LoneCrusader

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)

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!