sdfox7

According to this archived page, it doesn't appear DOS drivers were specifically made for the 1978: https://web.archive.org/web/20010302132415/http://www.esstech.com/techsupp/drivers.shtm#pci That being said, you might be able to get Win9x to work manually, though I doubt it. The page shows drivers for Windows 95/98, Windows 98SE/2000/ME, and Windows NT 4.0. DOS is not Plug and Play so GOOD LUCK!

The CT4830 is part of the Sound Blaster Live! series. I know you went to VOGON, but did you try these particular drivers? https://www.vogonsdrivers.com/getfile.php?fileid=52&menustate=0 BTW DOS cannot use WDM drivers.

We noted this issue last year; the fix is to install the Flash Spoof from http://toastytech.com/files/95browsing.html in order to see the controls. Once installed, the controls were visible on my Windows 95 system:

Did you see this link? http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/software-os/f/3524/t/5171265 That will bring you here: https://web.archive.org/web/20040406043714/http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/ly/ly_drive.htm While the links on that page no longer work, you can simply do a search for the Intel 5.10.3686 noted on that page, which will bring you here: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/5500/Audio-Sigmatel-AC97-Driver The second link on that Dell post is https://web.archive.org/web/20040202065859/http://www.omegacorner.com/index_ati.html Then you can choose one of the Radeon packages on the following page: https://web.archive.org/web/20040207153820/http://www.driverheaven.net/downloads/index4.htm For the modem you can try the drivers at this link: http://www.modem-drivers.com/companies/247.htm?o=3 You are making more work for yourself by using an operating system that is not supported on that laptop.

My Gateway Solo 9300 uses that identical sound card (https://panam.gateway.com/s/Mobile/Solo_Series/P9300/p930017.shtml) You can get the Windows 95 driver from my FTP (Gateway never released a Win95 specific driver but I use an HP one): http://sdfox7.com/solo9300/win9x/sp8178.exe This is a self extracting file that extracts inside a Command Prompt window; I recommend you save it to the Windows 95 desktop and follow instructions below. You should not need to make any configuration changes, the software should do it automatically, just run the SETUP.EXE program and reboot. Setup may prompt you for your Windows 95 CD. If you don't have that handy you can try pointing it to C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM or C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM 32. Let me know if you run into any issues. If it is looking for MAESTRO.CAT files or such, point it to C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\SP8178\AUDIO or whatever location you saved and extracted the download to.

I have always found a web search engine result to be more useful than Microsoft's cryptic system messages.

Do you know if your root certificates are up to date? I discovered a few years ago that Windows 2000 also required current root certificates to use Windows Update, in addition to other prerequisites: http://www.computing.net/answers/windows-2000/windows-2000-updates-not-working-windows-update-agent-30/66349.html https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2677070 "Users who have disconnected systems will not benefit from this feature improvement. These customers will still have to install the root certificate updates when they are made available. Please see the "More Information" section." https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn265983.aspx

Generally, you can explain how to make something work with hacks/modification. However, you cannot make modifications and then redistribute the modified product. Most EULAs prohibit modifying software and then redistributing it.

This. Remote Assistance is holier than Swiss Cheese and I have been using Team Viewer for years. Depending on if you download a new or old version, you'll need XP Service Pack 3: https://web.archive.org/web/20140119014510/http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/3/0/d30e32d8-418a-469d-b600-f32ce3edf42d/WindowsXP-KB936929-SP3-x86-ENU.exe

I agree. As I said in my original post, I highly recommend that everyone migrates to Firefox or Opera. That should put a dent in Chrome's market share, and Google deserves it! Firefox's market share actually rose last month, which is the first month Google implemented its obnoxious infobar. (I described in great detail here how to get rid of it.) While Opera may no longer release new browser versions, it is committed to releasing security updates for Windows XP and Vista users. http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/02/initial-opera-developer-37-release/ "While Opera 36 will be last one with features additions on Windows XP and Vista, we are still going to provide security and crash fixes to XP and Vista platform. You will no not be able to run Opera 37+ on Windows XP and Vista, we advise you update to more recent OS, if possible. Otherwise, we will have Opera 36 for you." Pale Moon also works. For now, there are plenty of alternatives to Chrome. ONE vendor's choice to drop support on a platform is not enough to kill that platform for me.

I downloaded the Chrome 50 Beta. Just for kicks, earlier today I tried it on Windows XP SP2, and the following error appears: When trying it on Windows XP SP3 tonight, the GetLogicalProcessorInformation error does not show, but GetThreadID does, which is supposedly a Vista and later handle. How do we add GetThreadID to XP, or remove the API call if it is not necessary? I've heard of Dependency Walker but don't know anything about using it. That version was released just hours after my post! UNBELIEVEABLE! So I was technically correct at the time! Thanks for the update! I'm still updating my archived version, as I think we are still close to the end for "officially supported" Google versions.

Based by language in Google Help, it appears that Chrome version 49.0.2623.108 m is the latest and final version that will be released for XP and Vista. The previous language was "This computer will soon stop receiving Google Chrome updates because Windows XP and Windows Vista will no longer be supported." The new language is "This computer will no longer receive Google Chrome updates because Windows XP and Windows Vista are no longer supported." Once Chrome 50 rolls along, it is my intention to re-implement the XP and Vista code that is being stripped from the future versions. While I strongly recommend that users move to Firefox, I will see if it is possible to reinstate the XP compatibility that I believe is being artificially stripped from Chrome. In other words, with the XP code I'm certain Win32 Chrome will continue to run without issues. If you wish to download the final 49.0.2623.108 m full installer, you can get it from my FTP here: http://sdfox7.com/xp/sp3/EOL/chrome/ChromeStandaloneSetup.exe (digitally signed March 22, 2016)

For me, I take into consideration whether I can continue to work effectively with the existing software in my possession. If the answer is yes, I have no incentive to upgrade. Adobe Reader 3.0-6.0 can open PDFs just as well as version 11. Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003 with the file compatibility pack can open and edit the newest 2016 files, even though they are all over a decade old. There is simply no catalyst for me to upgrade. I also desire backward compatibility. I don't upgrade just for the sake of change.

There's also the M700 which was Compaq's flagship in 2001, Windows 95 and later drivers available here: http://h20564.www2.hp.com/hpsc/swd/public/readIndex?sp4ts.oid=96721&swLangOid=8&swEnvOid=19

With Windows 95, you will be a little more limited when looking for "supported" laptops. That being said, the ThinkPad T23 reached speeds of 1.2GHz processor, and the Windows 95 (and later) drivers are available here: http://thinkpads.com/support/Thinkpad-Drivers/download.lenovo.com/lenovo/content/ddfm/T23.html Also, the Gateway Solo 9300 was a remarkable flagship machine for its time (the Solo 9500 only officially supports NT 4.0, but not 95). I own one of these machines, and the Windows 9x drivers available here: http://sdfox7.com/solo9300/win9x/ (other drivers are available in the /solo9300 root directory. The Dell CPi and CPi-A series also supported Windows 95: CPi: http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/product-support/product/latitude-cpi/drivers?os=w95 CPi-A: http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/product-support/product/latitude-cpi-a/drivers?os=w95 To recap, these were some of the greatest machines made during the tail-end of Windows 95's reign (year 2001).

For what it's worth, I just ran the 16 bit AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) 1.0.414 from 1997 on Windows 95, and connected successfully without any warning messages that I would be unable to connect as of March 15.

I believe that most of the Windows 10 market share comes from systems preloaded with Windows 10, and those who need to always be cutting edge. That said, by looking at market share numbers, it's clear that many people are satisfied with Windows 7. I believe Microsoft's aggressive Windows 10 marketing is going to hurt the company, and Windows 10, in the long run and make Windows 7 the next XP.

WaterFox is a 64-bit branch of Firefox and will run on XP 64.

What I was trying to point out is that most people in an office environment are doing the same things they did 20 years ago, yet the coding has become extremely inefficient. Let's be honest; I think it's safe to say most people don't use all the features of Microsoft Office (or even find them for that matter). Office 2000 with the File Compatibility Pack can open and edit the same .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx files as Office 2016. Yet Office 2016 needs more RAM and processing power for its fancy interface and overhead. Not to mention the huge disservice we are doing to the environment with all of this throw-it-away-in-just-a-year technology. Perfectly good machines are thrown away because software engineers cannot learn how to code efficiently. I am more forgiving of the RAM requirements increase from Windows 95 to XP because we were in a transitory period, going from hybrid 16 / 32-bit technology in Windows 95 and 98 to mostly 32-bit technology in 2000 and XP. Computers were able to take advantage of more RAM as we moved away from strict 16-bit computing. However, XP to Vista to 7 all offered 32-bit versions and so the increases seem steep.

In my opinion, the 8xx series (specifically 845 and mobile 855) was one of my favorite Intel chipsets, and among the best Windows 9x chipsets ever made. Wide compatibility support ranging from Windows 95 through NT 4.0 Windows XP. The 865 even supports 4GB RAM. A Northwood Pentium 4 with 512MB-1GB ought to exceed the requirements/expectations of any Windows 9x/NT program.

My biggest reservation with the latest operating systems is their tremendously inefficient use of resources. There was little difference in RAM requirements from Windows 95 to XP. Then the requirements doubled from Vista to 7. Why did system requirements from XP to shoot from 64MB RAM to 1GB for Windows 7? Absolutely unacceptable in my opinion. I take offense to that comment, I have a Solo 9300 with NT 4.0! Complete with Orinoco Gold 802.11b wireless!!! It's running Service Pack 4 (SP4) because that is the minimum requirement for the Orinoco Client Manager. -->

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/146925-dual-monitors-in-windows-2000-pro/ "Due to a limitation in Windows 2000, dual head cards that use a single chipset to drive both monitors require special workarounds in the driver to be properly recognized by the system. If these workarounds are not implemented, Windows 2000 sees a single large monitor instead of two."

It sounds like we need to spoof the version that the client reports; either via Program Files or a registry edit. Fake it 'til you make it!

Avast 4.8 still receives updates, and is the anti-virus I recommend for systems with Windows 95/NT 4.0, and at least a 486 processor with 32MB RAM and 50MB hard disk drive space. You can get the program file here, and the updates are available from Avast's page here.

That's an interesting way to see it. In my experience, nothing that is made today lasts, or is even designed to. I have systems from 1993 with their original hard drives, still humming away. Today, manufacturers build junk that ensures you have to keep filling their coffers (and their shareholders coffers) on a regular basis.