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

  • Days Won


LoneCrusader last won the day on February 27

LoneCrusader had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

138 Excellent

1 Follower

About LoneCrusader

  • Rank
    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • OS
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

5,952 profile views
  1. LoneCrusader

    Windows ME VIA AC'97 not working

    This may not apply to Windows ME and therefore may not be of any use to the OP, but here's a heads up to anyone using 98SE - Realtek's A405 and A406 AC'97 WDM packages use an ALCXWDM.SYS file that is missing a WDM function under 98SE, namely MmMapLockedPagesSpecifyCache. Therefore A405 and A406 are probably never going to work on a vanilla 98SE system, no matter what audio device you have. You will need WDMSTUB.SYS or rloew's WDMEX.VXD to provide this function. The A404 version does not appear to have any missing functions. (If anyone can check Windows ME and see if this function is available there we can clarify whether or not ME is affected by this.)
  2. Polls can be done. Just switch to the "Poll" tab after you click "Start New Topic." As for splitting the thread, dencorso will have to decide on that. My forum mod powers aren't global. I remember at one time you actually provided XP x64 compatible builds of Pale Moon when the official version was no longer supporting it. Based on our first encounter several years ago now I knew you had, shall we say, a "condescending" attitude toward older systems, but I never understood how you could go so quickly from providing those unofficial builds for unsupported XP x64 to being so vehemently opposed to anyone who even mentions retaining compatibility for NT5.x... But I digress, and if I continue this will be way off-topic, and pointless. Anyway, I'm glad to see that you're taking a more constructive approach. I just hope it is truly in good faith. Maybe something good can come of this, and we can avoid any more unwarranted negativity, here and elsewhere as well. I never dreamed there would be occasion to say this, but thanks!
  3. LoneCrusader

    WPA2 for Windows 9x!

    Interesting. If you find any working links for versions we haven't covered here, please post them. I never really expected to find a wireless client supporting WPA2 for 95 from the beginning; it would be great to find such but I'll settle for WPA. At this point I really just needed to verify that the WiFi card driver I loaded under 95 was actually working, so a client capable of just running under 95 and listing available networks is one step in the right direction.
  4. LoneCrusader

    WPA2 for Windows 9x!

    I remember this; unfortunately I didn't save the file at the time. Hopefully someone kept a copy or the user will return; I think he wrote some other tool that may have survived the forum crash. I've been trying to extract older copies of Odyssey from the Wayback Machine with no luck. Most of the links lead to a registration form which of course doesn't work and never resolves a download link. However I did manage to get these pages which give the original file naming conventions for older versions prior to the ones we have (and possibly later ones as well). No luck using them on Google either though. https://web.archive.org/web/20050924193348/http://www.funk.com:80/odyssey/user/odyssey/client/ https://web.archive.org/web/20030805064057/http://www.funk.com/odyssey/user/odyssey/client/
  5. Well, now if it's all over but the re-naming.. I'll resubmit my previous suggestion as shortened by Destro - "Lunaris" for your version of Pale Moon; or maybe at this point "LunarFox" would be better since you now have to work back to Firefox from Pale Moon rather than the other way around (plus it should make for an interesting icon! lol). And possibly "Draconis" for Basilisk?
  6. +1 I certainly would not be in any hurry to appease anyone who comes in here making ever-more ridiculous demands and who displays such overt hostility toward your projects and this community on other websites. But you do as you see fit; if you feel that it's best to do whatever you can to settle the issue then by all means proceed as you have been. The absurdity of all of this is mind boggling. Most normal people who write a piece of software or code wish to be credited for their work, and here instead we have Matt Tobin who is so disgruntled by the fact that someone else dares to revert some changes he made to a piece of open-source software that he didn't even write in the first place that he throws a temper tantrum, removes his project code from the public, and screams like a child until someone gives him what he wants. And what does he want? His "name" removed from these forked builds, because he might accidentally have his name associated with "us", the unwashed, the untouchables, the Luddites; in other words those who dare to disagree with his worldview. Sad.
  7. Nope. Delusions of grandeur. Guess what. A judge or jury would be the one "deem reasonable" in this case if it ever came to court. Aside from that, given in this case that you are already perfectly able to and actively "digitally distributing" the executable form, then I don't believe any judge or jury would look favorably on you purposely creating arbitrary "obstacles" in the way of accessing the source code, which could be construed as an "attempt to alter or restrict the recipients’ rights" as prohibited in Section 3.1. Also, returning to the first point, given that literally thousands of open-source programs (and even entire operating systems) today are perfectly capable of providing digital distribution of their sources, I see no reason why a judge or jury should entertain the idea of providing an exception for you. And, even in the end, if you were somehow able to pull that off, I'll pledge $100 right now toward the cost of creating more work and annoyance for you. Remember me when you're making trips to the post office.
  8. Hmm.. let's see. "Not doing a good job" could easily be defined as "breaking things that already work." For example existing code support for older operating systems. Nice and simple. I fail to see how roytam's software is "abused," give that he is actually fixing things you or Moonchild have broken, on purpose. See above. No one claimed they are official. In fact the About dialog in these builds clearly states they are not. "Not doing a good job" again..? See above. I'd like to see some proof of this supposed "massive confusion." If there is any confusion, it must come from those who are clueless in the first place. You cannot fault roytam for users who are too ignorant to read the About dialog or to deal with any issues here, where the builds are linked, rather than going to you or to the official PaleMoon forum. Also I'd love to see even one example where you or Moonchild or anyone else in your "group" has "cleaned up a mess when something goes wrong" that addressed the first single issue that affected these older operating systems or users of the unofficial builds on these systems. It sounds more to me like you're just a butthurt jerk who is having a tantrum because someone is making your toy work in places where you don't want it to. If you don't like it, write your own closed source program and stop "abusing" Mozilla's existing code. Without Mozilla's existing code, which once again I will remind you already provides compatibility for the systems roytam is targeting, and which you have intentionally broken, your pet projects would be nonexistent.
  9. Thanks for taking a look. I remember having some issues setting up XP on the X99 system and ended up transferring an install from an X79 system for what I was doing at the time, but it's been a long time since I've had an opportunity to do anything else with it. It may have been unrelated to ACPI. If one could determine what ACPI changes, if any, beyond what you're doing would be necessary to have Windows 2000 working it would be a big step in the right direction. Going back further would probably require setting ACPI to a very "early" state (not sure what you're having to change, so this is all speculation anyway).
  10. LoneCrusader

    WPA2 for Windows 9x!

    Thanks again!
  11. LoneCrusader

    [REQUEST] WMP10 + Updates

    Start with this.. Probably not all of the updates available but hopefully someone else can fill in any that are missing.
  12. Can you modify the BIOS for my X99 board? I'm very interested in the possibilities of this. ACPI issues are a major stumbling block for other older operating systems as well. If it's possible to correct some of this with BIOS modding it may solve some compatibility issues.
  13. LoneCrusader

    WPA2 for Windows 9x!

    Thanks for the reply. If you want to share Odyssey 3.0 I don't see any problem with it so long as 1) it is a file that was publicly available for download, and 2) you do not provide a license key or any other means of circumventing the evaluation period (assuming it's an evaluation/trial copy like the version previously linked here). It's possible that Odyssey 3.0 or an older version of one of these other clients may work under 95 despite not claiming official support; it's worth a try. Also, as noted earlier, the various WiFi client applications MIGHT be usable under 9x with KernelEx or a DLL wrapper/redirector since they're not drivers. Probably the older they are (closer to the end of 9x support) the better the chance, but it's a toss up anyway with no answers except trial and error.
  14. A person can probably find common ground with any other person on at least something. Sure, no problem.
  15. I actually had an "extended discussion" with Moonchild some time back and attempted to point out just how illogical his position was in regard to older OS'es. It of course fell on deaf ears and he ended the discussion without even attempting to answer any of my points. I tried to get across to him just how irrational it was to be committed to preserving an older "browser interface/UI" while at the same time being determined to discard support for any older operating system as soon as possible. With one hand he pushes the "latest and greatest" and insists people should "upgrade" and not use "outdated" operating systems; and with the other hand he promotes an "outdated" browser interface now built on "outdated" code and now using "outdated" addons (in the eyes of the same people who push similar "latest and greatest" rubbish), purposely breaking the already existing support for older systems that was already in place. How one can contort themselves into such a strange position and consider themselves as having a reasonable standpoint on the issue is beyond me. When PaleMoon eventually starts bleeding off its users who subscribe to the flawed logic of "latest and greatest"; or when those remaining are left without options for addon/plugin compatibility and compatibility with the "modern" web, then I've got a feeling those of us here will have the last laugh, and can tell Moonchild and company "Welcome to the party, pal!"