Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


cov3rt

Member
  • Content Count

    318
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About cov3rt

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

2,933 profile views
  1. i was wondering if anyone has any experience with the lenovo e440 and l440 laptops. i plan on using one or the other. i am concerned on the laptops feeding enough usable video memory from the integrated intel hd 4600 graphics. i noticed something mentioned for the e440 model, i am not sure if it also is said for the l440, but i found it for the e440 and it mentions "Graphic Intel® HD Graphics 4600 / NONGFF Expandable". does anyone know what NONGFF expandable means? i tried to google this and could not find any relevant things or abbreviations for it. i was worried that maybe it means that the laptop only comes with a fixed amount of video memory and can't be changed, regardless of how much system ram is installed, because often the case, if you were to install more system memory, the amount of usable video memory would go up, and a bad scenario would be that it would only have a max of something like 128 MB usable, regardless of application, which isn't enough for the applications i need it for, i would need 512 MB. now i have had experience with the t440p, i believe it allowed setting up to 512 MB of shared video memory in the bios. i no longer would use t440p models since they come with the gt 730m that just flat out sucked for me in performance compared to the intel hd 4600, which i found odd because according to passmark's score, it should do better, but it performed worse for the game i used it for, now for privacy reasons, i didn't want to mention the game. i also didn't like having the added gpu in the system, creating more heat and power usage, so that's why i am avoiding t440p's, and of course for the other reasons i mentioned. it simply doesn't make sense to have two gpus almost identical in performance, although ironically, this wasn't even the case with me, it did a lot more poorly for the gt 730m. t440 isn't an option because it doesn't have a optical drive ( not that important but i prefer one ), but the bigger issue is that the case design is in such a way that makes it very difficult and impractical to open up to replace the cpu thermal paste and do other stuff / cleaning, which is why im looking at the e440 / l440. i would be using 8 GB of ram for either the l440 or e440 if i get them. i understand that manually allocating video memory in bios may not be necessary in some laptops or systems, in that the gpu will use more video memory if possible, but of course, some manufacturers limit this ability and if there isn't a bios setting for it specifically, then it may also not give enough video memory when needed. also, here's the source for the site to which i got the info of someone else posting the information of the e440 -
  2. i did test one of the palemoon versions with and without extended kernel a few days ago, i think it was the 26.5 version of palemoon, my problem was that there would be a black screen upon loading. i found a source mentioning to disable hardware acceleration, i did that for the gpu and no more black screen and i was able to load the browser fine, youtube also worked still at 360p or auto resolution, though the browser was a bit unstable / and did not work for everything / load everything, for example, hotmail would not completely load. it seems that this black screen issue might also be the same problem i had with kmeleon 74 on windows 98 and that if you complete disable hardware acceleration on the gpu, then the black screen would go away but i never went back to test this yet, though 98SE is a different story, i don't want to derail the topic from windows 2000 specific stuff. i can't comment on the specific script issue you mentioned. all i can say is that i didn't really have much of any issues with the latest kmeleon 76 version with extended kernel, although i did find a scripting error where the web browser would just freeze. i am not sure if any of incompatibilities / bugs have to do with the web browser more or maybe using sse2 cpu's on newer modern software / web browsers being the problem and not being able to handle stuff. for example, sometimes the cursor or selection point when i am typing such as now may jump randomly to another area of this post or at worse may completely go backwards for this entire page. honestly, i'd avoid using anything less than sse3 cpu, at least for web browsing. also back the hardware acceleration part, you may not need to completely disable, try going in increments as high or low to see which setting seems to work best / to your liking.
  3. like i said, i'm not sure which version is / was compatible or gave that error message related to mfc42u.dll is missing. it's possible, that because the installer wouldn't properly install on windows 95, then it would also copy the wrong files or ask for the wrong files such as mfc42u.dll which i believe is only an NT file. but all this really doesn't matter anymore as i moved on from the experimenting. i did use version 1.1 for the installer on 98SE with unofficial service pack 3.64 without kernelex and it worked fine with wpa2 connection, i didn't bother with the newer versions. i am pretty sure there are no existing official wpa2 drivers / software for windows 95, unless i can see for myself, i'm not even sure on wpa.
  4. wouldn't it just make sense to run the 1.1 installer? there is also the 1.0 version. also i did experiment with trying to install the adapter on windows 95, although im not sure which ones i tested, i think i tried install version 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0 in that order. however, i plan on reinstalling windows 95 and starting out with 1.0 first if it might be more compatible or stable? i noticed that i couldn't get the usb to be detected before and it mentioned mfc42u is missing. it's unclear if this is because mfc42u.dll is not part of 9x systems and so the error was because of an unsupported driver, or if mfc42u is indeed a windows 95 or 98 file, and that it was missing, in which i did do a file search on the local drive and i did not have it. i did come accross it through coincidence today when looking at IMMC.exe which is microsoft management console 1.2 for windows 95. i have added this to install as a december 1999 update, even though from my research, it seems to have been published in may 2002 for windows 9x? and because there was some help file that was older than a older update in my checklist, so i decided to move it behind this other older update for now with the assumption that if i updated my system this way, then all files would have the newest versions at the end . i also read that mmc 1.2 requires ie5 installed, and so this caused me to also move office 2000 standard into 6-7-1999 checklist, assuming that it installs ie5 related components or ie5 itself that the mmc 1.2 would need, i will of course be installing ie 5.5 sp2 later on in the checklist.
  5. back to this part, i got stuck on the microsoft visual basic part. i didn't know what option to choose so i choose the standard exe for the new project window that first pops up, then i used your steps of going to project>references, and ticked the directx 8 for visual basic type library and pressed ok. i guess i can confirm that visual basic 6.0 is included with visual studio 6.0 as the option in the program files of visual studio 6.0 shows it too. also, for the visual studio 6.0 install, i noticed a window that wanted to install msdn but i didn't know what this was or if i have it / need it, so i unchecked this option and installed everything else i believe. also from what we talked about, i wouldn't need the platform sdk, although it's unclear to me if this is included with visual studio 6.0 or not. could that msdn option perhaps be part of it that it was asking earlier? so now i was wondering if i can get a general starting point or tips on creating something basic in the directx sdk or visual studio. btw, the 8.0a sdk samples really look nice, especially the teapot they have, it looks very nice as well as some other samples such as point sprites, looking very realistic. i am using a dell latitude d800 which has limited support but the fx go 5650 gpu does work for one, i am using the forceware 45.23 driver, installed through the change vga display adapter way and selecting fx 5600, it has the fx 5650 go tab in the system properties tab, when specifying monitor, i choose the 1600x1200 one i think and i can set all the way to 1600x1020 or somewhere around there, currently i have it set at 1280x960 which i find to be reasonable resolution and probably one i would like my game to be in for optimal look and performance. i do have several books i ordered on directx 8.0 specifically, pixel and vertex shaders, etc. oh and i confirm that vs6sp6.exe installed successfully on windows 95, even though from what i checked, the documentation doesn't mention windows 95 or 98. the executable that actually you need to run is setupsp6.exe which is one of the extracted files. sorry for the blurry pic, i was only able to upload max of about 30 KB, just wanted to show that visual basic 6.0 is listed under visual studio 6.0
  6. i gave up ( and probably a lot of other people ) have on the official web browsers for older OS such as 2K and 9x. youtube not playing was a gradual problem. i only now use the newer kmeleon 76 browsers that requires the extended kernel, this is the latest version so far which may support up to 1080p - https://o.rths.cf/kmeleon/KM76.1.1-Goanna-20190316.7z accessed from the forum here - http://kmeleonbrowser.org/forum/read.php?19,148500,148828,page=4#msg-148828
  7. houston, we may have a problem here, i believe dx8vb.dll from my google searching is not supported under windows 7, 8 or 10 and many people are complaining that there applications would still not work, despite copying or registering the dx8vb.dll file into the system32 or syswow64 folder. i went from this - https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-files/dx8vbdll-error/a4a148c3-91d5-4db9-9c9a-e7465dfcd7b1 to this - https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/3f97b9bc-9055-4a1b-b2b5-f5f255c2c679/dx8vbdll-dx7vbdll-vb6-and-vista-compatibility?forum=gametechnologiesgeneral
  8. wow, THANKS, this information helped tremendously.
  9. would it hurt to install directx 8.0a sdk before visual studio service pack 6? i like to install things in order of date released, the 8.0a sdk was released 2001 and the vs6sp6.exe was released 2004. i also want to copy over the directx 8.0b libaries into the install 8.0a sdk, would that be ok too or should i configure directx 8.0a sdk and 8.0b after vs6sp6.exe? also am i right that visual studio already includes visual basic 6.0, so your instructions for the project references area are from visual studio 6.0? and for the platform sdk, the one i was gonna install is called msdn development platform april 1999 and it had windows 95 listed on it, i downloaded it off some archived site, i do not know if this was even the "platform sdk", but it seems like you said, i probably will not need it. as long as the developed application or program will work all the way till windows 10, then that's fine to me if i don't use the platform sdk.
  10. is it possible to upload somewhere the windows 95 specific inf files / installation files and the application ( wireless utility ). i really don't want to get caught up in the mess up uninstalling drivers and experimenting with different drivers, applications, especially if i would using the setup that would install the wireless utility. i have ordered the wg111v3 on the way to be tested on a windows 95 system. i know you linked a driver already, but i am not persuaded if this really is the right driver + wireless utility combo. would i just run the setup / executable for it on the windows 95 system?
  11. yes, i guess that would mean i need them all since my game would be based off DX8.0A+8.0B included libraries. also from what i observed, you do not need to install visual basic 6.0 if installing visual studio 6.0 because visual studio 6.0 already includes visual basic 6.0, unless there is something missing specifically from the separate VB6.0 program that is not part of VS 6.0?
  12. thanks for responding, it's difficult enough getting answers for older operating systems or software, especially in the field of programming. so i guess then i'm fine with the directx 8.0a sdk. i have seemed to find the answer to this question actually just now from one site, how it mentions the directx sdk has debugging tools, and so therefore the "dx8a_devrt.exe" is sort of obsolete unless you do not want to specifically install the directx 8.0a sdk. could you also answer some of my other questions? i wanted to know if one would need to install directx 8.0a sdk AND visual studio 6.0 AND the microsoft platform SDK all in the same system. according to my understanding from the below thread, since they all seem to do different things and function differently, it would seem that i would need to install all of them in order to complete my project of game development or application, however, i was hoping i can get a repsonse here to clarify things in a way that makes more sense and is more clear on what i have to do - https://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-426509.html
  13. i wanted to see if there are some major differences / general differences between visual c++ 7.1, 7.0 and 6.0. the reason why i need to know what differences there are is because i wan't to be sure i am compiling the most appropriate run time files or components for game development so that all goes well and it will be supported on windows 95 as my target os and of course, i would want it to run all the way up till windows 10. it's also important to know because so far, i have not gotten an answer on the relationship between installing other software such as platform sdk and directx 8.0a sdk or other things. from what i've researched, you normally would / should combine visual c++ runtime files with the directx 8.0a sdk, however, do i also need the platform sdk or would having just the directx 8.0a sdk + linking visual c++ files be the general steps of making my game? another issue is the whole linking part in general, some people mention visual basic or visual studio should be installed for game development, but as far as i know, only visual basic 6.0 works on windows 95, at least, i have not have any confirmation on whether visual studio .net 2002 - 2003 work and if so, what exactly do these programs do in relevance to making my game. i have looked at the box on visual studio .net 2002 and it has windows 95 listed in the support list, however this doesn't tell me anything about whether it installs on windows 95 / and or what the program does exactly, how to use it in general or why i would need it alongside anything else. to be more straightforward with the whole visual c++ versions, i mainly wan't to know which version offers the best performance if i want to make a RPG game and i need the game to use the least amount of resources as possible and be as least taxing on the CPU, since i would like to implement a lot of detail, pixel shaders, textures, vertex shaders, shadows, lighting, water, etc, i really want to know which exact software / APIs, runtimes, etc that i would need so my game can be compiled / made in the most efficient way possible, so for example, i would not want to implement the programming language python at all in my game.
  14. I'm sure this would have had to been in the programming section of the forum but i thought it would be ok to ask here and felt so to have a higher likelihood of someone answering my specific question(s) properly. i was wondering if the DirectX 8.0a Developer Runtime with name of "DX8a_DevRT.exe" would be needed for game programming on a system or would simply having the normal directx 8.0a "DX80eng.exe" + the 8.0a sdk "DX8a_SDK" would be all i need ( excluding any other software / api / programming languages that would be needed for creation of my game ). the ""DX8a_DevRT.exe" update says "This is specifically designed for developers and should not be installed by end users" but what does that exactly mean, for developing what exactly. I already still don't get the directx 8.0b inplementation instructions, in my honest opinion, the directions are confusing and not really worded clearly / clarified enough for most people to understand, and i have not found one source online anywhere of someone posting the complete instructions and how to implement it with directx 8.0a sdk installed. from my understanding, if how and what they describe of implementing directx 8.0b is that way, then why couldn't one just simply replace the older directx 8.0a files with the newer libraries / dll files of the directx 8.0b package to make an unofficial directx 8.0b full system update which i had already made a thread about. i understand that it would be an unofficial mod, but it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to do or time consuming, and if someone could do so, then they can just make a directx 8.0b sdk too, so now you don't have to worry about the whole manually adding the libraries or whatever that's need to be done. the only OS that this would be necessary on would be windows 95 i guess as that is why it would be a necessity / important thing for me, but again, it wouldn't be too much time or difficulty to do, and one can benefit from a little bit better usability on windows 95, it would be nice for legacy compatibility and / or projects like mine which are a mix of nostalgia and wanting to do something unique just a thought...
  15. also does anyone know if the update "Vs6sp6.exe" (Service Pack 6 for Visual Basic 6.0, Visual C++ 6.0 with Visual Source Safe 6.0d) installs and works properly on windows 95? windows 95 and 98 are not mentioned but i don't see why it wouldn't work, i had also seen a windows 95 reference in the inf file. the reason why i would want to install this is because although the other "vbrun60sp6" is supported, "vbrun60sp6" does not seem to install all of the necessary files / updates for visual studio 6.0 or visual basic 6.0, as in, according to another forum poster, it only includes the basic runtimes files, but "Vs6sp6.exe" installs all additional activex controlls as well. source to which i got this info from below- http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?397850-VB-crashes that being said though, i would not want to use visual c++ 6.0 if i can use visual c++ 7.1, but there isn't any visual basic 7.0/7.1, the closest is visual studio .net 2002 or visual c++ 2003 express but these do not properly support windows 95 or do they? so i am really wondering would i go about using visual c++ 7.1 + directx 8.0a sdk + directx 8.0b libraries as that to me seems to be the most straighforward so far. i did look into opengl, however, since i would have to add third party software such as openal for sound, and glut ( whatever it's called ) for input, it seems like it would add too much complication and i do not have any assurance that it would be faster such as less strain on the cpu if i go with the opengl route, this is with the assumption that in general, that a properly made opengl game should be less taxing on the cpu without getting too much into detail..
×
×
  • Create New...