LoneCrusader

IIRC that alliance was born out of an act of subterfuge committed by the Federation. And they say we're the dishonorable ones... Just venting one of my pet peeves about the various "24th-century" incarnations of Trek. The Klingons went from being a ruthless, opportunistic enemy in TOS (where they were party to several "dishonorable" acts including planting spies in the Federation) to being the "honorable warrior culture" ally. If anything, the Romulans in TOS, despite being enemies, were portrayed as being much more "honorable" and "duty oriented" and AFAICR never resorted to espionage or sabotage. In TNG and later, their personality mirrors that of the TOS Klingons. Anyway, moving on, I'm a fan of most of it myself, although TOS and ENT are far superior to the others IMO. Agreed the "reboot" movies are garbage. Let's hope the situation has resolved itself for better or worse, and move on. To address the rest of your point, it's not nearly as simple as you're thinking. Current Pale Moon 28 is forked from Firefox 52 ESR, not nearly that far back. Recreating Pale Moon would be a very long deviation from the purpose of roy's projects and be pointless, as Pale Moon is open source just as Firefox is. Tobin seems to be more concerned about his own "Binary Outcast" projects more so than Pale Moon. But same situation here - they're built on open source code, so overall the same rules apply to them as do to Firefox or SeaMonkey and anything else descended from Mozilla.

I've run into this a couple of times. Somewhere under your Linux Date/Time or Regional settings there should be a checkbox for "System Clock set to UTC." Clearing this should set Linux to the Windows-style behavior of setting the system clock to Local Time.

Maybe MDGx's Graphic Filters package?

You're welcome! Glad I could be of help.

Discrimination against Romulans? Must be a TNG fan. (TNG being the place where the Romulans become the evil, devious, dishonorable bad guys because someone decided to promote the Klingons to "honorable allies." Role reversal! Character assassination! The horror! )

I have yet to see any evidence of these supposed "misguided people." We have only your word on the subject, which, given your general behavior and attitude, is not necessarily reputable. If one takes the source code for a given program (X) and re-compiles it targeting another platform (Y), how is it NOT "X for Y"? These programs are open source. If someone chooses to recompile them targeting a different platform, they have every right to do so, whether you like it or not. Good luck switching to "closed source," drop back by in a few years when you reach a closed-source state equivalent to the current open-source one you "leeched" from Mozilla. I've seen how you deal with these "poor ___ Linux builders" as you refer to them. You drop in, make demands and threats, create a general atmosphere of negativity that poisons the waters and turns everyone off, all the while hoping that no one stands up to your bullying. Most people eventually give in and give up, not willing to deal with your constant attacks. I'm afraid that modus operandi will not work here. I know for a fact that roytam's New Moon 27 builds are in fact named "New Moon" and not "Pale Moon" and do include a disclaimer on the About dialog that states the build is unofficial and specifically says not to request help on the official Pale Moon forum or otherwise. This thread is also mentioned. So what more do you expect? If the supposed "misguided people" you refer to are too ignorant to read and abide by these disclaimers then nothing else is going to stop them either. In the end all of these programs, including yours and those of Moonchild Productions, descend from Firefox or other Mozilla sources. The "chain of descent" is there, and it is not going away because someone changes a name or writes a disclaimer. Even if the name were changed, what happens when someone simply asks "what is this based on?" When the answer is given no one can control how others may use that piece of information to seek out the project's "upstreams." Even after all this ranting you still have not made any set of concrete "minimal acceptable changes" from your point of view. You keep changing them based on your level of annoyance each time you post. First it's change a name. Then it's full branding. Then "unofficial branding" is OK. Then it isn't. You noted at one point that mentions of the original names would be necessary for "profile compatibility reasons." Now, "ALL THE ORIGINAL NAMES MUST GO!" This is beyond ridiculous. Maybe roytam isn't a good graphics artist? I myself certainly wouldn't want to have to undertake the task of creating new "branding" that is worthy of the underlying code here. I'm no programmer, but I would take bets that changing the names and such would also create more headaches for roytam and his users in the fact that this could cause Addons and other associated applications to not recognize roy's builds, thereby forcing him or his users to manually modify every single Addon or associated application in order to get it working as it should. If my assumption of this is correct, what reasonable person with a life and better things to do who would choose this path? I'm sorry, but no truly serious user of these builds has any confusion whatsoever about what they are using. If the official installer(s) won't run on your non-supported platform and you had to get a build from here, that's self explanatory. And, if you're running on a supported platform where the official installer(s) work, that's self explanatory as well, and why would you come here in the first place? Covered this above, but once again - "If one takes the source code for a given program (X) and re-compiles it targeting another platform (Y), how is it NOT "X for Y"?" You "don't want to hear" these things because you don't like the fact that someone had the gall and took the time to compile your project for a different target platform that you disapprove of. That's the beauty of open source. Also once again - "Good luck switching to "closed source," drop back by in a few years when you reach a closed-source state equivalent to the current open-source one you "leeched" from Mozilla." See above about causing issues with Addons and associated applications. You claim that there is some "advantage" in the changes you are demanding when it seems more likely that this will only create more work for the developer. I see no advantage whatsoever to be gained by these projects from your suggestions, only that you just want things your way. I don't speak for roytam, but if I were in his shoes I would be all the less inclined to acquiesce to any of your demands simply based on your behavior. You have chosen to act in a condescending and demanding manner laced with threats to keep throwing roadblocks in the way of or create problems in any way possible for roytam's projects. On the other side, you create more annoyance for yourself by coming here and ranting about supposed "misguided users" who are troubling you, when it would be simpler (and probably better for your health) just to tell them off and go on about your day. You appear to thrive on creating a negative environment and beating dead horses. And, in the end, if you decide to try and make good on your threats then you will create more work for yourself in rewriting closed-source code to replace the open-source code you "borrowed" but don't like others "borrowing." Based on this and in the interest of civility I will state that I believe this "discussion" is never going anywhere. Please stop wasting everyone's time with your threats, condescension, and negative attitude. These will get you nothing here, except an end to OUR "diplomacy."

Not really. Any "serious" user who comes here for a build is not going to be "confused" in any way. If they're running on a non-supported platform where the official installers don't work, and have to come here for a working build, then it's self explanatory. And, if they are running on a supported platform where the official installers and builds do work, why would they come here in the first place? I'm glad you mentioned these. I'm no programmer, and not familiar with all the details, but I had been considering the potential side effects of name changing. Doing so would probably also cause Addons and any or all other associated applications to stop recognizing the renamed XP builds and force each instance of such things to be manually modified by yourself or other users. A bunch of unnecessary work. Probably the intent of the "complainer(s)" to just make your job harder.

I think we all understand that you are not Moonchild nor do you speak for MCP in this case. However you get grouped together with MCP here because you have been variously associated with them and apparently share the same condescending attitude toward XP (and Vista) users. This attitude is what turns everyone here off; I mean really, what do "you guys" care what operating system other people choose to use? Don't want to "support" it in your projects? Fine. Just don't break it on purpose, and don't act as if someone is committing a sin by using it on a "unapproved" platform. I fail to understand what bothers you so much about people asking about the XP builds based on this latest statement. Why not just tell them to "p*** off" as you put it and go on about your day? Now, back to the issue. If you wish to make a "reasonable" request, then do so in a "reasonable" and diplomatic manner. Coming in here and making demands and threats will get you nowhere. I'm willing to accept that your desire to have these "forked projects" disassociated from "Binary Outcast" is a "reasonable" request. However you need to lose the attitude first and foremost, and then make a clear policy on whether or not and how you wish to be credited or mentioned at all in any subsequent "forked" project. You have given conflicting statements on this depending on your attitude whenever you were posting. Do you want roytam to just change the names, icons and such? Do you want any stated credit such as "this project is forked from ___ " "created by ____"? Do you want to be "erased" entirely from the resulting fork? If roytam does these things you "request," then does that mean you will lose the condescending attitude and derogatory language in reference to these builds here and elsewhere? In your opinion; which most everyone here does not share. This is a nonstarter here. It doesn't matter how much "insight" you believe you have into this code; it works on these older platforms and since we have no other options it's a very good option, regardless of your opinion. Addressed most of this above I believe. However, you still seem to think that roytam can somehow exert mind control over those who choose to use his builds and keep them all from "wandering" into the wrong places for support. I'll wager that a good number of these people who are supposedly causing you problems are trolling, especially given your attitude about the builds and since you seem to be very easily triggered by anyone who mentions XP. Since you don't distribute these builds from your site, and most likely one must visit here in the first place in order to get the links for the builds, I find it strange that any serious user doing as such would not "stop here" first for help. They seem to be purposely seeking you out rather than sincerely needing help; and if this is the case, no one here can do anything about that. What's not "sufficient" here? This forum has been around for a long time and has hosted the support for many projects. I'd rather see a developer dedicated to his or her project rather than dedicated to extraneous "infrastructure." Nothing wrong with having "infrastructure;" mind you, but in the end it is secondary to the project itself. roytam has enough to keep him busy with a $dayjob and building his various browsers, and since he has no help in doing so it's not reasonable to expect him to spend time on a website or otherwise.

You actually expect anyone here to take you seriously while you continue to maintain a condescending attitude toward roytam1 and everyone else in this community? You can't even speak of these things without lacing it with some ignorant derogatory language or FUD. Emphasis mine. I assume once again that users are intended to believe that "poor modification" is an acceptable definition of "restoring the pre-existing functionality that you intentionally chose to break?" Not one of us here cares one iota whether or not roytam1 has some useless eye-candy website or some fancy branding for his browser builds. What we care about is that they work and that he is very responsive to bug reports and quick to address other issues that may arise on the target platform(s). Yourself and "Moonchild Productions" could do with some lessons from what you find here. When the rest of the world leaves your precious Windows 7 and your "outdated" Mozilla forks, along with their "outdated" addons behind, where will you be? In the same boat with the rest of us. If you expect anyone here to take you seriously, you'd better learn to treat people here with respect whether you agree with them or not.

So much for the "more constructive approach." I had a feeling this was insincere. roytam1 has no control over the actions of those who decide to use his XP-compatible builds. Even if he were to change names, remove references, yada yada yada. there could still be "ignorant" users (or even troublemakers just trolling) who will keep going to the wrong places for support or to ask questions. How hard is it to say "I don't support those builds" and link them here? Much easier than ranting there, ranting here, and rewriting a bunch of code.

A visit to the Microsoft Update Catalog and searching for "POSReady" yields 319 results. Excluding two listed updates that are for POSReady 7 and allowing for three of the remaining 317 updates having multiple files linked on their download popup page results in a folder with 321 update packages. Obviously some of these are probably supserseded. Is this a "complete" archive of all the updates, or have some of them been "disappeared" over time?

Not sure if this will help or not; I noticed your card is a PCI-E card. Try removing all references to VGARTD.VXD from the INF and remove this file from your system and registry. AGP GART drivers are not necessary for PCI-E devices and it may be interfering in this case...

You're way behind the times on USB for 95. Remember as well that IE 5.5 SP2 works on Windows 95. It may contain updated versions of some of these files. Not to say whether this will or will not be enough to support WPA2. This is likely up to the decisions made by the developers of whatever WPA-client software rather than "whether or not Windows 95 is capable" of it. (There are even ways to hack in IE6 under 95; never tried it myself and I don't know if all files work, but there's a thread about it on BetaArchive.)

I assumed there would be, as both exist right now in the \system32\drivers folder on my XP x64 system. (not certain whether they are both loaded or if storport is even used) But I haven't examined Server 2003 x86 or x64 directly myself. Of course all this is moot if Microsoft "fixed" the problem by changing the code in the Kernel rather than making the drivers coexist. But even in this case one might be able to reverse engineer the changes if they have the required knowledge...

Here it falls into the category of "ONLY solution" for those who want to use HDA devices. Of course one can use add-on cards, but this makes for redundancy in any multiboot setup. Unless of course you can find a copy of the "IHV Enabling Kit" I mentioned or some Windows HDA driver source code... something we can use to develop a better solution.

(This may have been mentioned and tried before; if so I'm way behind the curve and I'd be interested in seeing any discussion of it. ) As I understand it, one has to use STORPORT.SYS from Windows Server 2003 x86 since XP x86 does not have this file, correct? Has anyone tried simply using the Server 2003 x86 SCSIPORT.SYS paired with the STORPORT.SYS driver? Maybe Microsoft fixed whatever the issue is and made them able to coexist under Server 2003? Also, for the record, XP x64 already has STORPORT.SYS included; might be an option for some people provided XP x86 is not absolutely required.

Both, and also a third HDA driver, CMUDAX.SYS from this package. http://download.msi.com/dvr_exe/CMI9880Ch_PI001.zip Also tried multiple versions of the Realtek driver, going back to very early versions. All versions die in BSOD's. Debugging led nowhere (my debugging knowledge is very limited, but I had a lot of help from rloew ). The Microsoft HDAUDIO.SYS only works with the controllers specified in it's original INF (ID's embedded in the file), so it's not really generic. I have an Intel D915GAG motherboard and a MSI 925X Neo Platinum motherboard that both have early HDA controllers that are supported by the Microsoft HotFix and work with just KB888111 under 2K. We were able to get to the desktop under 98SE on the D915 board and using the HDAUDIO.SYS without crashing; but the driver just doesn't work. No audio output whatsoever. If we could just turn up a copy of the "IHV Enabling Kit" mentioned in the other thread it might get us somewhere, but otherwise we have nothing to work with. Microsoft provides sample AC'97 driver code but I have yet to see a single instance of sample HDA driver code. Theoretically, a card with Vista x64 drivers should still work.. I assume Vista drivers can still be used under Windows 10; I know I have used Vista drivers under Windows 7 for some machines I've worked on for people. I've got some Chinese PCI-E cards that use an older 9x-compatible audio chip that I bought on eBay for use in systems with no PCI slots; IIRC I successfully tested one of them a while back, but I haven't put one to use on anything close to a daily basis. Also it's possible PCI-E has issues under 9x.. (there's another thread about it). I see the Win3x HDA driver has been provided - let's see how that goes. If another solution is needed I'll try to dig something up.

I got past the DLL error; somehow the registry entry I mentioned was keeping it from loading. My INF is working, loading the SDBUS.SYS driver with WDMSTUB.SYS (or loading SDBUS by itself if rloew's WDMEX is present), but the device still has a Code 2 error in the Device Manager. No WDM functions are missing, so an existing called function must be different under 2K than it is under 9x or there is some other problem. Another issue here is I have no way to really test the SDBUS.SYS driver even if it did load without an error. The FlashMedia card reader on the laptop works under 2K/XP without SDBUS.SYS being loaded. Thanks for the info! Still doesn't explain how the Known16DLLs entry was created at some point and now isn't created again when I follow the same process, but it's moot anyway.

Unfortunately no. Many, many hours or work by rloew, myself, and MERCURY127 have yielded no working solutions. HDA uses an initial "BUS" driver that loads the HDA Bus and enumerates the actual HDAUDIO device. rloew did manage to get the 2K HDA Bus driver to load and enumerate the audio device with WDMEX, but the drivers for the actual audio device itself always fail, despite not having any missing WDM functions. A very annoying mess. I think I do remember seeing a report somewhere of a working DOS/Win3x HDA driver. Might be possible to use it somehow as was done with the DOS LAN drivers...

I believe I came across those files but I didn't examine them further at the time because my laptop uses a Texas Instruments controller and the other packages I found provide a "generic" driver. I may revisit the issue... When I get an opportunity I will take a look and try to make a 9x-compatible INF for the Ricoh drivers that you can try.

I'm not sure what the problem is with that driver. I did notice that all of the INF files have "Signature=$Windows NT$" which normally indicates that it is not 9x-compatible. It may be missing a WDM function or some other oddity that causes it to claim it needs NTKERN. Slightly OT, but I've seen some wildly ridiculous claims about NTKERN.VXD and other files "not being installed." All these files are placed by Windows SETUP! Try this version.. the INF has the proper "Signature=$CHICAGO$", may or may not help. Always remember to download the file, not the "Update Utility" but you're probably already familiar with that. https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=816509

Hello again! :) I've abandoned this experiment for the time being... I have not found any situation where a working SDHost controller will be of any benefit under 9x. The FlashMedia reader in the laptop I'm working on works under XP without the SDHost driver loaded so I'm not certain what purpose it serves. Also, the drivers for mounting "disks" from the SDHost bus link back to HAL.DLL and would require major rewrite/wrapping back to IOS.VXD in order to even use them with the 9x drive architecture. If you want to take a look at this all of the files I tried to use are contained in the linked packages. I did find later that the pictured DLL error was caused by an entry existing for the DLL file in a "Known16DLLs" section of the registry. I did not create this entry and I've not been able to figure out how it came to exist. Deleting this entry removed the error, and I can't make it reappear. However despite being able to "insall" the driver now, the SDHost controller just shows up with a Yellow Bang error in the Device Manager and does nothing.

Glad you got it working! Adding a hardware ID isn't hard, you can just use Notepad to edit the INF file, find one of the lines that has a PCI VEN & DEV entry, such as %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_8086&dev_266E&subsys_0938103C Then, copy this line and paste the copy back into the INF under the original line like this. %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_8086&dev_266E&subsys_0938103C %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_8086&dev_266E&subsys_0938103C Then edit the copied line to match the device you and to add, for example: %*WDM_AC97AUD.DeviceDesc%=WDM_HEAVENLY, pci\ven_XXXX&dev_YYYY&subsys_ZZZZZZZZ If you don't have the SUBSYS or other data just delete everything from the end of the DEV ID to the end of the line. The VEN&DEV are sufficient. It only gets complicated if there are multiple different install routines for different devices in an INF. If this is the case you need to pick the target section (in this example WDM_HEAVENLY) that is the closest match for your device. I assume the HP provided WDM driver does not provide SB Emulation. (Shows up as another Audio device in the Device Manager with the main card.) I noticed this as well on my ZD8000 laptop. I hadn't tried using any DOS programs yet, but I did notice that when I used the Realtek VXD drivers I mentioned, a SB Emulation device was installed. Maybe another reason to use the VXD drivers (or a more generic WDM driver)... You can try this to use the VXD drivers if you want. Download this package and use WinRAR/7-Zip to extract the contents. https://repo.etfovac.com/autopatcher/0001-VXD_A406.exe Open VALCX95.INF in the \Win95 folder. Add this line to the [Realtek] section. %ALCICH.DeviceDesc%=ALCAUD, PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_266E Save the modified INF and then use the Device Manager to manually install the driver from this folder. The installer will not run under 98SE. WDMEX.VXD (along with WDMSTUB.SYS, but WDMSTUB is much less capable) extends the available WDM driver functions under 9x to include functions only available under 2K/XP. It can load some drivers that otherwise do not work, but it's not a miracle cure either. Many drivers are just incompatible, even if all of their functions are satisfied. If the Broadcom driver farfigs11 linked doesn't work I will dig for something else. For the wireless card, just look around on eBay for a ZD7000 or ZD8000 Broadcom WiFi card to swap out. I think I saw a couple listed in the $5-$10 range.

Interesting experiment; oddly enough lately I've been working on getting 9x up and running on an HP laptop as well. I'm using a ZD8000, so there are some differences, but what I've learned so far may help. First, the official HP driver package for this laptop for Windows 2000 includes a driver folder for 98SE. The INF file in this folder has an entry for the specific VEN&DEV&SUBSYS of the card in your screenshot. Did you try this official package? Choose Windows 2000 here (if given the option for this, always choose 2K rather than XP as 2K packages are more likely to be older and/or contain 9x files also) https://support.hp.com/us-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-compaq-nx6110-notebook-pc/449877 Or use this direct link. https://whp-aus2.cold.extweb.hp.com/pub/softpaq/sp30501-31000/sp30130.exe Now in the case of my laptop, the official HP audio package worked on 98SE as well, despite not claiming official support. However I noticed a lot of stuttering with the startup sound and decided to try other options. I tried the Realtek AC'97 WDM packages (4.05 and 4.06 contain a function that is not present in 9x and do not work, despite claiming 9x support; 4.04 is compatible) but these drivers didn't work with my card. I found that installing the Realtek AC'97 VXD drivers for Windows 95 by manually adding the device to the INF seems to work better than the WDM driver for my specific card. If the official HP package or one of the others linked does not work, I can upload a package for you to test. Second, if the WiFi network card is a MiniPCI card like in my ZD8000 you should be able to swap the Intel card (no 9x driver for this one) for a compatible card. The Broadcom WiFi cards from the ZD8000 and ZD7000 can be made to work (requires manually mixing 2 driver packages). Third, the Modem can probably be made to work with an INF mod to a generic SoftModem driver package. I got a driver installed for mine using this method and therefore removed the "Unknown device" from the Device Manager, but I've had no need to verify that it actually works. I'll examine the official 2K/XP package on the HP site and see if it uses the same drivers as the one in my laptop. Finally, the TI CardBus controller may be an issue if you intend to use it. This device seems to be slightly different among different laptop models so I'm not sure if yours is like mine. I've managed to load the TI 2K/XP driver for the FlashMedia reader device portion of this controller on my laptop using rloew's WDMEX.VXD, but I've not been able to get any card inserted into the reader to mount as a disk. EDIT: Forgot to mention that the "Motherboard resources" conflict is a common issue on newer ACPI systems. It doesn't cause any issues that I know of, it's just annoying. The only way I know of to avoid it is to use "SETUP /P I" to disable ACPI completely in Windows 98, which didn't work for your system. On my ZD8000, SETUP will not finish if I DON'T disable ACPI, and I also had to disable PCI Steering on the PCI bus in the Device Manager in order to get a usable system. The ZD8000 uses a 915 chipset as well, however it's a Desktop chipset, not a Mobile one, and therefore not limited to 533FSB and 2GB of RAM.

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.)