runs bad with the right drivers).
The only problem you may have is with integrated videocard that enormously slown down the user esperience especially on XP (for reasons that are too long to explain now) and with ram that most of the times can be upgraded.
To solve the RAM problem I bought plenty of 64mb sticks so if one of my friends wanted to install XP on their ultra-old machine I just had to put 2/4 sticks of 64mb ram and everything would have been running fine. Processor speed hasn't never stopped me as long as the CPU is MMX compatible (so this means at least a pentium mmx with more than 200mhz).
Nobody has ever complained that their system was slower with XP, instead people told me that they didn't notice slowdowns and had better esperience with XP, unless the people had integrated videocard (but most of the times I solved by adding some old PCI ATI rage videocards).
I understand that 95/98 may be faster on very very old system however I think that if the hardware allows XP to be installed then I think that XP should be preferred over 9x (unless you need specific software that runs well only 9x like games but you still can use dual boot).
Also don't forget that if XP doesn't run you (non-MMX cpu, chipset that doesn't support more than 128mb of ram etc)there's still Win2000 that is not bad at all.
i made a mistake a meant mandrake 10.2 was a resource hog but xp is a much bigger resource hog,have you tried running xp on 64 mb of ram,
i disabled most of the services,
the install probably only took a short three hours or so
and it wasnt practically doing more than one thing at once.
also sure xp can run on a p3 866mhz with 128mb ram but if sophos is installed on it than it wont run anymore
Yes it probably runs bad because XP wants ram: when I can't install more than 128mb of ram I usually give up the AV (I install for example AOL virus shield (a rebranded version of KAV) and disable all the realtime scans, etc. I just say the user to scan the stuff manually), automatic updates (and all the related services), imapi, time service, sysmon, server, workstation services, all the useless background processes installed by hardware drivers and software, etc.
I can manage to get it up to about 50 mb of ram however if you still need the AV or just find the experience too sluggish you can still try installing 2k.
0 -
Yeah, I just installed XP on a spare PentiumMMX @ 200MHz with 128MB of RAM (Intel 430TX chipset) and it runs very well... not. What do you say, should I do that for my other 200MHz MMX with only 64MB RAM or the Pentium 166MHz with 32MB RAM (both Intel 430VX chipset)? I bet they would fly... out the window.
As I told you you can buy on ebay very cheap 64mb sticks of ram (because nobody wants them). If your mb has 4 ram slots (like most) you can get 256mb on your mb.
I had Win98SE and Server2003 dualboot on this current machine (Pentium III @ 800MHz, SiS630 chipset) before my old HDD crashed. While 98SE was literally flying, 2003 with most services disabled (which took me a lot of time for searching documentation, applying and testing) was crawling. One application at a time, otherwise I would've brought it to its knees.Did you install updated drivers? Did you restore video/audio acceleration? Did you check out that UDMA is enabled?
Guess what I'm running now on my new 160GB HDD... Yeah, 98SE only.I don't know why you prefer running an OS without memory protection and that also relies on FAT. I've installed XP on plenty of old PCs (even very old 200mhz pentium MMXs) and with the services tweaked and updated drivers most of the time it was running very very well.
A 800mhz pc like yours should be more than capable of running XP: do you have an integrated SiS graphics card? That could explain why XP runs slow, drivers for some old SiS hardware, especially video hardware, run horribly on XP.
I have XP on a 733 mhz laptop with Ali chipset and it runs very very well, surely better than the 98se the laptop came with.
Regarding Linux, I played around for a bit with Ubuntu and Kubuntu 6.06 in live mode. While Ubuntu was freezing after some time while doing nothing special but tweaking some settings, Kubuntu has been running fine for hours, after tweaking the very same settings. But there are two major drawbacks that I see in Linux:1. Fonts are absolutely crappy, I mean I couldn't find not even one font that would largely resemble what I'm used to from Windows, and that Firefox browser... ugh, it makes me sick the way it looks and works (no flames intended) with those ugly fonts.
This is because Apple has patents on fonts antialiasing so the linux distros come with antialiasing disabled. You have to enable antialiasing by hand if you want the fonts to look like XP. Unfortunately linux antialiasing is not at the same level of cleartype however it's still pretty good.
2. I couldn't for the life of me get my Romanian keyboard layout to look/work exactly as in Windows. I've been using the RO layout ever since Win95 although it was a pain to set it in the version of 95 I had here, and I expected to be able to have it work identically in Linux. However, that was not possible at all. And this made Linux a no-no, for me.You can still post your problem on the ubuntu forums probably they'll solve it.
0 -
I use 98 because I provide free computers to the disabled. I collect any old computer parts and assemble them into working computers. The fastest computer that has been donated so far is a 500MHz Pentium III. Windows 9x OS’s are the only ones that have been donated and are the only OS’s that will run on these old machines. These machines change the lives of many of the recipients and I’d like to thank everyone here for keeping the old OS’s working. You’re helping a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t have computers at all.
XP works very well on old computers if you disable useless services. Yes you will still need much ram however you can buy plenty of 64mb sticks on ebay like I did (for 40€ I got 40 64mb 133mhz sticks).
i have to dissagree with linux resource hog, have you ever tried using mandrake 10.2 with KDE and looked ate the memory useage. I only had about 50mb of my 256mb of ram(98se was released in 1999)
I have seen optimized windows 2003s (converted to workstations) and windows XPs using less than 50mb ram without essential services disabled (and some of them with the themes still turned on). Most of the usage unfortunately sometimes are related to the device drivers however XP and 2003 without some less-used services enabled don't use very much ram.
Actually the biggest memory hog on XP/2003 are automatic updates and the services it relies on however if you connect to the internet with a router (so your pc is not directly visible on internet) and you don't use IE/outlook probably you're safe without updates.
0 -
Nice work, rick.
You posted these on RyanVM's forum like a month ago, didn't you? They're ok, but not alphablended.
I like MrNxDmx's AIO pack better. Sorry.
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?...ight=aio+cursor
[edit]
Oh, yeah. The Vista theme. Forgot about that one!
You were right. The 'orb' one's the best. Maybe you could put a theme together with this, AeroCursors (alphablended), and your VistaRTM Sounds pack?
That would really hit the spot!
I was thinking to make a theme with:
-luna element black
-the fake vista sounds (yes I know they're fake but they really sound great)
-vista cursors
is anybody here interested?
0 -
Ctrl+C (for copy) in configuration return to the wizard...i have the same problem of ozzil...
I have the same identical problem too
0 -
hi all,
I just want to make sure that everyone in this forum try Dream linux. It is very new and it's better than most linux versions today. Yes I have tried Ubuntu and about 40 other linux versions and Dream linux is already a top performer and I believe it's just in it's 2nd release.
You tried 40 linux distributions?!? Oh my!
0 -
you have to install the updates on the first boot after Setup
That's what i'm doing however I found out that after extracting the rollup2 package inside there are normal hotfixes that can be applied by hand. Some of them can be integrated but all the ones regarding MCE strangely won't install.
The problem is that running that hotfix takes forever and also requires a reboot because IE won't show webpages unless windows is restarted.
0 -
I tried integrating some of the MCE 2005 hotfixes (especially rollup 2) but it looks like they don't get integrated correctly because MCE is installed after the hotfixes (so the patch won't work). Is it because nlite doesn't support them or am I doing something wrong?
0 -
Did you answer Yes when it asks you do you want to try normal integration?
It's not for 6.4, 6.4 is obsolete.
WMP 6.4 is still present in XP because it is used by some websites and that's what the patch is for.
I didn't get any integration error, the hotfix got integrated however WU still proposes me the patch. However I think the responsible is WMP11 that probably installs another version of 6.4.
Are you integrating this patch before or after integrating WMP 11? Try doing so before WMP 11.
I was integrating it before, now i've tried integrating it after wmp11 and the problem seems to have disappeared
0 -
Did you answer Yes when it asks you do you want to try normal integration?
It's not for 6.4, 6.4 is obsolete.
WMP 6.4 is still present in XP because it is used by some websites and that's what the patch is for.
I didn't get any integration error, the hotfix got integrated however WU still proposes me the patch. However I think the responsible is WMP11 that probably installs another version of 6.4.
0 -
Ok, but since this is for multiple wmp versions I'll just normally integrate it and let it worry about correct version itself during runtime.
Isn't it only for wmp 6.4? However i've tried redownloading the hotfix and remaking the windows cd and the problem is still there: on windows update I get no updates available (because all the other updates integrated well) except that one.
0 -
No, usually the non-english versions have the extra language file which I must pin-point.
But this KB918033 isn't wmp hotfix, I see explorer.exe in it. Please confirm the number.
Oops the KB is KB923689.
0
I use WDM driver designed for winXP on my sound card and on myTV tuner. Test showed me that these are the best.
Why continue to use Windows 9x?
in Windows 9x/ME
Posted · Edited by Francesco
That's because there's a limit in the number of quotes in a single post. (this is why I was forced to use bold instead of the quote block in some previous answers)
I don't think that VDMsound (the sb emulator) is made to work in conjuction with other emulators. It's made to enable audio on dos games that work fine under xp (and there are many of them).
However I prefer dosbox that even if doesn't have a complete sb32AWE emulation (like any heavy dos gamer would expect) you can tweak the speed and have a better game experience because on newer systems many games' speeds get messed up: for example I tried playing stargunner and quake on dos and they were going way too fast (even with slowmo). With dosbox I just tweaked a few settings and they start running fine.