ironman14

Thank you for your explanation. With this extra tool, I am able to run iTunes on Windows 2000. Most programs work with UURollup, in some way, but for those that don't work, I can use this. Thanks.

I believe you can do it. Check out bluestacks:http://www.bluestacks.com

Hello, I have read that KDW support ended at the end of December 2012. However, for testing purposes, I extracted the installer, and ran the fcwin.exe tool. I saw that it had some more modern software listed, such as LibreOffice 4.2, that is more recent than 2012. My question is, is the KDW wrapper being resupported? And, if not, is it possible to integrate fcwin.exe into future versions of UUR/ext.krnl? Application compatibility launcher is good but doesn't allow installation of everything. I love the unofficial updates already, but with that 1 installer, windows 2000 could basically run ANY xp program.

This image shows the shell2k.dll value in the KnownDlls section of the registry.

This is shell2k.dll in the system32 folder. As you can see, this file was originally named shell32.dll. I may post a couple times, but because I have multiple pictures.

@ Jumper: In a past post, I had heard you suggest modifying the KnownDLL of SHELL32, which is a very good suggestion. The only problem is that most applications require the specific DLL they call for. I also thought that if I replaced ALL the KnownDlls of NT 4.0 with the 2000 versions, the 2000 versions would connect and be stable (reboot correctly). However, I am not allowed to modify KnownDLLS by default, as the system is constantly using them. I was considering the following: - Rename the 2K Shell32 to Shell2k.dll - Add it to the system folder. - Rename the NT 4.0 Shell32 to Shell32.old - Rename Shell2k.dll to Shell32.dll. I would need NT permissions for this. In the User Manager, I gave myself access to take ownership of files and other directories, but that doesn't seem to be enough. How do I use NT permissions in NT 4.0?

Windows 2000 is capable of running ANY modern browser (save IE), but I'm pretty sure you are talking about the native 2k browsers.

@Tomasz86 I see your point. I just realized today that I wasn't running the latest version of BWC's chrome tool, a newer version just came out. I hope that he can fix the chrome JavaScript issue, if it wasn't fixed in crm2k70. However, it just may be easier to use the portable Chrome, since that doesn't need a special installer. I do use the regular Firefox, and that seems to work great.

@Andrew T. I have IE 5.5 on Windows 95 OSR 2.1. It doesn't seem that you like IE. I can still uninstall it on my VM. Is that what makes 95 unstable? For old machines, I typically use opera 10, but on 98 I use opera 12. As for 2000, do you have UUROllup? I would recommend it as it allows 2000 to install some modern software. Also, Opera 10.63 (late 2010) works great on NT 4.0, but not 3.5. Edit:For Opera 10.63 on NT 4, you need Windows Installer 2.0 and sp6a.

When will the next KernelEx be released? Just today I went on YouTube and they said they were soon planning on discontinuing support for FF 3.6.28: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/170982-firefox-36xx-losing-support-from-modern-websites/ This is the last stable Firefox on 98SE, and one that doesn't have limited features. I hope it comes out soon. It's been more than 2 years since the latest version.

The weird thing is that Opera 9.64 (early 2009) currently supports Youtube, while FF 3.6.28 (early 2012) doesn't seem to. For google's plans to support only XP, it's not working since YouTube even works on 95 with opera 10. @Andrew T. Why do you use 95 as your main OS? I use it from time to time and while loading one site with IE 5.5, I got 3 blue screens of death. I use NT 4 and 98SE as secondary OSes, but they are more stable.

Today I booted up my 98SE virtual machine, and opened up Firefox 3.6.28. I went on YouTube, and as usual, it worked well. But when I clicked on a video, above the video, there was a blue banner that read: "You're using an older version of Mozilla Firefox that we'll soon stop supporting. Please upgrade to a more modern browser." But what confuses me is that FF 3.6.28 isn't even 2 years old. It would make more sense to drop support for FF 3.5x, 4 which are 3-5 yrs old. This version is the only real "stable" version with nearly full features, modern browsing, and also the latest release.

I tried deleting the message with Chrome 32, and the browser did not crash.The pages became unresponsive though.

Over time I have been making a browser in Visual Studio 2013. It's built using .NET Framework 2.0 so it should work with 98.

This isn't really relevant, but I recommend FF 3.6.28 (mar 2012) and Opera 11.64 (May 2012), and Flash 11.1 (Nov 2011). All three worked fine on 98/ME with KernelEX. It isn't the best. There needs to be a new version! Kex hasn't had a new version in 3 years!

I made sure I had done the following 3 steps. The icon still appears. One note though. I know under NT 4.0, SHGetFolderPathW exists in Shfolder.dll (installed with IE6). However, VLC calls for it specifically in shell32.dll. I was thinking that if I used the hex editor again on libvlccore.dll, and instead of shell32.vlc, I could type shfolder.dll and that may work. Here are the files I am working with: Shell32.vlc vlc.exe libvlccore.dll I am using VLC 0.9.8a.

I currently don't use PortableApps, since I like the traditional method of launching apps from the start menu. However, the GIMP would be a good portable app to try, since the desktop version crashes upon startup. This said, the regular desktop Chrome works great for me on Windows 2000. Only the updater doesn't work. aofarrell2, if you are used to Chrome, I would recommend it. But if you aren't, try maxthon as tomasz86 said. Personally I use Chrome and Firefox on Win2k. Firefox is VERY GOOD on Win2k, like seamonkey should be. Everything works, and personally I find that Mozilla-based browsers work and load even faster than Windows XP/Vista/7/8. This are ONLY my opinions. I would listen to tomasz86 since he created UURollup in the first place. Tomasz86, if you want a portable Winamp, just extract the installer, open the folder and there you go! PS: There is even a portable Chrome if you want to try it. Also, basically ANY browser should work on Windows 2000, except for modern IE.

Does UURollup count as modifying source code? Well, you would not need to modify Vista for a long time. Almost everything is still compatible with XP, let alone Vista.

You should be pretty impressed with what you can run. I am/have used latest Firefox, Thunderbird,Flash 12, Office 2007, LibreOffice 4.1.4.x, Foxit Reader, foobar2000, VLC, Chrome (requires BWC's installer, link below) and Winamp (installer doesn't work, even with ACL. Just extract the installer, open the folder and launch Winamp.exe. I made a desktop shortcut for quick access.) Chrome: http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/archives/360097.html Just extract the files, and run the Chrome2000 exe. Click on Set comp.registry and Set User Agent. Click on the chrome installer, which will work and you are good to go. NOTE: NEVER install KB915985v2. It will make your system unbootable. I learned this from personal experience. PS: Some/Most WinXP+ programs will work. Even most newish of MS's programs can be modified to run.Most Adobe and Apple stuff won't work.

After seeing different responses, I was determined to find out what exactly caused the problem. Using dependency Walker, I found out that Shell32.dll was attached to libvlccore.dll. So, I opened up libvlccore.dll in HxD, and found Shell32.dll. I renamed this to shell32.VLC and the hexes changed automatically. I saved the file and launched VLC. I was greeted with a new error message: "The application or DLL C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\vlc\libvlccore.dll is not a valid Windows NT image. Please check this against yor installation diskette." And when I opened Dependency walker to check, it says Shell32.VLC, but shows the error icon next to the file name. Also, it still says that SHGetFolderPathW is not found. I probably did something wrong with the hex editor. Maybe I edited the wrong file? I did figure out also that libvlccore.dll was attached to libvlc.dll, but I am not sure what that means.

I don't have time to look at this now, but thanks for your responses. I will look at it tomorrow. What do you mean by 100% compatible? Do ALL the functions have to be present in both DLLs (the 2k & NT 4.0)?

I know you just explained this to me, but I am unfortunately still confused. When I use importPatcher on the Shell32.vlc, it asks me to edit the parameters in a log file,shell3# that it makes. There is a section in there that says: Portable Executable: C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\Vlc\shell32.vlc. I assumed that this means that everything is done already, but clearly I'm missing a step, since when I do nothing and save the .log file, nothing happens.

I find this strange, since Windows 2000 (2000) and Windows NT 4.0 (1996) recognize 4GB of RAM, DOUBLE what Windows Vista RTM (late 2006) will recognize.

Thank you for the link, jumper. However some of your message wasn't entirely clear to me. I installed ImportPatcher, then analysed the dependencies of the "current" Shell32.vlc file. It already said in the PE reference that it was Shell32.vlc (it said the file location), so I saw no reason to change it. I then attempted to use ImportPatcher on the vlc.exe itself, and never saw the name "Shell32.dll" once.(I saw other dlls that were repeated, such as ntdll.dll,gdi32.dll,Kernel32.dll) Maybe I'm doing something wrong. I would upload the files, but I am having problems with that.

I am not sure about Process Monitor, but I know Process Explorer has some versions that work on NT 4.0. I could look at Process Explorer, assuming that the 2 programs are similar.