cov3rt

wow, THANKS, this information helped tremendously.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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...

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..

i was thinking you made an error, you said the wg111v3 adapter works on windows 95 and supports wpa2? from what i've checked, windows 95 is not listed under the supported list for the wg111v3, as referenced from here "https://kb.netgear.com/1073/Windows-Adapter-Card-Compatiblity", only the ma301 and ma401 were listed as supported wireless adapters for windows 95.

i understand your analogy, that is why i would like to start with the sdk first, also what makes you say i can't get more than 5-10 fps with "fancy shading" unless limiting to 640x480? there are games such as return to castle wolfenstein that look pretty good in resolutions such as 1024x768 and do not require such high end hardware, normally a pentium iii higher clocked or lower end pentium 4 would suffice with 256 MB ram and 32-64 MB video memory. however, you haven't answered a lot of my other questions such as what relevance visual c++ 7.1 would have in being implemented in my game and / or what advantages would it have vs older versions of visual c++ such as that of vc6?

hi, thanks for the response, yeh i understand 8.0b wasn't ever a "full" update, i realized i probably won't need the DDK as that's for driver development. i am still confused though on which visual studio package to install. i was under the impression that windows 95 doesn't support .net. Was it not only for windows 98 and newer or isn't that the same thing as .net framework or are they different? but if they are, then why is that the visual studio .net 2002, specifically if you search "Microsoft Visual Studio .net Enterprise Developer 2002 sealed retail" on ebay or google image if any, it lists windows 95 as supported. i also attached a picture of the back of the box that lists windows 95. as for the other thing, when you say the vse2003 might work for developing depending on platform but the runtimes might ( on w95, if not, static link instead ), can you clarify on this in more detail on what you mean, and when you say vse2003, do you mean visual studio express 2003? for platform sdk, do you know which one is latest to work? some sources say up to 2003 works, but i don't want to install something newer if not everything is compatible / and or if a older version would already have what i need. the reason why i mentioned the platform sdk is because in one forum, it was mentioned that the sdk, particularly the older ones like 2003 and older would include visual basic, visual c++, etc, so then i wouldn't need to install multiple other programs, which would confuse me and overload me with stuff. i was hoping to do all this experimenting / programming on windows 2000 sp4 since from what information i've gathered, it would provide the best compatibility with what i want to do, etc. although i was gonna ask what difference would there be if i used windows 95 to do all the programming in it vs installing and programming everything on windows 2000? the reason why i would use windows 95 to do everything is that somehow i can be assured that everything should work fine since the fact that i need the game to work on windows 95. if using windows 95, this is what i assumed that i should install so far: -visual basic 6.0 - for portions of the game that would otherwise need it / or it would be more practical to be used than other things -c++ or c language - i mentioned these because appear to be the fastest if coded properly, although i am not sure what would be used, considering i would probably just use a third party created game engine like you said -java - latest stable version that works on windows 95, i would rather not use it when possible as i heard it may slow down gaming performance / capacity -visual c++ 7.1 - msvcrt71.dll? - appears to be latest working for windows 95. i wanted to know what significance the different visual c++ dll files have with one another and what it would be used for in the game development / programming -directx 8.0a minimum - but i need the game to take advantage of directx 8.0b features or else it will be deemed too poor in graphics / quality of gameplay, and i probably won't be able to make it look good as i need it to, for example, having more realistic water may only be possible with the extra capacities from the directx 8.0b libraries that would not be possible in directx 8.0a. -i am trying to avoid python, because although it's said easier to use, i do not want it to be implemented in my game, considering the game i want to develop would be a rpg type game on windows 95, the game needs to be programmed as efficient as possible so that people can run it on windows 95. i have also came up with a hypothetical projected system requirements for my game- -high clocked pentium 4 processor or similar performance or faster cpu -512 MB ram, 1 GB recommended -gpu with pixel shader 1.4 support and vertex shader 1.1 with 128 MB video memory, 256 MB recommended -4 GB available storage space ( or however much can be used, factoring in expansions, etc ) regular mechanical hard drive should be fine, but having an ssd can help performance in some ways / areas -1024x768 resolution should be fine, but 1200x800 or better resolution may be recommended

i actually mentioned directx 8.0b in my other post on game development but no responses yet, i made this thread here because i thought maybe i could more views / and / or responses, "good" ones that is. i was thinking how difficult it would be or if it would be possible to make the directx 8.0b release that was supposed to be more as a external thing for developers into a upgrade for people using older operating systems such as windows 95, that way, you can still do what you need to do but now the system as a whole can now take use of all newer functions in a better way and offer more compatibility. yes, i am noob to all this, however, im sure someone gets my point on what i want to do. for me, it's mainly for the project i have in mind mentioned in my other post on game development for windows 95, and also because i think it's relevant. so i was also hoping people can answer my other thread as that one encompasses a lot of things and questions that i am not clarified on and it would really be helpful if i could have someone explain to me where i can have my questions answered that can help me understand better. also i wanted to know if anyone knows what the latest pixel shader the directx 8.0b version supports. all i know is that 8.0a supports up to 1.3 and vertex shader 1.1, but it's unclear on what directx 8.0b supports up to. i am hoping it can support 1.4 for possibly increased functionality and ability in game development such as for creating reflective and more realistic looking water. one forum post mentioned how far cry needed a minimum of pixel shader 1.4 for it's water to look properly, of course, the game i'd design or have designed would look better and more realistic than far cry, because in my opinion, far cry's graphics look a bit "cartoonic" to me and not as realistic / nice looking. although there are some games like Severance: Blade of Darkness that had fairly realistic looking water and i believe it only was a directx 8.0a game, but i was hoping to have something even more better / realistic looking that was made with directx 8.0b.

i'm not sure if this would be what you would like but i like to use Roadkil's Disk Speed 2.0 on 9x-2K, etc, because it's lightweight and i think it measures 4K random read queue depth 1 speeds which is a major reason i use it and if you also use windows 95, it works on windows 95 as the only easy software that can do such a thing ( since crystal disk mark does not work windows 95 ). i personally do not like atto because it can only go as low as queue depth 2 i think and i don't like the user interface. there was a time i used a older version of AS SSD on 98SE, but it took forever to do any results so i stopped using it, i do not remember if i tested AS SSD on 95, that is if any version works or not. i have uploaded roadkil's disk speed 2.0 below, also a picture of my benchmark results from a samsung 850 evo 250 GB using 8 GB system ram and i7 4700mq, though roadkil's 4k read speed seem to be a bit too high at around 50 MB/s vs 40 MB/s of as ssd, i couldnt upload my as ssd results, i put a question mark on the 4k read section in the pic as i don't know for sure what it's exactly measuring there - Roadkil's Disk Speed 2.0 for 9x.zip

hi, i have several questions on what software i would need and what would be the newest compatible programming software for windows 95 to achieve what i want. i want to make a game that is compiled in directx 8.0b if that makes sense. i understand directx 8.0b wasn't ever a full update, but mainly for developers to create stuff from it, this always interested me because i wanted to test the limits on windows 95 and because directx 8.0b added some stuff so that you can create better / more realistic features in a game vs directx 8.0a which although was decent in what it could do, it was still a bit too limited, so i was hoping i could implement this directx 8.0b into a completely whole new game which would work on windows 95 since directx 8.0b itself is supported for windows 95. so here are some specific questions i came up with after already doing some research and google searching myself - . do i need to install both visual studio express 2003 and visual c++ 2003 runtime redistributable to have all the necessary stuff to make my game, or does visual studio express 2003 already include the visual c++ 2003 runtime files so i dont need to install both but just the studio program? does visual studio express 2003 fully work on windows 95 as in fully supports all functions / runtimes, etc? from what i researched visual studio express 2005 installs on windows 95 but may not support everything that you want to do with it, etc. . does visual studio express 2003 come with the latest visual basic 6.0 program or runtime files, excluding the latest service pack below? . following with the previous question, do i also need to install visual basic 6.0 full program or do i just need the files from "vbrun60sp6.exe" for creating my game for latest service pack? . what about the platform sdk, someone mentioned that it includes all the necessary visual c++ and / or visual basic files, do i need to install this, would the platform sdk have everything i need, assuming i also have all the directx 8.0b related stuff? is the platform sdk 2003 really the last version to work on windows 95? ( wikipedia mentions last to support vc6, but vc6 is a bit old as i would want to use Visual C++ .NET 2003 ) . what relevance does the directx 8.0 sdk have in all this? . what about the windows 95 DDK, what relevance does this have in all this and do i need it in part of my game development? . are there any other programming languages / software i would need or could be useful in my project? . lastly, is there a particular order to which i should install what i need?

from my searching in the wayback machine and other sources, i believe "odyssey client 1.0" supported windows 95, but was not version 1.1, and 1.1 i think was the first version with wpa support, not even wpa2 yet and so 1.0 would have been a bit old to use anyways. however, there was also a client named "Funk Soft. ODYSSEY 2.0 25 CLIENTS ( ODY-25-V2.0 )" that still appears on amazon ( currently unavailable ) but mentions windows 95 in the support list. i was never able to confirm what exactly this was for and if it really did support windows 95. i remember trying the zyxel funk software version 2.2 and it didn't install or work on windows 95.

i thought the custom firefox 3.6.28 for NT4 was the "best" so far. does it not have tls 1.2 support? i'm not aware of the opera 10.70 build 9071, how does it also compare with latest retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2?

thanks, this information certainly helped.

im curious to know if what this newer retrozilla 2.2 with tsl 1.2 version "20190223" has vs retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 version "20180708". i currently have the version "20180708" that works in my windows 95 systems so i wanted to see if this newer version will work on windows 95 and what specific changes were made, because the change log makes it seem like it's the first version and i'm not seeing what really stands out as a major change. also i was wondering if it's better to use the .exe or zip version of the program, i just wanted to know what advantages or disadvantages there would be generally speaking, lastly, i was wondering if someone can explain to me why i can't download youtube videos from "https://youtubemp4.to" on retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 20180708. it would be nice to be able to download videos in 720p hd that is offered from this site, but i've only got it to work properly on firefox 3.6.28 or newer ( i think that was the oldest web browser i tested for that youtube to mp4 site ). update - so i went and tried that youtube site i mentioned on the newer 20190223 build of retrozilla on my windows 7 system, but it fails to do the download portion and give options on what quality you want, it just doesn't do anything. i was wondering why this would be the case?

thanks, i was able to download the setup of the program and it's other contents from that site, i can confirm that it installs on windows 95, however, i did get that same error of mismatched components and that the program cannot start, but this may have to do with previous corrupt installation traces of other hmonitor versions / corrupt uninstall and related issues. i think if i were to load it on a fresh system that didn't have any version of hmonitor previously installed, that it would install and launch up and work as it should. so i am gonna just assume it works 100 percent on windows 95 and i'll put it as possibly the "best" and latest version of hmonitor on windows 95, at least through my experience of testing.

well i've had a difficult time not only trying to find specific hmonitor versions, but also getting it to work on windows 95 in general, so i tested 4.2.5.3, it would install but gave an error of missing powrprof.dll and would not open, 4.2.5.2 and 4.2.5.1 would install but not open at all, 4.2.4.1 installs, doesn't open. i was hoping that i could find 4.1.4.5, but unfortunately, i could not find it anywhere on the internet. perhaps it could somewhere in the bunch of 1000+ ftp pages on one ftp site, but that would be impractical to find if it's even there by searching hmonitor, where as hmonitor.zip only yields like 3 pages. also strangely, the 4.1.4.2 that did install earlier that i tested and launched up ( even though it didn't show all temperatures, only hdd ), when i tried to retest it after the bunch i tested above, it would give that same mismatch hardware component error that i got it NT4 when i tried to install 4.2.5.3. in all sense, it seems that you shouldn't tinker with this program by testing different versions, although i did test the other ones as i mentioned in my earlier post and did not encounter any errors. so for now, i think 4.1.4.2 would be "best" as in it "should" work within the right circumstances, , , and if applicable, to use older versions on older hardware, perhaps they may work "better" such as lasting longer if it's the whole trial-ware thing or more stable, although the system i had of testing for windows 95 was the hp v2665us that is clearly unsupported and very much so, i suppose i'd get better results on an ich4 board and older.

thanks, although i was looking for someone who already had a NT4/95 system to test them for me too, thanks to you, now i have Hmonitor V 3.1.0.1 (Released 03.02.99) and Hmonitor 4.1.4.1 (Apr 2004). i uploaded v3.1.0.1, luckily under 512 KB. i found also 3.1.2.3, 4.1.2.1, and 4.1.4.1, but all of them are over 512 KB. 4.1.2.1 was the newest version i found that appears to have the older windows installer 2.0 package so it probably will work on windows 95 and NT4? as the other ones are msi based which may not work on windows 95, but i hardly know much on this, maybe someone can chime in and clarify what i am addressing. i am trying to find the newest version that has the windows installer 2.0 package, december 2002 is good with 4.1.2.1, but i'll want something a little newer as the laptops that i may use or experiment with may fall in the mid 2003 range or so. 4.1.4.1 is april 2004 and uses i think the msi package installer, so hopefully there is something in between that with the older windows installer 2.0 package? Hmonitor V 3.1.0.1 (Released 03.02.99).zip

does anyone have an available updated windows 95 system? i was wondering if they could test out that custom firefox 3.6.28 version meant for NT4 on it to see if it works or not, also for the above^ post, when you say this particular version of firefox 3.6.28 worked on 98SE, was it on a kernelex based system or non kernelex? because if worked on the non kernelex based system, then i'd speculate that it probably would work on windows 95 too? also, i was wondering if anyone can test / confirm if any hmonitor ( hardware sensors monitor ) works on windows 95, i am unable to upload them, winrar compresses the two versions i have to around 700 KB, so still too big to upload. i would have wanted to use / test a earlier version of hmonitor, particularly "Hmonitor Lite V. 3.2.2.1 August 18, 2000 526K" ( would have been able to compress it probably and upload it too ), however i have been unsuccessful in finding any download link anywhere on the internet regardless of using waybackmachine or not, and i couldn't find a source indicating what the difference is between the lite and pro version, i have only noticed the lite version in the 3.0 family, but not in the newer ones. it seems strange to me that not one person has uploaded the program anywhere, whether this is because of some legal reason or if the program just flat out sucked and so it wasn't something being thrown around a lot, that has been unclear to me. what i did notice is that version 4.1.1.2 installed and worked on my 2k system, although since the program was considerably older than the laptop i had of testing ( dell latitude d630 ), it didn't support any more temperatures than the hdd, but i also found that the design is a bit confusing / awkward, you have to close / exit the program at first on the window for it to load, right before it mentions that it's limited use, up to a month i believe, but it doesn't say exactly what happens after that point. https://web.archive.org/web/20000815213120/http://www.hmonitor.com/

update, i was able to download firefox 3.6.28 for use on NT4 with this link - "http://roy.orz.hm/gpc/files1.rt/fx36vc71-20171108.7z", although it mentions "If complains about missing MISIMG32.dll then copy from Windows 98 to browser folder (OLD) Use v2.0.0.22pre" i could not really make sense out of this, copy from windows 98, where from windows 98? and what is (OLD) USE v2.0.0.22pre mean? by browser folder, i would assume it means the main directory to which firefox.exe is located. the only reference i have so far of the msimg32.dll file is from my windows 95 archived files that is version 5.0.2218.1 which is apparently the newer "kernelex" version, although from what i researched in another thread, it's ok to be used in non kernelex builds. i had kept this file for opera builds, but apparently it should also be in the firefox directory? although it says to copy it "IF", does that mean i can still place it there even if it doesn't complain about it missing? also, should i be using the older or other version msimg32.dll? i uploaded the msimg32.dll that i currently have which is 5.0.2218.1 in case anyone wants it. Msimg32.zip

this definitely helps, however, the retrozilla version i have is still different, i see mostly the 2.1 version of retrozilla with tls 1.2 being mentioned, however the one i use on windows 95 is the 2.2 version with tls 1.2, perhaps it's a variant or a customized version of "rz-suite-v2.2-bin-20180708.7z"? i know it's the 2.2 version because the browser / file versions lists it specifically as retrozilla 2.2, however upon checking just now, the version 20180708 listed above is the same version as the one listed in my package, only file size being a bit different, which i think has to do with the way i compressed the package or other factors. i couldn't download firefox 3.6.28 for NT4 - "https://o.rthost.cf/gpc/files1.rt/fx36vc71-20171108.7z", the download link didn't work, it would seem that it would be better than retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 that i currently have for my NT4 archive, can anyone confirm that this newer web browser indeed works on NT4 and if it's better than retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2, and / or whether it supports tls 1.2? i do not have any systems currently to test NT4 with. also, i was wondering if there is any reason to use the older retrozilla 2.1 with tls 1.2 vs retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2?

i'm sure that the browser you linked is superseded by retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 support ( i mentioned 2.1 before in other places but this is in fact the 2.2 version i am referring to and works on windows 95 as i tested it ), although download link for this specific retrozilla version is scattered / hard to locate, i do not have a link for it, i only have it in my archive. i wish there was a simple way to find it, but unfortunately, i have not been able to do so, i remember downloading it in one of the pages of the thread for a updated version of retrozilla for 95 / NT. also, opera 10.63 wouldn't be a bad choice i suppose, however from what i remember, it was a bit buggy in operation and did not support as newer functions as retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 did, i think it outright just crashed for me at one point endlessly and / or just didn't work right so i discarded it from consistent use, though i believe a recent source mentioned something to do with the whole tls 1.1 or 1.2 support, im not sure which one, but with opera, they are supported but that would you need to manually enable it for it to work, perhaps maybe i enabled these related settings, maybe it wouldn't be as buggy and / or would function better? who knows? i wish there was a simple way that can both quantitatively / qualitatively compare these web browsers and say which one is "Better", in terms of a combination of compatibility, stability, etc. so far, retrozilla 2.2 with tls 1.2 is the only that has offered all of these for me so it's been the best so far. i don't have the exact build version.