LoneCrusader

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!

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.

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/

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?

+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.

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.

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.

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).

Thanks again!

Start with this.. Probably not all of the updates available but hopefully someone else can fill in any that are missing.

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.

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.

A person can probably find common ground with any other person on at least something. Sure, no problem.

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!"

Does anyone happen to have a link for an older version of the Odyssey client that works under Windows 95 OSR2 (assuming this did exist at one time)? Even an old URL one can use to start somewhere on the Wayback Machine might be helpful... And/or, has anyone attempted to use the other Wireless clients discussed here under 95? Also, what was this thread's original title? It seems to me it should be restored; there's a lot of valuable information here. I may have been the one who removed it per the authors request (IIRC, it's been a while!) back whenever , but we need to strike a balance between such requests and any loss of information therein, especially given how fast such legacy resources are now disappearing.

Lots of background information to this experiment; mostly irrelevant (other than the fact that I solved a long-standing problem with this laptop that I had mentioned here and I had been unable to solve previously; maybe more on this later in an appropriate topic). To make a long story short In the process of trying to set up Windows 98SE on a laptop I ran into some missing driver issues which in turn resulted in me experimenting to see if I can get a Windows 2000 driver stack for a "SDHost controller" device to load under Windows 98SE. The Windows 2000 compatible files can be obtained from these sources (3 versions available; probably others somewhere). https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=1697704 https://www.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=1720873 https://support.lenovo.com/pa/en/downloads/ds003184 After unpacking these files and examining them for missing exports I found that the initial driver SDBUS.SYS is missing 5 WDM functions that are covered in the last WDMSTUB.SYS (from NUSB3.0e IIRC). The SFFDISK.SYS driver is missing another function, "IoSetHardErrorOrVerifyDevice" which is not covered; but that won't matter unless the first driver can be successfully loaded. I modified the INF files to be Windows 9x compatible (including adding the correct corresponding lines for "NTMPDriver" and loading WDMSTUB.SYS with the SDBUS.SYS driver; note WDMSTUB and it's INF mentions are unnecessary if one has rloew's WDMEX package installed). (Also Note .SYS files also require changes that are part of rloew's WDMEX package; he may elaborate on this if he so chooses.) Attempted to install the driver. The Add Device wizard crashes out on the "coinstaller" DLL file SDHCINST.DLL, and I get the following error. "Setup cannot load the installer (sdhcinst.dll) for the SDHost hardware being installed. Contact your hardware vendor for assistance." I removed all references to the DLL file in the INF and the same error still happens, so the Add Device wizard has no other knowledge of the DLL file and thus the .SYS file must be calling it directly. (However this is a new "Class" of devices and it may be going to this file for [ClassInstall] properties; does Windows 98SE support a [ClassInstall32] section as used in the 2K INF?) Has anyone ever seen an error like this? The 'net seems to know nothing about it (obviously excluding the specific DLL name and "SDHost" text from any search as these aren't going to produce 9x-relevant results). I examined the DLL file under 98SE with Dependency Walker and no problems were reported. What could be causing Windows 98SE not to be able to load this DLL?

Slightly OT; @roytam1, could you possibly create an XP x64-compatible build of pure vanilla Firefox 52.9.0esr x64, and subsequently a pure vanilla build of 52.9.1esr x64 matching the Mozilla x86 version? I don't want to add to your workload, so if this is a major headache please disregard my request! These would be one-time builds simply to provide an x64 compatible version of the existing last-compatible codebase(s).

Sorry it took me a few days to get back to this. I saved a copy of 52.9.1 for setup on new machines; however on this machine I'm running the PortableApps version. The "ZIP" edition from Mozilla is not 100% "portable" as I understand it (apparently it makes location specific registry entries?); maybe I'm wrong. Updating to 52.9.1 within the browser doesn't seem to be possible (this worked for the past few "publicized" releases). I've not installed 52.9.xesr directly to this machine because I have an old copy of Firefox 3.6.28 installed that I sometimes (very rarely these days) use for specific purposes. When I set up a new machine or reinstall Windows this won't be present. No, I'm referring to browsing history. I use the PlainOldFavorites Addon so I don't use Bookmarks and I can simply backup the Favorites folder for these. I disabled AdBlock Plus to see if it might be a factor. No change in behavior with the messed up installation. Then disabled all Addons, still no change. Looks like the problem lies elsewhere. If I disable my Internet connection the "bad" Firefox loads but sits idly with the page cannot be displayed message. If I reconnect it, Firefox returns to the previous behavior. Even trying to access the about:config page with only Google loaded leads to an indefinite hang. I'm beginning to suspect some type of "malware" but nothing else seems to be affected at all.

Turns out that something is apparently wrong with my particular setup of Firefox Portable. After examining the state of things on two other XP machines where Firefox 52.9.0esr was normally installed I verified the issue does not exist there. I set up a copy of the Portable version on one of these systems and there were no apparent problems with it either. Set up a second copy of the Portable version in a different folder on my main machine and it's working fine now as well. Looks like something is seriously messed up with the previous copy. I don't want to lose my browser history and such so it looks like I'll have to try to figure out the problem or try to transplant the profile files or something along those lines. Been anticipating having to do this for a new system eventually but I have no experience with this. Never knew the value of all those old URL addresses (and specific file names) one accumulates until so many started going the way of the dinosaurs.

I've been using Firefox 52.x.xesr Portable on my machine for over a year now. Suddenly, last night and today it has become unusable due to scripts hanging the system for several minutes at a time and eventually displaying an error message popup about it which gives me the option to Continue, Debug, or Stop the script. Stopping the script does not solve the problem in all cases, and as soon as one goes to another page or site it begins all over again. Even plain google.com with no other sites open and nothing logged in can trigger this. When this happens the entire machine is slowed to less than a snail's pace. Even pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL does not produce the Task Manager immediately. Once you have it open, you can literally leave it up and watch the Status of the Firefox Application switch back and forth between "Running" and "Not Responding" as this issue comes and goes. So, am I the only one having this issue? I haven't installed any new plugins or addons or otherwise changed the browser. I thought it might be a hardware issue until I switched back to PaleMoon 24.7.2 and everything is working fine there. I find it very strange that this behavior is the exact same behavior one experiences if you try to use Windows 9x online now (or for the past few years) with say Firefox 2.0.0.20...

Can you please elaborate further on this? Removing all power management functions might be useful in some situations with newer hardware.

This will take you back even further, to version 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160408102137/https://www.teamviewer.com/en/download/old-versions.aspx Note that using the direct links to the older files still work on teamviewer.com. Only need the Wayback Machine to get the list really. I've never used TeamViewer myself but I archived the older versions. Not sure how far back these will take you on OS support. Maybe one's in there for Windows 95 at least?

I've never used PowerISO, so I can't comment on it. I have used ImgBurn (version 2.5.0.0, after that they added some adware junk to the installer, not sure if this is still true) and it's a nice tool for burning and creating ISO files, but I don't believe you can "browse" inside the files. I would just use WinRAR for this, ImgBurn for writing ISO files. And if you want to preform other tasks with non-ISO images or with backing up copy-protected CD's use CloneCD or Alcohol 120%.

Very interesting. What changes do/can you make? I have a Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4P board that I've done some small bit of experimenting with but I never got around to doing a clean XP install. I've contemplated getting an X299 as well but haven't had the time or funds to tackle that experiment yet (not likely to be soon either ).

WinRAR should be able to handle the ISO files, even though they are not compressed. Check the Options > Settings > Integration tab and see if ISO file type is selected for association with WinRAR. (verified on v3.93; should work with 3.80 as well)