larryb123456

Based on my previous *horrible* experiences with FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 with my Pentium II on YouTube, seeing 9.0.280.0 even playing for ten seconds -- without crashing -- would seem like a *miracle*. Like I said in an earlier post, I definitely need this forum (for specialized help with my 98 system). Glad to be a tester. I appreciate your and rleow's patience while I tried to get comfortable with the Patcher before trying it. I'll bet you all thought the questions would *never* end. LOL ! With the next update of the VxD file, there won't be anymore questions. I will know what to do with it, so all you'll have to do is zip it to me. But, I will be interested in what the modifications to the present VxD accomplished -- in layman's terms, of course. Thanks. larryb123456

--------------------------------------------------------- Rleow, I just saw your message # 41. For *all* FP > 9.0.47.0 -- without your Patcher -- the video would crash (i.e., a browser crash or a computer hang or crash) *immediately* on loading. It would *never* get anywhere close to 2:37. Take my word on it -- I have wasted an *inordinate* amount of time trying (without *any* success *at all*) to get FP > 9.0.47.0 to work on *YouTube*. In fact, I probably hold the world's record for the number of *computer* crashes in this pursuit -- LOL ! Rleow, you have made *great* strides with your Patcher. You have broken through the "9.0.47.0 barrier" ! You are like Chuck Yeager breaking through the sound barrier ! ! That's one small step for (a) man, a giant leap for mankind ! As for repeating the Bjork behavior, *this time* the screen was totally black (i.e.,no video at all) while the audio played great all the way through. When the audio ended, that was the end of it. In this regard, Bjork's video is the same as the two MGMT videos discussed below. From reading my discussions below, it seems that what your Patcher needs to do is to *activate* both the audio and video at the *same time* -- at the *beginning* of the song -- and try to get them to play together in synch thereafter. Is it hard to modify your code to do this ? --------------------------------------------------------- Hello, rleow: I thought I'd send you these results now, because there is a definite pattern emerging. If I had to describe, now, the *overall behavior* of your Patcher on Youtube in one *simple* thought, I'd say: The audio plays all the way through first, without video, and when the audio stops, the video plays all the way through without audio. ----------------------------- My internet service was down for a couple of hours, so that is why I could not get this to you quicker. ----------------------------- Here are some additional Youtube results (with Firefox 2.0.20.0 and FP 9.0.280.0). I'll continue doing this (I might uncover some other types of glitches) until I hear from you. Anyway, I'm enjoying listening to the music. ------------------------------------------------------------ Kate Bush "Army Dreamers" video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdHOm256N4&feature=related Similar behavior to Bjork video discussed in my last post, except that the video froze up *immediately* on starting -- and stayed frozen -- while the audio played *great* all the way through. *As soon as* the audio was finished, the video started playing -- without audio -- all the way through. The video played *great* all the way through -- without any freeze ups like in the Bjork video. ------------------------------------------------------------ House of Pain "Jump Around" video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwQbPgouUYo Results identical to Kate Bush video above. ------------------------------------------------------------ MGMT "Time to Pretend" video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=canpQNO6Wgs Black screen while the audio played great all the way through. Then, that was it. No audio shown at all. Since this behavior was different from the behavior of all the previously discussed cases, I thought I'd try another MGMT video. ------------------------------------------------------------ MGMT "Electric Feel" video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmZexg8sxyk The video opened with a 10 -15 second Google ad -- in the player -- which played great all the way through (audio and video in sync). When the MGMT video started, the results were *identical* to those discussed above for MGMT. All the videos, I've tried are "somewhat" recent, so I thought I'd try an "oldie but goodie". ------------------------------------------------------------ The Teddy Bears "To Know Him is to Love Him" video (live) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnUsInBQws Black screen while the audio played great all the way through. Then, as soon as the audio was finished, the video played great all the way through without any audio. ------------------------------------------------------------ Hope this helps. larryb123456

Hello, rleow: Your Patcher is *almost* working. I'II bet you will get it *completely* working in no time at all. I am not done -- by any means -- in my reporting to you about all the possible "glitches" that I might find on YouTube. The *great* news is that I never suffered *any kind* of crash *at all* in my limited testing on YouTube. (I'm going to do some some more testing later on tonight -- the good thing is that this will let me relax a little and listen to some music.) First, I tried just a few videos at random -- in a *very* haphazard way -- and, *in all cases", the audio played *great*. I only tested your Patcher with Firefox 2.0.0.20 and FP 9.0.280.0. I have a long list of my favorite song URL's and I knew *exactly* how each song *should play* on YouTube, since I had seen them play successfully with FP 9.0.47.0. So, this gives a very firm basis of comparison. ---------------------------------------------- As an example of a problem, let me cite: Bjork "All is Full of Love" (live) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvoEZXop4zM&NR=1 The song was 3:49 long. At 2:37 (+ or - a second or two) the video froze up on screen and *stayed* that way until the audio was *completely* finished. (The audio played *great* throughout -- no skipping or freeze-up, etc.) *As soon as* the audio was completed, the video started back up from where it had frozen up at 2:37 and completed playing as it should have (but there was no audio playing during this time -- the audio was already finished). Strange to observe, indeed. ---------------------------------------------- I will spend the next few hours documenting, in detail -- as above -- the behavior of some more YouTube videos -- and you will have these results in the morning (my time). By collecting this data we can see if there is a *uniform* problem with your Patcher on YouTube. This might allow you to more easily fix it. larryb123456 P.S., rleow: I just saw your post # 39. I will leave FP 9.0.280.0 installed. "Will do" about the details of any "Illegal Instruction" Errors. Thanks.

Hello rleow (and dencorso, also): I think I'll edit System.ini to put the following in section [386Enh]: ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DEVICE=P3CPU.VXD ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ;XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX That way, the edit line -- or "Patcher Controller" -- will "pop out" when I open System.ini, and I won't have to remember the section number. Of course, this would really become "valuable" only if I kept your Patcher on my system and needed to turn it on and off frequently. Does the above editing look OK to do ? (I'm sure it does.) ---------------------------------------------------------------- My nephew got back to me and he had no additional questions. He said, "I don't see any harm in it. Go for it." So, I will. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rleow, I hope you are not tired of answering my (seemingly endless) questions. Like I said, I don't have any more questions at *this* point. This is the way I learn something new -- by a series of simple-minded questions. (Plus, trying to find answers on the internet -- but on the internet, it's easy to get lost in a forest of verbiage and misinformation.) I really appreciate your patience and clear answers. ---------------------------------------------------------------- You say, in answering Question A: A: Although the files themselves are not modified, copies made from them may incorporate some or all of the Patches made if the File is or has been Executed. After the tests are complete, you may be able to take advantage of this to make the changes permanent so you will no longer need the Patcher running. What a *fantastic* answer. This is *exactly* what I have been looking for -- individual versions of FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 that I can make work *everywhere* -- especially on YouTube. Basically, you are "patching" FP 9 -- something that Adobe should have done a long time ago. That way, I will not need your Patcher (that is, I can turn it off), and I can run all my other installed programs exactly as I have been doing -- without any trepidations. But, I will save your Patcher and use it again to patch FP > 9.0.280.0, as these versions are released. Please, rleow, if you make updates to your Patcher in the future, please e-mail me (the best way) or PM me. ------------------------------- So, first, I will try FP 9.0.280.0 and report back whether or not it worked on YouTube. If it doesn't work, I'll turn your Patcher off, reboot, and then I'll uninstall FP 9.0.280.0 and go back to 9.0.47.0 and await your next instructions -- and your next Patcher version. ------------------------------- YouTube has always been the "hard nut to crack", so if your Patcher works here, I'm sure it will work everywhere. But, if you want me to try it on other *known* problem sites, just let me know, and I will. If your Patcher works, I will get the details from you on what FP 9.0.280.0 files to copy to make the changes permanent -- that is I'll list the files in my two installation folders (one for Firefox, the other for Opera -- Netscape does a scan) and you can tell me *exactly* what files to copy. (Less chance for error that way.) I have the *whole* FP 9 archive backed up, so if we ruin this test FP 9.0.280.0, I'll be able to get the original copy -- "licketty split". It will be an hour or two before I can test your Patcher. I've got a few errands to run. Thanks, rleow. larryb123456

Hello, rleow -- and thanks for your patience. I have a few more questions, and you can answer as before if you want -- that is, Question Letter followed by a short answer. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In earlier posts: You said, "The Patcher can affect the File Cache, so do not copy or move the Flash files while the Patcher is running. Disable the Patcher and reboot first." Then I said, "# 7 a) Can you explain what *you* mean by File Cache, in relation to your Patcher ?" And you answered, "#7a. Windows 98 caches Program Files in RAM. The Code is supposed to be "Read Only" so Windows assumes that it represents the File Data. My Patcher runs in Kernel Mode so it can change the Code. If another Program reads the affected File, it will see the modified data and not the actual data on Hard Disk." ---------------------------- Question A : What would happen if I moved the Flash files around while the Patcher was running ? ---------------------------- Question B : I know that there are browser cache and computer cache. In all your discussions about *cache* you are only talking about *computer cache* and *never*, *never* about browser cache -- correct ? Question C: So, I can empty browser cache while your Patcher is running -- correct ? ---------------------------- Question D : With "Kernel Mode", are you saying that you are basically installing KernelEx (GULP ! -- LOL !) on my system to turn my Pentium II into a Pentium III ? It is clear that my computer would have to *behave* as a Pentium III for *all* FP 9 to work on *all* web sites with Flash content. ---------------------------- You say, "If another Program reads the affected File, it will see the modified data and not the actual data on Hard Disk." Question E : Your Patcher enters into play *only* when there are "invalid instructions" (or other kinds of problems) that pop up -- correct ? Question F : None of my (most used) installed programs give "invalid instructions" (or other problems), so your Patcher would leave them alone and these programs would operate *exactly* as they would with your Patcher turned off -- correct ? Take Photoshop, for example. I want it to see the *actual data* on the hard disk when it opens a bitmap -- and *not* some Patcher modification of this data. Question G : Your Patcher will *never*, *never* modify the bitmap data on the hard disk when Photoshop opens a bitmap file - correct ? Question H : Suppose there were a problem -- like some kind of invalid instruction -- when Photoshop tried to open a bitmap file. With its actions, your Patcher would not *permanently* alter the data in this bitmap file on the hard disk -- correct ? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks in advance for your answers, rleow. I think these are all the questions I'II have, unless, of course, my nephew comes up with some. Just as I thought -- Pentium II is not the *whole* problem with FP > 9.0.47.0. You just don't know what your answer means to me. (I was seriously beginning to doubt my reasoning ability, logical mindset, and powers of observation -- LOL !) The reason I said that a *website* could also be a part of the problem were my *numerous* experiences of just going on a site with Flash content -- and doing *absolutely nothing* (no attempted video playing at all, etc.) -- and having my browser crash or getting a computer hang or crash (either immediately or after 15 to 30 seconds or so). What could be the explanation behind this ? An answer to this question would greatly fill a big gap in my understanding. Thanks, rleow. larryb123456

Invariably, thinking like *myself* generally leads to problems. (Plus, too much thinking always gives me a headache. LOL !) That is interesting, dencorso and so simple -- much moreso than the "renaming". And the VxD file just stays left alone and forgotten about in the C:\Windows\System folder. I am sure that I'll end up using this approach when I'm testing the Patcher. So interesting: the semi-colon turns the line into a comment and not an action. As they say in Hillbilly country, there are many ways to "skin a cat". With the above, you are not trying to turn me into a code writer are you ? (LOL !) If you spent a million years on it, I might just reach first base. Seriously, though, can you check out *my* suggested approach of the "Original" and "Patcher" folders and let me know if that would work too. (I'm sure it would.) Many thanks for the great info, dencorso. larryb123456

Hello, dencorso and RLeow: This is how I will operate the Patcher: (Doing it this way is a little more comfortable to me. I think I can keep my "ducks in a row" a little better.) After dropping the VXD file into the C:\Windows\System folder, I will just leave it there and not bother it again -- no renaming or anything. As I understand it, the "controller" on the Patcher is the System.ini file. The original System.ini file will not *activate* the Patcher, and the VXD file in the System folder will not cause any problems in this case (it will more or less be like a jpeg file that I made, myself, and dropped in -- of no actual consequence.) On the C drive, I'll put a folder titled "RLOEW PATCHER" with two folders inside: "Original" and "Patcher". The first thing I will do is copy the original System.ini to the first folder and the edited System.ini to the second. Next, I will make a copy of each file in their respective folders. That is, the "Original" folder will have System.ini and Copy of System.ini. The "Patcher" folder will also have System.ini and Copy of System.ini, but here, of course, "System.ini" refers to the edited version. That completes the setup -- accomplished in no time at all. In the "Original" and "Patcher" folders, I will *keep* the respective "Copy of System.ini". So, if I want the Patcher *turned on*, I will delete System.ini (the original one) from the C:\Windows folder, make Copy 2 of System.ini in the Patcher folder, and then rename it to System.ini. I will then drop this System.ini into the C:\Windows folder and reboot. Because I have kept the two Copy of System.ini files, I can generate an infinite number of both the original and edited System.ini. To delete System.ini (either the original or edited version), I'II do a "Start>Find>Files or Folders" for System.ini and delete it from the dialog box. This is very quick, and there is less chance of making a mistake that way. (In the C:\Windows folder there is a "forest" of files and it would be very easy to delete the wrong "tree" -- at least, for me.) If I happen to forget whether or not I have the Patcher turned on, I can simply open the System.ini file in C:\Windows and look for the line of edit. Dencorso and RLeow, the above is just the way I like to work, because I easily make mistakes and the above approach makes it simpler for *me*. (It makes it so I don't have to concentrate as much.) Do either of you see anything wrong with this approach ? I am doing it this way just in case some of my graphics programs or media players, etc. don't work well with the patcher. Then I could *simply* and quickly turn the Patcher off while using these programs and turn it back on when I wanted to browse the web and play YouTube videos. Many thanks. larryb123456 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.S., RLeow: I got your P3cpu.vxd file from the zip. Thanks. You said: Add the line: Device=P3CPU.VXD under the [386Enh] Header in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.INI My question (just to make sure there are no errors): Does the line go *immediately under* the [386Enh] Header -- that is, on the next line below the Header ? -------------------- I just noticed in dencorso's latest message that he said you could put it anywhere under the Header. I think I'll put it right below the Header, since I can more easily find the line if I forget whether the Patcher is on or off. -------------------- The latest FP 9 is 9.0.280.0 -- released July 29, 2010. I will try your Patcher with that version -- and really put it to the test ! I am still working on that message post I told you about. I should get it to you shortly. larryb123456 P.P.S., Is it safe to defrag the disk with the Patcher on ? I would guess not. In any event, just to play it safe, I will make sure the Patcher is turned off before defragging.

Many thanks, dencorso, for the very clear step-by-step instructions. I already had the computer skills you describe -- but they say, "Pride goeth before a fall." -- so I'm *very glad* you included these steps, just to leave nothing to chance. I guess these instructions could be included as a text file in the .zip file for the Patcher -- that is, if you all are going to publicize and release this "universally". Yesterday, I right-clicked on the file to get Properties, but it didn't say it was a text file, and the icon shown was not the same as for a plain-old text file (it had the text file icon but with a little "gear" on top). I had never seen -- or had needed to see -- this type of icon before, and I just assumed it was a complex file. I guess the little gear signifies "a text file that makes things work on its own". Do I have to change the extension ? Normally, I would rename it to System_ORIGINAL.ini (which -- to me -- would be more "self-explanatory" and, in addition, I wouldn't have to remember what the extension was). Is this OK to do, or does still having another .ini file in the C:\Windows folder cause problems ? I don't understand the need to create a copy of SYSTEM.ORI, since we already have SYSTEM.ORI. Couldn't the [*RECOVERY PROCEDURE*] just be: 1) Delete SYSTEM.INI 2) Rename SYSTEM.ORI to SYSTEM.INI Please let me know on this, since if I did not have your instructions, I would have done it in the two steps above. Now this question is important to my understanding (RLoew might have answered it, but I haven't read his message, in detail, yet): In the five seconds or so between your steps 2) and 3) above -- or between my two steps above -- the computer will not have *any* SYSTEM.INI in the C:\WINDOWS folder. Can this cause a problem ? (I would think not, since I think SYSTEM.INI is used *only* at startup -- if I understand correctly.) It doesn't seem hard at all. I think even Forrest Gump could do it. I phoned my nephew -- who is very proficient in computers -- and described all that I'm planning to do with the installation of the VXD file and the System.ini editing. He knew right away what I was talking about and said he had done stuff like that before. (I called him because I would need his help in getting my computer to boot up again if something went horribly wrong.) I told him I would e-mail him the link to page 2 in the morning (and cite the pertinent messages) to get his final opinion. I'm 99 % sure he will say, "Go for it", so I will then test out the Patcher tomorrow if he consents. Many thanks, dencorso larryb123456

Hello, LoneCrusader: Thanks for your input. Before I respond to dencorso and RLoew, I thought I'd make this short post here. I just noticed that your location is "The Heart of Appalachia" -- the *same* as mine. (Evidently, as they say, it is, indeed, "a small world".) So, from one "Hillbilly" to another: Howdy and Yee-Haa ! ! larryb123456

Please answer these questions, rLoew, so I can better understand the *exact* details: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1) Drop the file in the C:\Windows\System folder -- correct ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have *two* System.ini files: one in C:\Windows and one in C:\Backup. # 2 a) By "adding one line to the System.ini file", you mean "edit it" -- right ? # 2 b ) We'll just edit the System.ini in *C:\Windows* and leave the one in C:\Backup alone -- right ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3) If the patch doesn't work -- and say I suffer a hard computer crash -- Windows will re-open *as usual* so I can navigate thru my folders to undo the patch -- right ? I do not, under any circumstances, want to have to open in DOS mode, etc. (if there is such a thing) or some other computer hocus-pocus that I am not familiar with and that I am incapable of executing. Questions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4 a) I have 384 MB RAM. Is that enough ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4 b ) Patching the code in RAM does not add any entries to the registry or modify the RAM (or RAM settings or behavior) in any way -- correct ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4 c) How will I get the VXD file from you ? e-mail seems the simplest way, unless the file is bigger than 20 MB. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 4 d) How many MB is the VDX file ? I can definitely see now that "adding a line in System.ini" and "editing it" means more than simply renaming it. Somehow you need to open the file and modify the code (if that's the right word). Questions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 5 a) I have never edited a System.ini file. If it is relatively simple, you can post the instructions on the forum -- right ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 5 b ) If the editing is difficult -- or involves something I'm uncomfortable doing -- I can e-mail a copy of my System.ini file to you to do it -- right ? That way, we can be sure that some mistake I made did not cause your Patcher to fail. This might be the best way to do it. It would probably take you no time at all. Even if you did the editing, I'd still like to see the instructions -- and file contents -- posted so I could get some idea of what was involved. I've never seen anything like this before, so it should prove to be very interesting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 5 c) I can also disable your Patcher by renaming your xx.vxd to NOT_xx.vxd and the *edited*System.ini to NOT_*edited*System.ini -- right ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You say, "The added line in SYSTEM.INI simply invokes the VXD at startup." # 5 d) The System.ini -- or your *edited*System.ini -- is only active at computer startup, and is not necessary at all while the computer is running thereafter -- right ? # 5 e) That way, if we disabled your *edited*System.ini before enabling the original System.ini again -- for a few seconds -- we would be without *any* functioning System.ini. This would not lead to any computer problems -- would it ? Questions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 6 a) And nothing worse than this will happen -- right ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 6 b ) What is *absolutely* the worst thing that could happen if something unforseen occurs or if you have overlooked something in your programming ? Questions: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 7 a) Can you explain what *you* mean by File Cache, in relation to your Patcher ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 7 b ) What do you mean by "copying" or "moving" the Flash Files ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 7 c) Is this "copying" and "moving" just like the copy and paste of the NPSWF32.dll, etc., for example, that I've been doing recently ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 7 d) When is the Patcher running ? As long as the computer is turned on and your files are in place ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 7 e) So, before we uninstall or install a different version of FP (this moves Flash files around big time) we need to disable your Patcher, enable the original System.ini and reboot -- correct ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I really need all these answers, rLoew, before I feel comfortable in proceeding. All you have to do is list the question numbers and provide a "yes" or "no" answer, or a short one or two sentence answer. That's all. I might think of another quick question or two, also. Please try and think of any additional commentary that might be helpful, rLoew. Your discussion above was very helpful and instructive, BTW. Many thanks. larryb123456

Hello dencorso and RLoew (and others): For FP 9, system requirements are at: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/productinfo/systemreqs/flashplayer9/ Under "Hardware" -- right at the top of the page -- why doesn't Adobe just state that a Pentium III is required to run FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 ? Their failure to do so has caused a lot of confusion and misery. But, they state here that all you need to run FP 9 is a Pentium II 450MHz processor. Alternatively -- and even better -- why don't they make (i.e., fix or patch) all FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 so that they do what they claim: *always* run with a Pentium II ? To me, anything short of that is irresponsible. I am sure that they are aware of the problem with all the literature on it. Why don't they address it ? They continue to release new versions of FP 9 every couple of months -- the latest is 9.0.280.0. Evidently, these versions can confidently be used only for Win 98 users with a Pentium III. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Here is a question that is still unanswered in my mind, and I'd greatly appreciate an answer. If FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 *requires* a Pentium III to work -- as you say -- why does FP 9.0.280.0 work great on many websites with Flash content with my Pentium II ? It's just that it always crashes on YouTube, and since its behavior is "unpredictable" on other sites with Flash content, I can't use FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 to browse the web. By "unpredictable" here, I mean that I might get a browser crash or a computer hang or crash *as soon as* a page opens. Or, if the page opens OK, I might run into problems when I try to play a video. Since I never know if a link is going to open a problem page or not, I can't use FP 9 > 9.0.47.0 to browse the web. ----------------------------- It seems to me that Pentium II is not the *whole* problem. It is apparent that the nature of the webpage itself, as well as the nature of the videos on the web page, must also be considered. For, as I said, FP 9.0.280.0 works great on many websites with Flash content with my Pentium II. ----------------------------- In light of what I've written here, dencorso, it seems that -- equivalently -- you are saying in your statement above that certain webpages and videos are written in a code (i.e., instructions) that only a Pentium III can understand -- which crashes FP 9 < 9.0.115.0 -- while on the sites that FP 9.0.280.0 plays great on, the webpage and video instructions are written in a code that a Pentium II can understand, so FP 9.0.280.0 plays great. So, to have success on *all* websites and videos, you need a Pentium III, which understands all the website and video instructions for all FP 9. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ An answer to the above question would fill a big gap in my knowledge -- a gap that has bugged me for awhile. I just saw that RLoew responded. I glanced over the message and the procedure doesn't look too bad. I certainly have the aptitude to do it. I want to study his post first and get back to him to clarify *exactly* the procedure and to ask him a couple of questions. Thanks, larryb123456

My Patcher does all the work. All you have to do is drop one file into your SYSTEM folder, add one line to your SYSTEM.INI file and reboot. Then you run the video. By the time you get back from the hills, the video should say "THE END". In the C:\Windows\System folder -- correct ? What is the name of this drop-in file (so I can check out the extension, etc.) ? I have two System.ini files: in C:\Windows and in C:\Backup. By adding one line to the System.ini file, you just mean "rename" it -- right ? We'll just rename the .ini in C:\Windows and leave the one in C:\Backup alone -- right ? If you sense I might be a little overly cautious here, it's because this is my only computer and if it gets messed up, I will not be able to get another one. I know that the System.ini has to do with startup, etc. and specifies what programs are loaded at startup -- that is, if I understand Google correctly. I certainly don't understand the totality of the file or -- if the truth be known -- anything at all about it. Have you modified System.ini just so that it affects the browsers and Flash Player only -- (or I guess just for Flash Player since it's to fix a bug in it) ? I have many important programs that I can't afford to lose (like Photoshop, Corel Draw, Adobe Illustrator, and others, etc). All of my installation CD's and manuals, etc. were destroyed (in a sad, sad story that I won't go into here) -- so if the programs are uninstalled or corrupted, or if they just disappear, I'll be totally out of luck. I also need to be reassured that if the patch doesn't work -- (or if my other programs don't work as before) -- that Windows will open as usual so I can navigate thru my folders to undo the patch. To summarize, can you explain -- that is, if you don't mind -- in somewhat simplified terms -- how the patch works, and how it interacts with my Windows 98 system and other installed programs, like Photoshop, for example ? By the time I get back from the hills, I sure hope it's the video saying "THE END", and not my computer saying "THE END". LOL ! When I feel just a little bit more comfortable knowing the details of the patch and how it works, I will certainly volunteer. I don't like the word "test", because it causes me to wonder about the ramifications if the "test" fails. I don't think it will be much longer before I get the explanations and reassurances I need for me to test it. Dencorso, did you kind of double-check the code (if that's the right word) of the patch ? But right now, the patch is kind of like a "pig in a poke". In the newspaper not too long ago, I read a story about a guy who installed a "pig in a poke" into his computer. In no time at all, the pig grew to be ten feet tall and ate his computer. Then it ate his house and his car. Finally, for good measure, it ate his wife. Thanks for your efforts. BTW, all this is very interesting to me. larryb123456

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, dencorso: I just wanted to touch base here. I want to spend a day or two reading about the mechanics of swf, embedded videos, how browsers access videos, etc. -- stuff I've never read about before. I want to try to understand these mechanics better and to also read over your and halohalo's links in more detail. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What a clear, concise explanation. Forrest Gump proved you correct in my last post. By being a computer novice, certain words send up red flags, shut my brain down, and make me want to run for the hills. Among these words are patch, registry, hexeditor, KernelEx, etc. Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame, of course. By no means am I a trekie (or trecker), but I recall (or have heard about) one of the most famous Star Trek episodes. It concerns the fact that Vulcan males succumb to an overwhelming desire to mate -- that is, they go into "heat" (LOL !) -- once every seven years. Supposedly, they must mate then or die. (Talk about pressure to perform !) Well, the Enterprise took Spock back to his home planet, but the Vulcan girl he was supposed to mate with rejected him and chose, instead, a full blooded Vulcan -- (Spock was half Earthling, half Vulcan) -- even though Spock tried all the Vulcan sweet talk he could think of. (Maybe he should have included Vulcan roses and Vulcan chocolates in the deal !) I don't know how Spock escaped death because he didn't mate, and, frankly, I don't care. Like I said, I am not a treker. This is kind of what my reading is centered on -- to learn more about such topics -- and related topics. That was a great analogy by the way. You are learning to speak Forrest-Gumpian (which I can more easily understand). Many thanks, dencorso. larryb123456

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note to dencorso: I know you talked about overly long posts, but please forgive me on this one. I'll never have another one this long. It's kind of like Forrest Gump talking computers, so it will be easy to zip through, without the reader having to concentrate at all. There aren't many questions at all. This documents my Forrest Gump effort to prove that you were right about Pentium III. LOL ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, rilef: I read dencorso's post # 15, before I did all the work described here. I'm sure when dencorso reads this message he will shake his head in disbelief and say, "When will larryb123456 learn to take the advice of an expert ?" LOL ! But you suggested the copy and paste of all Flash files, and I'm sure you are interested in the results. To be honest, I was very interested and curious also, because I had read before that it had helped others -- and I had never tried it before. They say, "curiousity killed the cat", but dencorso said I had nothing to worry about with the copy and paste. So, all I had to lose by doing it was a little time and energy. So, this curious cat proceeded onward. MEOW ! I did so. The plugins folder already had npnul32.dlI in it, and I copied all the files from the Macromed\Flash folder: flashplayer.xpt, install.log, NPSWF32.dll, NPSWF32_FlashUtil.exe, and uninstall_plugin.exe. (There were no IE Flash files in the Macromed\Flash folder, since I had uninstalled 9.0.47.0 -- which removed all FP, including IE -- and I did not reinstall the IE Flash Player.) The complete details of what I did are in the appendix at the bottom of this message. I only considered Firefox 2.0.0.20, and not Netscape and Opera. Also, I only considered FP 9.0.115.0, since I figured that newer versions -- up to the latest version, 9.0.280.0 -- might have additional complexities or restrictions. Also, I only considered http://www.youtube.com/ since this has been my primary focus all along. In a nutshell, none of the file moving I tried worked to get a video to play on YouTube with FP 9.0.115.0. I was very systematic in my approach, I and tried different file combinations. If you want, rilef, check over what I did, and see if you find any errors or if you want me to try something a little different (say like a different combination of files). Let me know. But, it certainly looks like dencorso was right in post # 15 when he said "Copying the files of 9.0.262.0 around will not solve the fact it uses instructions your processor don't have. It's hopeless to experiment with any unpatched version of flash above 9.0.47.0. It won't get you anywhere." It will take me a few hours (or maybe tomorrow) to respond to dencorso's post, since I want to do a little more reading first, so I can ask more intelligent questions. Are you saying that by increasing Firefox performance, FP 9.0.115.0 might be more able to play a video on YouTube ? This increase in performance just applies to browser startup (i.e., speed of opening) -- correct ? Once the FP plugin is installed, Firefox doesn't have to do anymore searching as long as it's open -- correct ? When you click on a Flash video to play, Firefox doesn't have to start searching all over again, does it ? (If it did have to start searching all over again, I could see that a big increase in speed might allow a video to play on YouTube by not having the connection "time out" and crash.) It seems your rationale for the copy and paste was just to get Firefox to open quicker and not -- necessarily -- to get a video to play on YouTube with FP 9.0.115.0. Am I correct here ? I'm basically a computer novice, and the thought of doing something like this makes me very nervous. But, thanks for taking the additional time to provide the info. An older version of Netscape I used (I think it was Netscape 7) indeed installed to a Netscape plugins folder. But Netscape 9.0.0.6 -- which I use now -- only scans the hard drive, and does not install to a plugins folder (see dencorso's post # 15). You are correct about Opera. Sorry for the long winded message, rilef, but it's kind of simple-minded, so you should be able to zip right through it. The details of the copy and paste are given in the appendix below, if you care to read them. Thanks, rilef larryb123456 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix: copying Firefox Flash files from Macromed\Flash to the FF plugins folder in trying to get FP 9.0.115.0 to work on YouTube ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wanted to do all this just to prove to myself that the file copying either would or would not work. Recall, I'd read that it had helped others -- so this provided the motivation. And I had never tried it before. In no way was it done to question dencorso's expertise or to prove him wrong. Each time on YouTube, I did an artist search (for the same song) and then clicked on the little jpeg image link to start the video. Everything was fine until the black rectangle came up where the video was supposed to be; the little gray circle in the center would spin for 2 or 3 seconds and stop; and then I'd get a browser crash (with the NPSWF32.dll error), or a computer hang, or a computer hang or crash on reboot. (I rebooted between each step below.) # 1) The plugins folder already had npnul32.dlI in it, and I copied all the files from the Macromed\Flash folder: flashplayer.xpt, install.log, NPSWF32.dll, NPSWF32_FlashUtil.exe, and uninstall_plugin.exe. No luck with this. # 2) I removed the .exe's to leave npnul32.dll, flashplayer.xpt, install.log, and NPSWF32.dll. No luck with this. # 3) I removed install.log to leave npnul32.dll, flashplayer.xpt, and NPSWF32.dll. No luck with this. # 4) I removed flashplayer.xpt to leave npnul32.dll and NPSWF32.dll. No luck with this. It then dawned on me that I had not checked to see if hardware acceleration was enabled or not. To my disappointment, it was enabled. (I remembered that many people had said that turning hardware acceleration off finally allowed videos to play.) So -- being the hardhead that I am (LOL !) -- I turned hardware acceleration off and repeated the above 4 steps with exactly the same results -- no luck at all. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The End -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, everyone: Thanks for the rapid replies. I have summarized my brief responses below. At the end of this message, I have a question based on rilef's post # 12 that anyone can answer. The more answers (i.e., information) the better, IMO. Thanks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dencorso post # 9 dencorso, thanks: I haven't yet gone over, in detail, your and halohalo's links. I will try to find those posts relating to the 9.0.262.0 hexeditor patching. (And I want to read all the other posts, too, like I said, just to broaden my knowledge.) Without a doubt, this patching is certainly over my head -- and will not be tried. You are probably right about just sticking with 9.0.47.0. The helper on the Flash Player forum said I should consider myself fortunate in that I have at least one version of FP 9 working with all my non-IE browsers. I'll try the copy and paste of the Flash files with 9.0.280.0 -- the latest version -- and let you know the results. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- diskless post # 10 Thanks for responding so quickly from the PM, diskless: Just as I suspected -- you have a Pentium III. When I read dencorso's link, I'll better understand your problem. Glad you got it solved, BTW. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rloew post # 11 Thanks, rloew: I'll be curious to hear what you come up with. But with me being a computer novice, it will probably be way over my head. But I'm sure other more advanced members could apply it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rilef post # 12 Many thanks, rilef, for taking the time to write a detailed, easy to understand message about the copy and paste of the Flash files. At the end of this message, I'm going to ask a question (which I've wondered about for about a month -- since I got FP 9.0.47.0 working) about the handling of the Flash files by my non-IE browsers. After I get some answers back, I'm going to try the copy and paste (with all the Flash files, as you suggest) with the latest Flash Player version -- 9.0.280.0. I'll post back the results and will probably have a question or two. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dencorso post # 13 I really appreciate the attention you have given to this message. I'll be very happy to learn that my piddly, trivial message would lead to side benefits for others on the forum. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is my question -- but first, a little background: With FP 9.0.47.0 -- which runs successfully on all three of my non-IE browsers -- "Find>Files or Folders" shows NPSWF32.dll only twice: for Firefox in C:\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash; and for Opera in C:\Program Files\Opera\program\plugins. There is no mention at all of Netscape, but about:plugins and the Flash Player version tester show that 9.0.47.0 is installed OK. The Netscape plugins folder at C:\Program Files\Netscape\Navigator 9\plugins has only npnul32.dll -- the Mozilla default plugin (which has nothing to do with Flash). So, finally, my question(s): In light of the above, how is Netscape 9.0.0.6 able to install the NPSWF32.dll Flash plugin and run FP 9.0.47.0 ? Is it a scan of the hard-drive (as rilef discusses for Firefox) ? If it is, what is the advantage of the scan over just putting the Flash files into the plugins folder (or another installation folder) like Firefox and Opera do ? Many thanks everyone. larryb123456

There is no real risk in doing it. And if it doesn't help, of course all you have to do is delete the copy. And no big problem at all. Hello dencorso, What a wonderful message. I feel so much better now (being new here, I didn't know what the tone of the forum would be -- brusk or helpful). But I did know that I needed this forum with my Windows 98 system. I would really have nowhere else to turn for specific Win 98 questions. With my 98 system, I kind of feel like a Neanderthal surrounded by Homo Sapiens (with their more advanced systems). Many thanks for the welcome. That means a lot. Great pointers, by the way, in how to make effective posts -- short and sweet, little bit by little bit. Many thanks for answering the "copy and paste" question. Your answer was in tune with what I instinctively thought. I sent a PM to diskless, who had a post in this forum, where he said he copied and pasted both the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files and got Flash Player 9.0.262.0 installed successfully. I want to get all the details from him. Of course, now I know to ask him if he had a Pentium II or a Pentium III. LOL ! Thanks, dencorso larryb123456

Many thanks, halohalo and dencorso for your rapid responses: I never uncovered these websites in all the Googling I did. I guess the key was to associate Flash Player 9.0.115.0 with Pentium II. As I said in my last post, I believed the Adobe website when they said that all versions of Flash Player 9 would work with Pentium II, and I never even thought that the Pentium II might be the problem. I skimmed over the volumes and volumes of info in your links. To be honest with you, much of it was way, way over my head. As I mentioned, I am pretty much of a novice and I do not have the expertise that you two have. I am a computer novice, but I'm not stupid. If I can get things explained to me in somewhat layman's terms, I can rapidly understand. But, I am going to go over each and every post in the links and try to understand the best I can. Then, I'll report back and try to restate what I've learned in layman's terms, so you two can see if I've misunderstood anything. I will try to make this very organized and easy to follow. This will probably take a few days. I want to learn and I will put super-human effort into it to learn. This is the important part of this message: If I make numbered list of questions that can be answered with a "yes" or "no" or with a sentence or two, will you two take the time to answer ? To be honest with you, I am a little frustrated and disappointed in that my simple questions from my last two posts have gone unanswered (like the dangers, etc. of the copy and paste of the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files, etc.). It will make me feel a little better if you two could take a little more time answering me, because I am not a computer expert. If you don't want to take the time -- well, that's OK too. Please let me know on this. Many thanks, larryb123456

Thanks very much,halohalo, for taking time to respond. I run Windows 98 on a Dell Dimension XPS R450 computer with a Pentium II processor, 450 MHz. I have 384 MB RAM -- the most my machine can have. I had never heard of SSE -- or the SSE restriction you mention -- in all the many hours and hours of reading about Flash Player, both on Adobe sites and on other sites. So, I Googled "SSE" and found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions in the first paragraph it said, "In computing, Streaming SIMD Extensions (SSE) is ...designed by Intel and introduced in 1999 in their Pentium III series processors...." Later in the article, it says, "The first CPU to support SSE, the Pentium III ...." So, obviously, my computer will not support SSE since it is a Pentium II. But I do not think this is related in any way to why Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and all later versions) will not work at all on YouTube and only somewhat haphazardly on other sites with Flash content (as I discussed in my post # 1). Please, halohalo, if you can provide me with some links to support your assertion of SSE being the "culprit" here, I would be very, very happy to read them. For I am trying to learn about this Flash Player 9.0.47.0 "cut-off" for successful operation -- and your help would be greatly appreciated. But, I need further information from you. The rest of this post gives some reasons why I am skeptical of the SSE reason: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 1) The system requirements for Flash Player 9 are given -- from an Adobe site -- at http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/productinfo/systemreqs/flashplayer9/ As you can see here, I satisfy the minimum hardware configurations -- namely, Pentium II 450 MHz processor (which is what I have) and 128MB of RAM (I have 384MB). The page further says "Flash Player 9 is supported on the following minimum operating systems and browsers: Microsoft Windows 98 -- Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later, Firefox 1.x, Mozilla 1.x, Netscape 7.x or later, Opera 7.11 or later." I have Windows 98, with browsers Internet Explorer 6.0, Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6, and Opera 9.64. So, I meet all of Adobe's minimum requirements -- for hardware, OS, and browsers -- for Flash Player 9. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 2) Just for some more additional information, the system requirements for Flash Player 10.1 are given at http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/ which shows that the minimum CPU requirement is Pentium II 450MHz processor -- the same as it is for Flash Player 9 ! Since SSE is not supported by Pentium II, this proves that even Flash Player 10 does not require SSE ! I could run Flash Player 10 on all my browsers if I only had Windows 2000, at a minimum. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # 3) You say, "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE." But my experience proves this statement to be false. As I mentioned in my post # 1, Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and all later versions) works perfectly well on many sites with Flash content. If Flash Player 9.0.115.0 required SSE -- as you say -- it would not work at all on these sites. But, on YouTube, Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and all later versions) always gives a browser crash -- with the NPSWF32.dll (i.e, Flash plugin) error -- or a computer hang or crash. This is the real mystery that I'd like to solve. What is it about YouTube and these Flash Player versions that always leads to problems ? Is it possible that copying the NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt files from the Firefox Flash folder to the plugins folder might get Flash Player 9.0.115.0 (and later versions) working on YouTube -- as discussed in my post # 1 ? Also, will doing this not cause any harm to my browsers, computer, registry, etc. ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I could continue on in this vein about my feeling that SSE is not responsible for the imperfect behavior of Flash Player 9.0.115.0. But, I'll stop here. Halohalo, please provide some supporting evidence for your claim that "Since 9.0.115.0, Flash Player 9 requires SSE." I truly want to learn here. Many thanks, I'll be waiting on your reply (or the replies of others). larryb123456

Hello, everyone: I have Windows 98 and my "Netscape"-type browsers (i.e., non-IE) are Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6, and Opera 9.64. I don't have KernelEx, etc. installed (and I don't want to have it installed, since I am a complete novice, I'd be way in over my head, and I don't want to run the risk of totally messing up my computer -- which, with my luck, that's what would happen). By the way, this is my first real message post here, and I'm totally impressed with the level of skill and breadth of knowledge that forum members display. I recently spent about a month on the Adobe Flash Player forum in many discussions trying to get Flash Player 9 to work on YouTube with my "Netscape"-type browsers. During this time, I did much reading on my own and finally found some info on the Firefox forum which basically said: # 1) Flash Player version 9.0.47.0 (and all earlier versions) will work on YouTube and on other Flash sites; and # 2) the next newer version of Flash Player, version 9.0.115.0 (and all versions newer than this) will not work on YouTube at all, and this version will exhibit unpredictable behavior on other websites with Flash content (i.e., it will work great on some sites while, on other sites, the browser will crash or a computer hang or crash will result). I tried this and, indeed, I also found that Flash Player 9.0.47.0 was the "cut-off" version for successful results. Also, each and every time the browser crashed when I used Flash Player 9.0.115.0 -- and newer versions -- I got the identical dialog-box message for all three of my "Netscape"-type browsers: "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down." Under "Details" it said, "The browser executed an invalid instruction in module NPSWF32.dll." This module, of course, is the Flash plugin. Also, in my reading, I found some info where someone said, basically, to copy NPSWF32.dll from C:\Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash to C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins and Flash Player 9 would work. Many others on the web page tried this and found that this was also the solution for them. For my Windows 98 system, the Flash Player installation folder for Firefox is C:\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash not System 32. When I suggested trying the "copy and paste" of the NPSWF32.dll from the Flash folder to the plugins folder, the person helping me on the Adobe Flash forum advised me against it, saying it might make matters worse. I never tried it, since I respected this person's expertise. But, I couldn't understand what could be the risk. It seemed to me that if Flash Player 9 didn't work -- after the copy and paste -- all you needed to do to restore things back to the way they were was to delete the NPSWF32.dll from the plugins folder. I never got an answer to this question. Does anyone here know if you could create big problems with such a copy and paste ? I have been doing quite a bit of reading on this site, and interestingly enough, I found a message at post # 16 by diskless says: I now have Flash Player 9.0.262.0 installed successfully. I manually copied NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt from the installation folder (\Windows\System\Macromed\Flash) to the Firefox plugins folder (\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\plugins) then FF recognized the plugin the next time it was started. In my case, even though NPSWF32.dll was not in the Firefox plugins folder (it was in the Macromed\Flash folder), Firefox still recognized it as shown by typing "about:plugins" in the Firefox address bar. Diskless' approach, of course, is similar to the above-discussed copy and paste of only the NPSWF32.dll file. I do not mean to question Diskless' expertise, but is it safe to copy and paste NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt to the plugins folder and then try Firefox with Flash Player 9 ? It won't mess up my registry or anything will it ? It seems to me that if it doesn't work for me, all I need to do to restore everything back to normal is just to delete these two files from the plugins folder. As you can tell, I am a novice at all this. I would greatly appreciate any help and answers to my questions. The person helping me at the Adobe Flash forum was fantastic, but I couldn't get all my questions answered there. That is why I decided to come to this forum. To summarize: # 1) Why is Flash Player 9.0.47.0 the "cut-off" version for success on YouTube ? # 2) What do I need to do to get the latest version of Flash Player 9 -- version 9.0.280.0 -- to work on YouTube ? (Again, I don't want to go the KernelEx, etc. route to achieve this.) # 3) Is it safe to copy and paste NPSWF32.dll and flashplayer.xpt -- or just NPSWF32.dll -- from the Flash folder to the plugins folder and then try Firefox with Flash Player 9 ? Many thanks in advance for whatever assistance I can get. larryb123456

Yes, you are right. When I went to forums.adobe.com and clicked on the Adobe Flash Player link to get the URL, it came up without the period. I mistakenly added the period too close to the URL (at the end of the sentence), and it erroneously became part of the URL. A careless mistake on my part. Sorry for the confusion.

The best place to get all the info you need -- and fast -- is at the Adobe Flash Player forum at http://forums.adobe.com/community/webplayers/flash_player.'>http://forums.adobe.com/community/webplayers/flash_player. You can post your message and they will give you all the details (and follow-ups, if necessary). Installing Flash Player on a Windows 98 system is a piece of cake. But Flash 9 is the highest version you can use (without resorting to KernelEx, etc., which I absolutely know nothing about). One thing I found, though, with my Windows 98 system was that Flash Player version 9.0.47.0 (and all versions older than this) worked great on sites like YouTube, while the next newer version, 9.0.115.0 (and all versions newer than this), would always crash the browser on YouTube or lead to a computer hang or crash. I don't understand why this is so, and I plan to post a message here to see if anyone knows why. By the way, the "Netscape" type browsers I successfully use Flash Player 9.0.47.0 with are Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6, and Opera 9.64. I hope this info is helpful to you. larryb123456 There seems to be a problem with the Adobe link above. Let's try http://forums.adobe.com

The best place to get all the info you need -- and fast -- is at the Adobe Flash Player forum at http://forums.adobe.com/community/webplayers/flash_player. You can post your message and they will give you all the details (and follow-ups, if necessary). Installing Flash Player on a Windows 98 system is a piece of cake. But Flash 9 is the highest version you can use (without resorting to KernelEx, etc., which I absolutely know nothing about). One thing I found, though, with my Windows 98 system was that Flash Player version 9.0.47.0 (and all versions older than this) worked great on sites like YouTube, while the next newer version, 9.0.115.0 (and all versions newer than this), would always crash the browser on YouTube or lead to a computer hang or crash. I don't understand why this is so, and I plan to post a message here to see if anyone knows why. By the way, the "Netscape" type browsers I successfully use Flash Player 9.0.47.0 with are Firefox 2.0.0.20, Netscape 9.0.0.6, and Opera 9.64. I hope this info is helpful to you. larryb123456

http://filehippo.com/download_opera/tech/5329/ shows that the highest Opera version supported by Windows 98 is version 9.64 (it says that it is supported by all versions of Windows). If you look all the way to the right of this page, you can see all other versions of Opera. If you click on Opera 10.0 (under the "Technical" tab), you will see that Windows 2000 -- at a minimum -- is needed. I am currently using Opera 9.64 on my Windows 98 system and it works great. As an aside, from January until July of this year, I was running Opera 10.10 -- with no problems at all -- because I saw some website in January that said it would be OK to do so. In July I decided to recheck, but I could not find that website again. So, when I saw the filehippo site with its minimum requirements, I decided to downgrade from 10.10 to 9.64. I can't tell a bit of difference between the two versions. I hope this info is helpful. larryb123456