Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BogdanV

  • Birthday 11/18/1992

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
    Windows 10 x64
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

799 profile views
  1. Cheers! Finally, the last question and I won't be spamming this place any more Apparently OS version spoofing doesn't seem to be covered by KEx. Is there an official, generic way for achieving this (I know, for specific cases - Orca for .msi packages, hex editor for the oddball out there)? Because, case in point, for Firefox ESR 52.9.0, the installer aborted because it complained that its not running under XP. I remember that at least for WinMe there was an option to spoof the OS version in a way similar to how shims work. I extracted the package and ran FF from there but I'm thinking there might be a more elegant way for some apps than this. I mean, especially if, say app X requires a specific API function that was added in Win XP but deprecated in Vista or app Y requires a specific API function that was added in Vista but deprecated in 7. EDIT: Already answered in the previous post.
  2. Yes, I'm aware of the native shim implementation - what I'm saying is that, from what I remember (albeit this was probably on Win9x), KernelEx expanded the compatibility modes to include stuff like XP, Vista etc. or is this irrelevant to the way the system currently works? Also, just to confirm - the two links above are the current sources for latest updates on the platform, right? I'm asking because I remember there being other sources out there like MDGx's site but I haven't seen that one mentioned here in any recent posts.
  3. A bunch of questions from someone who's been out of the loop for the past ~5 years - sorry if its been asked before (I tried digging through countless posts and threads but I couldn't find this explicitly stated anywhere, only implied as common knowledge I guess): If I understand correctly, Windows2000-KB935839-v13i-x86-ENU.EXE contains the latest (at the moment of writing) version of KernelEx. Well, I tried searching for it on: - http://win2k.org/wlu/wluen.htm - https://twilczynski.com/windows/updates/ ...and I couldn't find anything. The only version of KernelEx I've found was via win2k.org and that was v30eM. Am I missing something obvious here? Also, I remember (been away for a good couple of years) there used to be a Compatibility tab injected in .exe app properties pages. I haven't seen this anymore. Should I presume that once you install KernelEx, that's it? Also, since I'm here, taking the opportunity to ask what is the latest version of Firefox that's supposed to work with KEx because on the thread with the "latest supported versions of software", Firefox support is listed as "on-going" yet I got the Win32 API method "RtlSetLastWin32Error" not found. Thanks!
  4. Hm... I was afraid it might not be possible . Alas, I could create a VS2005 solution and just keep both codebases in sync. Sure, it's going to be a bit of a pain having to recreate all the project settings but its good that I'm doing it while still early in development and not further down the road.
  5. Its been a while since I last posted around these places. I'm building a 3D engine from scratch using only SDL and since I had a gameport compatible joystick I thought it would be awesome to port it over to Windows 98 and run some performance tests as well on my K6-2 PC. Do you folk know if the Microsoft Compiler from VS2013 can output Win98-compatible code? Or what options would I have to compile for this platform? I'm fairly sure my dependencies are compatible and my code is C98 compatible.
  6. <sigh> I was skeptical about it but seeing that tool I thought we might just pull it off with a wrapper. Anyway, thanks for the clarifications ! I've heard about this problem for quite some time but I never managed to find any detailed information about it. Would you happen to know where I can find more details as to why 98/ME supports only a subset of the features specified in the WDM model ? The DDK had lots of info on supported stuff, but nothing regarding why video drivers don't work. PS: For clarification : I understood what you said only that I'd like to read the technical details so-to-say.
  7. When this tool was made : does the dev imply that video drivers fall within the WDM model or were they still using the NT model ? It would be awesome to expand the range of supported graphics cards, especially for ATI users who are mostly stuck with 9k series cards.
  8. I thought on trying to go with direct win32 programming, but it felt like a real pain from the begining, so, after looking through VC6, I discovered MFC, which, from a first glance, looks cleaner than win32 because it wraps around most of the common stuff. I found a tutorial on codersource.net that looks nice, but I was wondering if you'd have any recommendations as in other sites, books, whatever. Thanks in advance!
  9. I've hit a problem here. I guess I'm not the only one who went through the same issue. I made a mindows install. After that, I build a flopy image as outlined in bootcd.zip from the mindows project site (renamed autoexec.txt, msdos.txt and the like to bat and sys accordingly). I checked the image and it works correctly, so I went forward and build a bootable cd using the flopy image above and placed the mindows %systemroot% folder's contents in <cd root>\min\ as outlined in autoexec.bat Rebooted VPC and manually entered R:\win to start windows (strangely, autoexec simply ended with a pause command). The first weird thing was scanreg telling me that it didn't have enough space to "fix a problem that he found". After that, I get a quick error flash about reinstalling windows (missing stuff ?) and the virtual machine crashes completely (I'm left with the VPC Machines Console). I have to mention that in my mindows's config folder there were no user/system.dat files (but it booted ok). Starting the live cd without system/user.dat spewed several errors and crashed the VM, so, I ran patchsys and patchuse.exe from bootcd.zip and used the resulting files for registry. This brought me to the symptoms I mentioned in the beginning (scanreg, crash). Can someone tell me what/where could the problem be ? Its quite weird that scanreg yells "no free space" because the entire system folder is on the ram disk (xmsdsk) which has enough space.
  10. On my part, I'm thinking on deploying a compressed image from a light 98 environment, to take advantage of 32bit processing. Using compression would mean a small copy time (although I don't know if this would be counterbalanced by decompression time -which would be triggered from within the partition to increase performance).
  11. What I have in mind would be a 2 phase project : -1st : build a live cd with Setup.exe as shell + VBE driver for 32bit and higher res. -2nd: build a custom setup that copies a compressed image of 98/Me (that didn't go through the HW driver installation) in the target partition, expands it, makes it bootable and reboots for the final Setup stage. In the 2nd phase version of setup, you'd also be able to choose the amount of RAM to configure the system with (so that you won't have to mess with DOS and manually edit system.ini). I was thinking that launching setup from a 98 environment would be faster than the current win3.1 way (I'm thinking of 32bit vs 16bit operating mode) and you'd also get more eyecandy with 800x600 and 32bit graphics. As for the 2nd phase, I think thats kind of what MS does with the current WIM-based installs of Vista and 7, plus, the setup process is streamlined by the fact that user interaction is kept to a minimum (although some might not like it). Also, I know that nothing beats a classic install from HDD, but wouldn't this be nicer for fresh installs and "more modern" ? This could also work like the live cds from linux distros. You get the chance to see how Windows works and you can launch it right away.
  12. You don't need to go any further. Just browse above, in the 9x Members Projects section and look for RP9 (Revolutions Pack 9). It has a ton of theme support, ClearType and all sorts of enhancements to the look and performance of 98.
  13. I never changed the HT support in BIOS and so far I haven't had any problems with my Prescott CPU.
  14. Well, you'd probably want to see the actual animation. Here it is : PS: I'd attach the files if archives would be permitted. Anyway, PM me for the files. until I find a file host and post a upload link.
  15. Its really odd for MMC to be on a 9x machine (well, I've only seen what it does on NT). As far as I can tell, you can open .msc files with it, like Services, Computer Management, etc. As for win98, I've never seen it there, so this's all I know.
  • Create New...