LoneCrusader

Might be interesting to examine the patched copy versus the original. It's over my head, but some of our more advanced members may be able to learn from it.

Just a guess; but I would assume one should use "odd with odd" and "even with even" since the releases apparently have slightly different functionality. Try Update 191 with a 151 install, and Update 192 with a 152 install. If these work you could then try Update 192 with a 151 install, and if it fails then it would confirm my suspicion.

Can you elaborate further on this?

Yes, Auto Update is the first thing I kill on any Windows installation. Very annoying. I always prefer to do this manually. Another note, be aware that for some moronic reason a visit to Windows Update will not offer you any of the Post-EOL (WannaCrypt vulnerability) HotFixes, even after you have updated everything else it lists. These must apparently be hunted down and manually installed. If someone could please provide a list of the KB numbers of these and/or links to the updates themselves it would be nice to have here. (In this instance I mean a list of ONLY those updates made available for "pure" XP, not including those for POSReady. I believe I saw such a list here at some point; now I can't find it anymore. Maybe it was lost in one of the database crashes???)

I've seen issues on at least one system when trying to use a TP-Link TG-3468 V1 PCI-E network card under Windows 98. At the time I chalked it up to the mainboard not being 9x-friendly (Intel BIOS) but I didn't get an opportunity to pursue the issue further on another system. There may be a pattern here.

Glad to see you accomplished your purpose with USP4. For the record though, in case anyone else has issues: I actually just finished working with a fresh XP SP3 install and Windows Update. Despite reports to the contrary WU still works with IE6. Install the three packages listed as "Needed for Windows Update" listed here. Then enable TLS in IE6 Internet Options. Now WU should work properly.

Actually IIRC, Media Player 7.0 will "officially" install on Windows 95, although with a nag message about being intended for newer systems.The official 7.1 installer refuses to install under 95 at all, hence the unofficial 7.1 package found at MDGx's site.

Links to sites containing "warez" or or other illegally distributed material are expressly forbidden here. The age or "supported" status of the software in question has no bearing on this.

Yes, I am. Thank you for the compliment, Jody. Remember though that I didn't say I liked Vista. I said it was tolerable because it retained the full classic UI and for the most part it can be made to look and behave like the older versions. And while I will always prefer the classic UI, I will give Microsoft some small credit for attempting to make a nice-looking OS with Vista. Vista is a failure on many levels, but they did try to make it look nice. And yes, I know, there are ways to return Windows 7 and later to the classic UI. I shouldn't have to use a third-party program to replace something that never should have been removed in the first place. Did Microsoft have the right to remove it? Yes. But I have the right to disagree with their choice and refuse to use it. So you're saying I was not correct in my assessment of the statement you made? Do you not see how such a statement makes you biased before the discussion even begins? Do you deny that XP is only now "limited" because of the fact code is not being written for it anymore, or do you insist that it still has some vague "technical limitation," and if so, what is that limitation? I'm well aware these posts were split from the Firefox petition thread. I even addressed that specific issue in my last post, but I will clarify. I don't believe Mozilla's hand can be "forced" at all. If Firefox were a commercial product it might be otherwise, but that's not the case. I do believe it wouldn't really be so much to ask that they simply apply security patches to 52.x.xesr for a while longer, but it's not going to happen, mainly because of people who take the attitude that you have about older systems. I also never said your comments were "unacceptable" or denied you the right to make them. I just noted that you can't expect a friendly reception, and you seem to become annoyed when no one agrees with you. I also never referred to you as a "weasel," I simply noted that some of your statements contain vague language and "popular wisdom" which has no basis in fact (follow the link associated with the word). Just because Microsoft or anyone else claims their newer product (which is making them money) is better than their older one (which is no longer making money) does not make it fact. As far as the term "troll" is concerned it does appear to me, based on the way that these discussions usually go (there's a relevant thread somewhere in the 9x forum especially), that you seem to enjoy provoking the users of older systems, usually with more of this "popular wisdom" garbage to generate some kind of running debate about the viability of these older systems. This can be regarded as trolling, especially since you don't even use these systems and seem to be present only to argue. I will state for the record however that this term is often painted with a very large brush and gets applied to those who don't deserve it. With regard to any other "OS criticism" threads about 8 or 10 or whatever, if those operating systems were popular and well-loved by their userbase, I'm sure those threads would generate hostile receptions as well. The fact that almost no one steps up to defend them speaks volumes. Yes.

Aggressive? How so? Because I called your statements out for what they really are? (Or rather how they come across, whether you mean them that way or not.) More like you expect US to learn to be sheeple, and remember that Microsoft knows best, and to respect their authoritah! No one has said you are not allowed to have an opinion. I even said you were welcome to your opinion. It seems you are the one who has a problem when no one else agrees with (or is persuaded by) your opinions. If you want "XP criticism," I can give you some. It's not Windows 9x. Windows has been going downhill since 98SE. But XP is still light years ahead of anything Microsoft has done since. Maybe we should move all of the "criticism" of this or that OS threads to the General Discussion section so that way no one can make the claim that we are somehow being unfair to poor Microsoft. Or maybe they need a "trigger warning..." I think this particular back-and-forth has run its course. Jody, you say you aren't trolling. Fine. But you need to realize that it frequently comes across that way whether you intend it or not. It's kind of like poking a hornets nest just to see what happens. Let's go to a product-specific forum, populated by avid users of said product, who clearly have no interest in changing their chosen product, and ask them when they think it's going to be OK for them to give up using said product because other people think they should. What kind of answers do you think you're going to get? Is there water in the ocean? Come on, man. And, aside from this, you never truly remain a "neutral commentator." You always manage to throw in some "weasel" comment such as "the future, one that XP cannot be part of because of technical limitations". While this statement may not be incorrect, it is also not an unbiased assessment. If XP has "technical limitations," this is not inherently the fault of the OS, it is the fault of Microsoft and whomever else no longer writing code for it. There is no "technical" reason why code (programs, drivers, whatever) can no longer be written for XP. Microsoft chooses in this case (and I'm not saying they don't have the right, but that's not the point) to artificially limit the capabilities of XP. This choice on their part makes the limitation, not the OS. Agreed that the petition is pointless, because we have no leverage sufficient enough to influence a corporation to make this choice or that. If Firefox were a paid product there might be some hope, but none in this case. The problem with New Moon, Basilisk, and MyPal is that they are all one-man operations, and I know from my own experience that eventually real life will come along and shut down your operation sooner or later, no matter how dedicated you are or how much you want to keep something going. Aside from this first point, all three are subsequently dependent on the whims of Moonchild Porductions, which has no love for anything "legacy." I cannot fathom how Moonchild & company have such a disconnect wherein they want to preserve something "legacy" as in the classic UI of a browser, but they don't have any respect for trying to preserve a "classic" operating system, especially when the code involved was already written to support the "classic" OS to begin with. When the code is already written for that particular OS, it's nothing but a bald-faced lie and pure laziness to claim they can't "support" it (and who even CARES if they support it, so long as they don't break it intentionally). I've been very amazed so far that they have not made some intentional change to the code to make roytam1's job more difficult. Personally I've drawn a line after Vista; not that beyond XP is really acceptable, and Vista is almost in the same boat as XP these days; but at least Vista retained the classic UI intact. Beyond Vista I will not go. There's always Linux. I finally found a Linux distribution using the Trinity Desktop Environment as its main DE. Have a look at these Q4OS & XPQ4. On a side note I'm finding this situation hilarious in a way... I can remember the days when the XP users used to harass the 9x users about upgrading and "newer is better" and "NT is better" and all that rubbish. And here I am defending XP. The irony...

I see you've decided to come trolling again Jody... because what else is this really? If you no longer use XP, you no longer care about XP, and you think XP users are somehow backward, then why do you bother to come here to read the XP forum or even attempt to engage the XP users? You say you come here for "discussion" - but most of the time you're only interested in pushing the "accept change and move on" argument. You will agree or semi-agree with some minor point here and there to maintain the impression that you're having a fair discussion or that you're open-minded, but in the end your opinion never really changes. So why do you keep expecting other users minds to change? Do you just like to keep the disagreement stirred up to waste everyone's time? Why do you have such an intense interest in what operating system others choose to use if your mind is already made up about it? Why does it seem to bother you so much when other people don't just "go with the flow?" Who are you to question anyone else for their choices, or to seek "justifications" for those choices? (even if, as you claim, you mean nothing ill by it) If you really believe that something newer is always better, then you're welcome to your opinion. But that's nothing more than "chronological snobbery." The fact that something is newer does not make it better than something older. In fact, the reverse is frequently true. This attitude (prevalent most everywhere I look online these days) that it's OK to force, browbeat, insult the intelligence of, shame, chide, or in any other manner "push" users of any product to give it up for something newer just because someone else says it's better is a cancer, pure and simple. I'll bet that most people pushing this drivel would be deeply offended if say, someone told them their political views were wrong and that they should change because someone else says so. Too many people today are willing to sing the praises of freedom until that freedom applies to something they don't like. Yes, Microsoft has a right to change their products and/or change their business philosophy or whatever. But as far as I am concerned they have a moral obligation to NOT WILLFULLY make it more difficult for users of previous products to keep those products operating. Said users paid for those products, and the fact that some time has passed does not make those users somehow obligated to give up something that works perfectly well and buy something else because Microsoft says so. Don't want to support it any longer? Fine. But don't start putting roadblocks out for those older systems intentionally. This is the main root of the problem that many of us have with Microsoft and many other software/tech companies. It's not what they choose to do, but how they go about doing it. So they want to release a new operating system? Fine. Release it, and if it's really better than what users already have then people will begin to move to it of their own accord. Where the problem arises is 1)when they start pushing FUD garbage about how suddenly you will become vulnerable to this or that catastrophe simply because you haven't chosen to move on; 2)when they use their "influence" to push other companies and products to no longer support an older system; and 3)when they start "manipulating history" to remove information or files relevant to older products, thereby making it more difficult to keep the older systems running (which once again were paid for, and the fact that time has passed does not invalidate this). Very few things make me angrier than when I follow a link to Microsoft's site that is supposed to lead me to some documentation or update for an older system and instead I get some garbage like "We're sorry. This page/update is no longer available. Update to Windows 10 today! It's up to date, fast and secure!" My response? Sure. When .... freezes over. +1 Amen. +1

You'll find plenty of useful topics in the 9x forum. Should be no problem to make 9x work on the era of hardware you're working with. Just ask away there if you have trouble! Welcome to MSFN!

Welcome to MSFN!

There's still a mix of purposes amongst our regulars I believe, although the numbers have dwindled badly over the last few years. I believe some still use Windows 9x on their home machines for at least some tasks, although by this point probably most are running dual-boot with a later system. Some of us do just enjoy pushing the envelope of the possible as well. And there are probably still other stances on the issue. I fall into both of these categories. The first only because it's almost intolerable to browse the web under 9x these days (although roytam1 gives us some hope at least!); the second because I love to do things people say can't be done.

Unfortunately it's a STORPORT driver, which means it depends on STORPORT.SYS in order to function. STORPORT.SYS does not exist in Windows XP x86, only under XP x64. Unless STORPORT.SYS from Windows Server 2003 x86 along with all of its associated dependencies could be backported to XP x86 then this is a dead end.

Have a look here at MDGx's site (Win98 page). Find any updates that you are specifically looking for and note the KB (Knowledge Base) number associated with the update(s) you are searching for. Use MDGx's Hotfix Request Form to see if the Spanish version of any of the updates are still available. If this doesn't work, you might try searching the web for the specific file names of any updates you're looking for. (example: KB# = 168115; English Hotfix name 168115US8.EXE [kb#+lang/country+8{windows 98}.exe]; not sure offhand what replaces "US" in Spanish filenames) If this doesn't work I'm not sure what else might help. If you do find any updates, be sure to archive them and upload them somewhere where others may benefit before they are lost forever.

Aha. "drivers integrated in the CD" Sounds like a slipstream gone bad. In my experience making unofficial INF files for Windows 9x for the various newer Intel chipsets I noted that for whatever reason Intel includes a "null driver" INF for newer USB chipsets that essentially does absolutely nothing other than name the controller. It doesn't even attempt to correctly load a driver. It sounds like in this case and what bluebolt describes that this "null" USB INF file has been included when slipstreaming Intel chipset driver packages. These "null" INFs should be purged from any slipstream, and then the normal default driver would be used as expected. If one really, really wants the controllers specifically named, then the VID & PID and name text string from the null INF(s) can be added to the original 2K INF, pointing to the correct install section of course!

Good point. From rereading the original post is sounded more like a text-mode problem.

This doesn't seem to make good sense. Both of those devices should point to the same install section in the USB (or USB2) INF file (and thus operate exactly the same way). Windows 2000 probably should not even have a reference to "Intel 7 Series/C216 Chipset Family" unless it has been modified. Are you using unmodified sources to do the installation? (Note the OP of this thread has been banned, so we can't expect more responses from him. But this is a strange problem that bears further examination.)

This is all very silly and has gone on long enough. Microsoft closed Windows Update v4 long ago and could care less whether any of us like it or not for that matter. Making vague threats about launching malware attacks against Microsoft is also ridiculous, and forbidden by the rules. I see the OP has just been banned for requesting warez in the 2K forum. Good riddance to this... locked.

The oldest driver package D-Link has listed for this device (1.00) of course contained only 2K+ files. However it uses DRT2860.SYS. I believe D-Link adds the "D" to the beginning of drivers, as the Internal file name for the driver is RT2860.SYS. For the heck of it I searched for "RT28609X.SYS" which led me back here to MSFN. Did we ever get a definitive answer as to whether or not the RT28609X.SYS file discussed in that linked thread works (and/or works for later RT2860 devices)?

Changing all of these locations unfortunately didn't help. I assume, as Trip mentions, that something else is used to determine the Service Pack level or there is some other problem causing the game to fail silently. Any suggestions for running such a trace? I've also encountered other XP x64 specific issues before that I keep meaning to find solutions to but there never seems to be enough time to spend on it. The most annoying example so far besides this current one involves HP Printer driver packages that provide XP x86 drivers and Server 2003 x86/x64 drivers but contains a specific artificial block against XP x64. Manually unpacking the drivers and trying to manually install any of the files for those other three systems fails to produce a working printer. ~ Backing up a bit to provide more info and add what else I have learned so far; I started this topic thinking that a simple SP level spoof would cure the problem because at that time I had yet to encounter anything else (other than the deliberate printer exclusion) that works on XP x86 SP3 that failed to work under XP x64 SP2. The game in question is League of Legends, and at least as of fall of last year it was working properly under XP x64 SP2 despite an occasional nag screen about updating to SP3. Hadn't played the game since then, and now it's broken. The game uses at least two .EXE files, one for player interaction, matchmaking, and other game content; and the other for the actual game itself. (They have been pushing a "new client" program for a while now and have now made it mandatory; I assume this is probably involved in the problem, but it's not perfectly clear which "client" EXE is changed or both.) The first of these two EXE's still works fine. The second, the game client, fails silently when a game is launched from the first "interaction" client. The EXE is listed as a running process in the Task Manager, but nothing happens. This process has to be killed manually, which will then cause the "interaction" client to reload and report that the game is in progress and give the option to rejoin it. Doing so reenters the same loop. I examined the offending game client EXE file with Dependency Walker. Three delay-loaded dependencies are listed as missing. Two of these are in IESHIMS.DLL and WER.DLL; which according to everything I can find with Google are irrelevant for Windows XP and programs reporting these dependencies are "expected" to be intelligent enough to not use these functions under XP. Searched for these files anyway and ended up on a long wild goose chase to nowhere. I suppose one could rob them from Vista or 7 if necessary; but I doubt this is the issue. The third missing dependency is in DEVMGR.DLL. Pulled a copy of this file from XP x86 SP3 and dropped it into the game folder. No joy here (this was with the reg spoof above still in place as well). After all of this failed to work, I wondered if it might be video hardware related since the machine I was using had a somewhat "older" video card. Loaded the game on my Core i7/X79 chipset/GTX980 system and had the exact same problem under XP x64 SP2. Set up XP x86 SP3 on this system and the game runs perfectly fine (with some annoying crashes from time to time, but I'll wager they have not been spending much time properly debugging under XP anyhow). So, the game does in fact still work under XP x86 SP3. Somewhere along the way a difference between it and XP x64 SP2 has become an issue.

Apparently I wasn't reading too clearly when I examined my registry. I'm not sure what happened, but the x86 and x64 values do indeed match at that location. These locations use the same "200" value in a DWORD format. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Control\Windows HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet002\Control\Windows Also, at these locations HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion x64 has "Service Pack 2" as a string value. I suppose it's trial and error now to see if changing these will circumvent the problem... Thanks! I wish it were that simple. The program (a game I play infrequently) is already installed, and previously worked until they decided to change the base minimum specs and pushed an update that broke things. Not even sure this will cure the problem, as there is no error thrown, but it seemed like a good place to start since they specifically changed the prerequisites.

Has anyone here tried spoofing XP x64 SP2 to report SP3? I've encountered an issue with a program that defines XP SP3 as the minimum requirement for operation under XP. It makes no distinction that no SP3 exists for x64 XP (which should be defined as a BUG, but most of you here know how such people react and the response you will generally get if you criticize something that doesn't work properly on an older system), and demands an update to Vista in order to run under an x64 OS. I turned up some pages with Google that discussed spoofing x86 SP2 to SP3, but the values in the given registry locations did not match the original x86 values under x64.

Apparently the installer must be run in order to unpack the update. I'll investigate further on that later. But to answer your second question no, this update should not be used on your current machine. In general it's best not mix up other manufacturer's packages whenever you're setting up a system not using their components. Always start with installing the bare minimum of packages specific to your machine, then proceed to other solutions if and only if you have problems.