cc333

None, other than whatever the unofficial Service Pack 3.64 package installs. I don't think so? All I did was install Windows 98 SE, all the regular drivers for my hardware, IE6 and WMP9, the unofficial Service Pack, and the unofficial universal USB package for mass storage support. Then I installed to that the old KernelEx 4.5.2 package, and then I updated it using the 2019.24 update package. That was the key, as I only can run up to Firefox 10 with the old KernelEx. I'm afraid not c

Thank you! I'm running a Northwood Pentium 4 at 2.8 GHz and 2 GB of DDR1 RAM (I had to apply Rloew's rampatch to make that work, of course). c

No, which surprised me! I just tried Pale Moon 26.5.0, and it keeps performing an illegal instruction, so it would seem that any remotely modern browser is going to have issues. Still, Firefox 31 is a whole lot newer and better than Firefox 10! Based on this, do you think it's possible to fork from this version and backport security fixes and maybe remove some things that aren't Windows 9x compatible, such as transparency effects? If it can be done, this would certainly be a far better place to start than Retrozilla or Firefox 2, because the layout engine is new enough that sites still mostly render properly. c

Just tried 38.8.0 ESR, and it crashes before loading the browser chrome, so it looks like the newest version that will work is somewhere between 31.x and 38.x. c

I don't think this has been done before! Does that mean I'm the first to have made this accomplishment? This is with KernelEx 4.5.2019.24 and the Windows XP SP3 preset. c

Screenshots! c

This is no joke! I'll get screenshots shortly. By the way, I've got 31.8 ESR working too! There's some weird artifacts around the tabs (probably due to Windows 98's lack of proper transparency support), but as with 24.8.1, it works with JS disabled! c

I just managed to get Firefox ESR 24.8.1 to run! It's extremely sluggish and javascript needs to be disabled, but it works! c

I'm giving this a try, since I have my old P4 machine with Windows 98 on it setup, and I've found this forum to work quite nicely on both Opera 12.02 and @roytam1's special Firefox 3.6 build, particularly if I switch the forum theme from "Switch (Default)" to "IPS Default." "Switch (Default)" is usable, but kinda glitchy with the odd layout issues that people here have reported, whereas "IPS Default" renders almost perfectly (although the reply box is broken on Firefox). I tried logging onto eBay.com, which mostly works, but the sign in page is broken, and I can't log on (no loss there, as it probably isn't the wisest thing to do anyway). The main annoyance is that there are random errors in the encryption where a page will not load due to an encryption error, but will load fine if I remove "https://" from the beginning of the URL. But it can't be a hard error (like a missing cipher or some such), because it only happens sometimes. KernelEx-related, maybe? (I'm running straight 4.5.2, if that matters). I wish I could make the forum render somewhat properly on Retrozilla, as I definitely prefer its lightness, and the fact that it's natively Win9x compatible, so no need for KernelEx. Maybe in time, as Retrozilla gets improved, this will be less of a problem. c

I don't wish to get everyone riled up yet again over all this, but I have some thoughts on the matter that might be worth considering.... These names might have been suggested already (too lazy to look), but what about something like Retro Moon (for the PM27/PM28XP builds), RetroFox (for FF45ESR, Basilisk 55 and so on), and RetroZilla XP Browser/RetroZilla XP Mail (for the SeaMonkey-derived Borealis Navigator and Interlink Mail & News, respectively)? There already exists the Mozilla-derived RetroZilla for Windows 9x, so why not continue with that branding scheme for these other inter-related, 2000 and XP compatible browsers? As for icons, I'm OK with whatever anyone comes up with, but maybe someone can come up with something IE-like, to continue yet further on this "Retro" theme? Of course, for the Retrozilla XP-branded things, some derivative of the old Mozilla icon would probably be appropriate (or something like a modernized, more XP-era like version of the Retrozilla icon, maybe). c

Not at the moment, because it's not online! I'll have to get it set back up. I will post here when that happens. c

I reenabled Photo Viewer. WinAero Tweaker has a simple "Enable Windows Photo Viewer" button, which makes it really easy! c

As with @Comrade_Hajji, I've resisted using Windows 10 in any form until about a month ago, when I realized that if I want a job nowadays, I better be at least somewhat familiar with it, because the world is moving on, and versions like XP and 7 (and their server counterparts) are rapidly being forgotten! Therefore, I've done the following: Installed Windows 10 Pro for Workstations 1809 on my PC running a Core i5-6600k and 16 GB of RAM Installed OpenShell (for the classic start menu), 7+TaskbarTweaker (to get the taskbar to behave more or less as it does in XP and Vista), OldNewExplorer (for more sane File Explorer windows), and WinAero Tweaker (to make the rest of the OS more sane) And, of course, AeroGlass for nice transparency effects All in all, I find it to be more or less bearable with all this applied to it (and I'm not even finished, because there's still Telemetry and Cortana to be disabled (I rarely use the search function anyway, and I beliewve with Cortana disabled, there's a basic fallback so searching in general isn't entirely broken, unless I'm mistaken?), and Metro stuff to remove), but I still like XP - through - 7 much better (even 8.x with most of the above tweaks is a bit nicer). Be that as it may, it is now much more in line with older versions, with most of the obtrusive/invasive "features" turned off. For now, however, I think I'll go back to my P4 machine running Windows 2000 c

RLoew's RAM patch is probably a good idea, as I'd imagine it will maximize stability and enable full usage of your RAM if >= !G RAM is installed. With BWC's Kernel Ex, Roytam's browsers run quite well on Windows 2000, and are reasonably secure, considering the OS is about 20 years old now. Without undue effort, it's about as close as the average person can get to having something resembling Windows 98 (2000's UI is very similar to 98 and ME) run a reasonably modern browser. c

Here's a suggestion to hide that line: In your C:\AUTOEXEC.BAT file, add "@ECHO OFF" (without the quotes) to the top line, before any other text. c

Not 100% on topic, but somewhat relevant: I have a Dell Precision M6800 (a quite modern system), which intermittently emits one or two loud pops from the internal speakers on shutdown. I don't know why this is, but I've speculated that it may not be 100% the driver's fault for causing the pops and clicks, as I've heard it happen without any drivers loaded; Perhaps the same is somewhat true on @Dave-H's system? Be that as it may, it was thought that functional HD Audio was impossible on 9x (and 3.x) until this driver came along, so the fact that it works at all, imperfect as it may be, is impressive. Too bad it can't be re-implemented as a 9x-native WDM driver (or can it? I vaguely recall there being talk of it on another thread somewhere not too long ago), as that would probably go a long way toward ironing out some of these minor glitches, and allow for a more streamlined experience. c

@~♥Aiko♥Chan♥~ Perhaps try installing Haihaisoft Universal Player 1.5.8.0 on a fresh install of Me or 98SE and see if you get the same result? c

MCP does seem seem to offer an officially sanctioned build for Linux, so maybe it's worth a try? c

That's normal. It was left that way for compatibility purposes (some programs won't install and/or run if the Service Pack number != 3). c

Take a look at the photos in this eBay ad: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Latitude-C640-Windows-xp-wireless-card-installed-WORKING/362759505871?hash=item547626c7cf:g:-VkAAOSwlqJdg-Ga What do you see? I see a very unusual version of Windows which claims to be Windows XP Pro Lite? Does this actually exist somewhere, or is it a custom job? I'm leaning toward the latter so far, but thought maybe some of you could weigh in.... c

Hmm, interesting.... Hope it gets fixed soon! c

In other words, go back to doing what they had been doing for for every other software release since MS-DOS! That doesn't mean each OS release didn't have problems, but at least there wasn't this constant barrage of half-baked, kinda-sorta working updates every month! In the past, Windows actually got *better* with every update (for example, XP: XP was pretty truthfully not the greatest at first, offering little more than extra eye candy and bloat compared to 2000, but over time, as it was being updated, it became far better, to the point that it surpassed 2000 in terms of stability and performance). c

Agreed 10,000 percent!! c

Could this or a similar method work for New Moon 27 on 2000? I could probably run SM 2.49.5 if not, but I'm worried that it'd be too slow and heavy on my old P4 machine. To that end, I probably have no business trying to watch MP4/HTML5 videos on it anyway (and it's not like I don't have any better machines for the task; My main tower right now has a Xeon X5680 with 18 GB of RAM, and can handle anything I throw at it), but it's a "because I can" sort of thing c

@MrJayCobPL I can corroborate your confirmation! Windows Update is still working fine on Windows 2000! By the way, for future reference, has anybody ever managed to reverse engineer what makes the WU site work, and create a reasonably functional facsimile? Or better yet, an actual archived version with full functionality? It could then serve as a very nice front end to the super nice to have update archives the community has developed, I think. c