cov3rt

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.

if i suspect a system isn't operating particularly well, such as no indication of battery status, i just end up starting from scratch and installing with acpi disabled, the "Setup /p i" command does this and most of the time, the systems run fine like this, with usually just the battery status not working, although it's possible some device(s) may not be detected in device manager, i really wouldn't know much of this in detail as it's something i test on my own on a specific system, and usually i'll update my archive to include installing with acpi disabled or if it ran fine with the default acpi enabled which is normal setup command, then that would be a bonus, although, the normal setup for allowing acpi will not always exactly install acpi, at least through indication of device manager, and even if it does, it doesn't guarantee battery status, although there may be some third party battery status software out there that may do this on 98SE / 9x systems, i have not been able to find a specific one yet. i noticed the battery status not showing and acpi entries not evident in device manager being more common in windows 95 which makes sense because acpi support in windows 95 is more premature.

so it seems that poweriso isn't even supported on windows 95 at all! i tested from versions 2.0 - 4.9 and all of them when trying to run the installed program linked to a missing export of either getfileattributesexa or setthreadexecutionstate. i didn't test older than 2.0, but it probably wouldn't work, and even if it did, it wouldn't be worth using since imgburn and winrar would already be doing all the work anyways at a better state, 1.6 and older are too old. poweriso 6.0 is listed as supported on one of their sources. i am not sure if this is an error, as one of the threads here also lists it as "supported". i did a quick google search and from their site, they list 98 and NT4 as supported, 95 is not listed. so for now, the winrar option of making sure iso is selected, via lonecrusader's suggestion probably works best + imgburn 2.4.4.0 for me, however, for some weird reason, i can't seem to access winrar 3.80 in it's current state in my w95 system, the program executable is missing but everything else is there, or at least, it seems like something is missing, i'll have to give it a check real quick, maybe uninstall and reinstall may fix the issues i am having. update! so i uninstalled and reinstalled winrar 3.80 and it didn't change it's state of files in the program files portion, maybe this is just the way the program is? i think i was comparing it to version 4.11 from that i use on 2K. although before reinstalling it, when i viewed iso files, they would just have the normal microsoft white icon as if there were no third party unzip tools installed, but after reinstalling it with the iso file association which was already default when i first installed it, this time, now it actually shows the iso files with the winrar book icon, in both states, you can still extract the iso file, but one may think that with the default microsoft icon, they wouldn't right click it because they'd assume the iso file can't be extracted due to some setting / something missing. it seems inconvenient to have to reinstall the program to identify the file in winrar icon, however, i am changing this in my files to reflect it as the typical user or some people may not notice this ( including myself )

ok, so i couldn't get hwmonitor 1.0.5.8 to work on windows 95, it gives the error "the hwmonitor.exe file is linked to missing export kernel32.dll:IsDebuggerPresent.", it seems that this dependency is only in NT4/98SE and newer, though this helps as i can test it out on NT4 as i haven't yet. it seems that it's related to visual c++ 2005 from google search, although NT4 doesn't "fully or officially / properly" support visual c++ 2005. there was some people who managed to get some applications or visual c++ 2005 to install on windows 95 with some modification, however, the instructions and information for it were a bit limited and beyond my capacity, so i decided to not go further into that route or unofficial fixes. i still wanted to see if i can install visual c++ .net 2002 runtimes on windows 95, that is, if such an update exists. wikipedia lists visual c++ .net 2002 released sometime in 2002, i did manage to find a package with just the two msvcp70 and msvcr70.dll files which was listed as being from visual studio 2002, however, i was looking for something official to download, and if there is, the official update probably included other files in it. i also copied these files from my 2K system that i tested earlier, they were dated 1-5-2002.

thanks for the info, i did read somewhere yesterday suggesting something similar related to the iso file association with winrar, i'll take a look at those settings in winrar you mentioned. although i did add PowerISO 4.9 in my archived contents already which leads into another question. it seems imgburn 2.4.4.0 and PowerISO 4.9 are similar in functionality, they can mount / burn iso images, PowerISO 4.9 can extract iso images, although i am not sure if imgburn 2.4.4.0 can do that, that was really the main reason i went through all this research, was simply for detecting / extracting iso files. so my question is, is it ok to remove imgburn 2.4.4.0 and replace it with PowerISO 4.9 ( which is about the same size of the program of roughly less than 2 MB ) to have all or almost all of the functionalities of imgburn 2.4.4.0, if not more, or is there something more obvious that imgburn 2.4.4.0 has that PowerISO 4.9 doesn't. PowerISO 4.9 is a little newer, released i believe 11-15-11 and imgburn 2.4.4.0 was released 4-10-09, so that makes me assume in one sense that PowerISO 4.9 has more compatibility or functioning than imgburn 2.4.4.0.

this may or may not be helpful / relevant to your problem, but do you use / have you used TCPOptimizer 2.0.3? i have noticed that i always had to use the "optimal" setting to get faster download speeds on 95 and 98SE computers, for some weird reason by default, the download speeds are a lot lower, usually painfully slow ( like as little as 80 KB/s ) unless i use this program and use the "optimal" setting which then it jumps up all the way to like 500 KB/s, i never realized such a program can provide such a quick easy fix like this.

I was wondering if anyone knows what the best free lightweight software there is for windows 95 that can extract iso images. i've always had winrar 3.80 in my builds, however i had noticed that it couldn't detect iso files. i was hoping i could find an additional program to allow specifically reading and extracting iso images. i looked at many different programs being listed, magic iso, power iso, win iso, ultra iso, also there is 7-zip 9.20 as being mentioned as supported in another thread, and daemon tools 3.47 in another source, however, i didn't really like the ui of these two, and i don't know if daemon tools 3.47 only mounts iso images or can also extract them as imgburn 2.4.4.0 can already do this and i already have this in my archived files for windows 95, please correct me if i am wrong. basically i am looking for a program that works like winrar in that it automatically can detect the type of file, if it's zipped or compressed of course, it will show as a rar file, and it's fine if the iso files are shown in rar, as long as it can actually detect them as i couldn't get them to detect with winrar 3.80, i read something on ultra iso "free" version being limited to 300 MB but this was unclear ( sourced from wikipedia ) as in which exact version(s), obviously i would want to have the best most compatibility software that is free and most stable and most lightweight.

since i felt like it wasn't necessary to create two seperate topics for this, i thought that it would be ok to talk about it in one thread. i wanted to know if it there are any older versions of hwmonitor that work and can be made to work on windows 95 / NT4. the oldest version i found via download was 1.0.5.8 which was released in 2007, i could not locate the more "stable" 1.0.5.9 for download. from what i researched, there were even older versions somewhere in 2006, however, i could not find a link / filename to download as such, wayback machine didn't work for older hwmonitor versions from the official site as i checked that. my reason for wanting to use hwmonitor is because i like the user interface more than speedfan which is one of the closest things to it and it may function better or worse, depending on what's needed. i would be using it as either an alternative or additional level of usage. since i am noob with some stuff, i was hoping someone could chime in and do a small favor if possible, and that is to use dependency walker to let me know if it can be supported or not in 95 or NT4 and / or what would be needed / what's missing so that i can download whatever files are needed if applicable. i did try using dependency walker 2.2 x86 myself and apparently hwmonitor 1.0.5.8 uses a msvcrt.dll file of 7.1 origin, where could i get this file or similar if there is any? also, something possibly relevant is visual c++ 2005 express or pro, from what i researched, some sources mentioned it being compatible with windows 95, although compatibility for NT4 from one thread was uncertain or unclear, but for the 95 one, the person mentioned 95 as being supported. there was a downloadable iso, but i don't want to download such a big program if all i would need is a couple of runtime files or dll's. i was also requesting if anyone can upload a copy of a older hwmonitor version, i uploaded 1.0.5.8 below, i renamed it. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15910974/c-program-compatible-with-windows-95 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1330852/where-to-download-visual-studio-express-2005 HWMonitor 1.0.5.8.zip