LoneCrusader

Glad you got things running, (partially at least).. DLLHOOK is an API redirector; it's used to fool programs into thinking an API is present where the program expects it, when in reality it may exist in a different place or not exist at all under 9x. This can help you bypass missing exports/etc when programs are run. For Example; some programs expect a function in KERNEL32.DLL "IsDebuggerPresent"; this function does not exist under Windows 95. Using DLLHOOK, you can redirect this call to a different call (in a different DLL if necessary), thus circumventing the error, and allowing the program to run (provided the function you redirect to provides a "compatible" return value!).

There's always room for improvement. I don't like some of the decisions the PM team have made, but they're far ahead of the other "main" choices. Was just throwing out an opinion, since everyone else was doing so...lol

Forget the system.ini tweaking game and install RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch. I would use the /M option with your setup. No more tweaking or jumping through hoops necessary.

Chrome is trash. Firefox is now following said trash. Pale Moon is the last, best hope... (If only they weren't such an arrogant bunch...)

Ah yes, as usual it's always someone else's fault when Tobin goes on a rampage. And I love how MC tries to make it sound like there's some kind of "opening" for everyone to work together.. - what a load of rubbish. Anyone but a fool or the willfully ignorant can see the way they have behaved toward anything they don't approve of or consider to be beneath them. With them it's more like "conform and obey, or die." Who would want to "work with" such an arrogant, self important bunch of jerks? Love this. Yes, a dislike button would be a nice wake up call for a lot of people in today's society, methinks.

Ugh, now I feel even older. But aside from that, it's a weird coincidence but I had just been attempting to pick back up my 95 slipstream project from where it got left 4 years ago for various reasons. Never realized the significance of the date.. but it seems fitting now. I remember my second computer, a Windows 95 OSR2 machine circa 1997. I'd had an earlier DOS6/Win 3.1 system before, but the new Windows 95 machine was there when I first discovered the Internet and online gaming. When it died on me a few years later in high school it caused me to have to learn more about building computers and setting up software.. and forever put me on the path, lol. Also enjoyed your story about issues with 98 that didn't exist on 95 - 98FE was garbage. A friend of mine had a computer with virtually identical specs to my 95 OSR2 machine that came with 98FE. He was constantly battling weird problems that I never encountered. Eventually later on I had to use 98FE on a system for a while, and I experienced several flaky issues that didn't happen under 95 (or 98SE). At one point I decided I wanted a CD burner.. thought I would get one of those new fangled external ones. Went to Office Depot and bought a HP USB burner, since my machine was HP and had a USB port. When I got home and figured out that it would not work with Windows 95, I took it back to exchange it for a different model/brand that connected via parallel port. The guy at Office Depot acted like I was crazy, and kept asking "Why don't you upgrade your operating system?!?!?" The parallel burner worked very well.. still have it, but haven't used it in ages. Eventually I went on to build a new system, with a 3.06GHz P4 processor. My beloved 95 crashed, and I couldn't figure it out at the time. Had to move to 98SE. Years later here I would discover the solution through trial and error installing any and all updates I could lay my hands on until it suddenly worked. And, total vindication at last. With @rloew's help, eventually helped to create a USB Storage driver for 95 that would run that d@mn HP burner.. if I still had it!

I believe you may have assumed more from my reply than was intended. I have NOT used MULTCORE, nor do I have a copy unfortunately. It may or may not work with Windows 95; it is most likely untested in that environment unless Rudy made any tests in the past few years (most of his software was originally designed with only 98/ME in mind; only after I became closer to him and began helping test and debug things [and requesting 95 support specifically] did he spend much time on 95). Let me also clarify; any "application" you wish to use in this context would have to actually be compiled !WITH! the MULTCORE SDK. An application generically designed to use multiple processors, say on a later NT-based OS, will NOT use multiple processors under 9x without being REcompiled MULTCORE-aware. AFAIK, MULTCORE is a unique 9x-specific implementation, NOT a 9x-port of some existing NT capability. I've never had any issues whatsoever with HyperThreading. Never had to disable it to make 9x run either.

PCI-E cards work as well.

Yes to both.

Well... sort of.

Ah yes, have several of those. Loved the cases. I used to buy them just to get the cases and use them for building newer machines.

Do you mean that you have NO USB ports at all from the beginning, or you DO have them BEFORE you install NUSB? AFAIK the X99 chipset boards do not have USB1 controllers, only USB2/USB3. This can lead to a situation where USBD.SYS is not copied to \WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS during installation. The USB2 drivers depend on it, but do not force it to be copied, expecting it to already be there because of the USB1 install routine. Try copying USBD.SYS to the correct location if it isn't there (but I think NUSB does that anyway... ) If the latest NUSB, using a WinME file, required another WinME file, don't you think it would have been included? Why would you install a VIA hardware-specific USB2 driver on a system that (as far as we know, and most likely, being Intel-chipset-based) does not have a VIA USB2 controller?

It's been a long time since I worked with ATI cards and Windows 95, other than some experiments with an XP-era laptop (Mobility Radeon) which produced very weird results and I never solved the issues. As someone else pointed out above, I know for a fact that the Radeon 8500 does work fine under 95; I have the drivers CDROM that came with one and have used it. IIRC, the 9250 had a working package as well. Since the last 98 driver is of course still a VXD, then theoretically it should work under 95 as well, and thus theoretically all the same cards working under 98 should work under 95. There may be other incompatibilities or dependencies though. The Control Panels/SysTray shortcuts and such will definitely not work under 95.

As others pointed out, I don't think Windows 9x can use WDM graphics drivers. I read somewhere years ago that video drivers must be VXD, but I no longer remember the source. We were able to load the HD Audio BUS driver (HDAUDBUS.SYS) that enumerates the actual HDA audio output device, but none of the actual HDA device drivers (Microsoft/Realtek/Sigmatel tested) would load, despite the fact that all required WDM functions were satisfied. Either the system would boot to the desktop and no sound was produced (MS driver on originally supported hardware), or the system would die in BSOD's and never reach the desktop (Realtek,Sigmatel). We were unable to debug these crashes. Work was also done on loading USB3 drivers under 9x. No success here either; Rudy commented that these crashes appeared to be the result of "Initialization has already failed and the Driver is cleaning up." From my understanding of MULTCORE, any program you wish to use it with must be compiled with "awareness" of MULTCORE in order for it to actually use multiple cores. (i.e.; You can't just install MULTCORE to your machine and expect any program(s) to simply automatically USE multiple cores. You must have the sources for, and be able to recompile, any programs you wish to use it.)

Officially compatible/supported - no. However Windows 95 (OSR2.5 + FIX95CPU + XUSBSUPP) seems to run just fine on various Socket 775 boards. Your issue will be a lack of drivers for USB2 controllers, integrated HD Audio, and possibly integrated LAN depending on the chipset used. If you're prepared to use add-in cards instead of onboard, then you may bypass most of these issues. The unofficial NVidia drivers do work on 95, minus the control panels and such. These can be used with early PCI-E video cards, although extensive testing has not been done on the stability of such a setup.

Funny you should mention this, it reminded me that Rudy once mentioned that I had made some DOS-scripted thing I was working on (FIX95CPU maybe..?) written less readable by changing the default color from Red to Blue.. After reading your post and looking at the page for a while, I wasn't really happy with the blue (or dark purple visited links) myself. ...So, the "readability" fix is in. Just for you, jaclaz. Had to dig deep back (20 years! ) into my old Starfleet Academy "Romulan" days to find a more suitable shade of blue that we used back then on our page. Not a fan of amber myself, but it may show up somewhere later, simply for the fact that it is viewer-friendly.

A heads up for those who are interested; I have uploaded a few more pieces of Rudy's work to my site. These are mostly things that weren't advertised or well known.

Intel-branded motherboards later than the D875PBZ are garbage for Windows 9x. The proprietary Intel BIOS is useless for configuring anything of importance, and many things are not configured in a 9x-friendly way, leading to various odd incompatibilities and errors. Third-party boards based on Intel chipsets are usually fine, especially if they use AWARD BIOS. Several years ago rloew and I spent many hours experimenting with some Intel boards similar to this one.. in fact one was a D945GCCR. Also included a D945GTP, a DP43TF, DP45SG, and a couple of others I can't remember offhand. All of these exhibited some strange issues under 9x; resource conflicts, problems using video cards, hangs when loading USB2 drivers, etc etc. Third-party boards (Gigabyte/MSI/etc) using AWARD BIOS based on these same chipsets did not exhibit these problems.

I received one of these as well. I assume a spammer created an account and used the PM system to send out solicitations. This does not mean that the spammer actually knows your email address, he just abused the PM system. When I logged in the offending message had already been wiped out, so nothing to worry about. Hopefully someone higher up will give us a word on what happened, it's above my pay grade...

Very convenient to omit the option to leave things as is, so long as it pushes the "rebranding" agenda, no? Yes, I've stated my opinion clearly. And it was not my intention to restart the debate; I simply pointed out the fault in the choices. But, since you apparently have decided to make a "snide" comment about it, complete with innuendo regarding the "thoughts/intent/motivation" of those who might oppose the viewpoint you're pushing it should be pointed out that we also have our share of those who have loudly, and clearly, and repeatedly "browbeaten" (to borrow a very good term that was used before) roytam1 toward taking this action, despite the fact that he does not see it as a problem. Also, to clarify another point, roytam1 also indicated that branding was needed to go along with any name change. So there are two criteria at work here; not just a name that he approves of, but also corresponding branding he approves of to go along with it. Anyone can spout off names, but there are very few, if any, of us who can produce "branding" of a quality high enough to correspond with the product. Now, I certainly have better things to do with my time, and no desire to spend any of it on this issue again. I've said what needs to be said up to this point. But do not behave as if any who oppose your viewpoint on the issue do not have the right to voice that opinion and/or point out the fact that this "election" is rigged. The one consolation is that, in the end, roytam1 makes the decisions.

This is subjective, depending on which side of the "great debate" you come down on. Those who are advocating for (or going along with those who wish to) changing the name have created the poll(s), and as such have purposely omitted the option to leave things as-is.

"RoyTamFoxMoon" was never intended to be a serious suggestion for consideration, and roytam1 specifically objected to names based as such, so it should not be an option. Also, while I'm sure someone will object to this, in the interest of democracy, there's no option for "just leave the names alone and quit rehashing this every few months."

Not a bad idea, although true slipstreaming is better IMO. We can't distribute custom slipstreamed builds though.. so any solution at all might be an improvement.

OK, so my intent was not to "make fun" of you or anyone else. The point was to try and get you to realize that the article you linked (and seem to believe is somehow an authority on the subject) is strictly an opinion piece. Just because it shows up on some tech website does not elevate this type of stuff to "gospel." Just because any given "forked browser" project is forked from earlier code than contained in the current version of the original browser does not automatically make it "less secure." This is disingenuous. It's easy to create doubt based on a statement such as "it's based on a much older version." But that statement does not take into consideration what exactly has been changed in the "almighty newer version." For all anyone knows, there could have been no changes whatsoever to the actual "security" code. All changes could be to the GUI, etc. And to go a step further, the "almighty newer version" may have even developed a gaping security hole that didn't exist in the older code. "Newer is better" = chronological snobbery. OK, so, once again, if you wish to base your opinion on things like you linked above, be my guest. However, I fail to understand how you can be critical of "browser forks" and "smaller groups of unknown developers" when you wish "to see more from Retrozilla." RetroZilla is a browser fork, of a far, far older version of Firefox code than that used by Basilisk, Pale Moon, etc., and it is created by a small, small group of "unknown" (except to those of us here) developers. And, since those selfsame developers are "wasting time with several forks of Firefox for XP," I'd also like to see a list of those "3 or 4 main well known browsers ready, working and updated perfectly for security issues" on Windows XP.

My hosting provider has been making a lot of changes lately, some of which directly prevented me from further updating the section devoted to Rudy's work for a few weeks. I can make changes again now, but I'm not certain what the issue with the certificate is. I can't see any options anywhere that I can control that affect it. So far the only solution to bypass the security warning seems to be to ensure you're using http:// to access it rather than https://. I have modified the link in the earlier post as such.