awkduck

This is just a kinda note, in case someone else runs into it. I have NTFS support (Paragon), on Win98. This system has no internal drives, with NTFS. USB drives with NTFS and EXT2/3 are connected and used. When a USB drive "having NTFS/EXT*" is plugged in and active, certain ISO files cannot be used. This is tested with D-Tools and VirtualCloneDrive. I cannot even copy these ISO files. For example, from a network FTP to my FAT32 drive. These ISO files do not copy correctly. Once the NTFS filesystem "or other foreign type" is inactive, everything is back to normal. I took me awhile to figure out the culprit, because the files did not have to be on the foreign filesystem. It only mattered that the file system was active. Some ISO files did work. It did not matter if it was a CD or DVD image; nor the Rock Ridge, Joliet, or UDF type. It had something to do with how empty space was written. In hex, if the empty space was written with "20" or "20,00", the image would not work. If the image used only "00" for empty spaces, it would work; even if stored on the foreign filesystem. I don't know much about ISO structure. There is probably some specification difference. But I don't know what it is. Anyway, it was weird and perplexing.

Users are mostly safe. Especially, since there are legitimate/legal uses, for youtube-dl. The legal battle against this software/code is slow. It is also deplorable. The users don't re-share the content, during the act of capturing it; like with eMule/Bittorrent/Gnutella. It has always been more lucrative to pursue the provider, over the receiver. Youtube-dl should enable ad support, in cooperation with Youtube. It already supports user accounts. Then it is up to the user, to edit out that support. We all have the potential to do the same thing, with any browser. You might even "still" be able to do this with browser plugins.

I'm looking for a FFmpeg release, newer then Sherpya's 2011, compatible with Win98. But, until then, there is LibAV. LibAV is very similar to FFmpeg, as it was a controversial fork. The command names are different, but the arguments/options are close. For example: FFMPEG would be AVCONV (AVCONV -I FILENAME -C:V H264 -C:A COPY FILENAME), and FFPLAY would be AVPLAY. The last version of LibAV, that works with Win98, is 11.3. However, it was not complied with SDL support (AVPLAY). But that can be fixed, without recompiling, by also downloading 10.1. After extracting both archives, enter the 10.1 "bin" folder > rename "AVPLAY.EXE" to AVPSDL.EXE > copy both AVSDL.EXE and SDL.DLL to the 11.3 "bin" folder, and then get ready to dust off your Hex editor. You'll also need a copy of LIBGCC_S_SJLJ-1.DLL placed in the 11.3 "bin" folder. AVSDL.EXE is linked to older LibAV shared libraries. But this is relatively easy to fix, since they are only one version number different. For example, it may ask for AVCODEC-55.DLL, but the new one is AVCODEV-56.DLL. So try to run AVSDL.EXE, then use your editor to search for and rename the missing library (AVCODEC-55.DLL > AVCODEC-56.DLL). There are about five different DLL strings to search/rename. It may not be necessary to rename AVPLAY.EXE to AVSDL.EXE. I've only done that, since I've only been able to test the 11.3 version with a non-accelerated video driver. For me, it only gives a black screen. The modified SDL 10.1 version worked fine. If you are using a 3D card, with proper accelerated drivers, the 11.3 version might work. Still, renaming allows both options. I'm not sure how the 11.3 LibAV compares with the 2011 FFmpeg. The date of the files, in 11.3, vary between late 2014 and early 2015. Sadly, I'm not sure if LibAV can capture the Desktop. The 2011 FFmpeg version came out before the Dshow Desktop Capture source commit. Likely neither can be used for capturing the Desktop to video. I think Mencoder, from Mplayer, can do it. I haven't looked into it yet. VLC can do it, but it is slow. Also, there is Virtualdub. But, it doesn't capture, with my video driver. It seems the FFmpeg/LibAV break, with Win98, happened when people switched to MinGW-w64, for building Win32. If I get around to it, I'll see if I can't budge out a newer FFmpeg or LibAV, with the old MinGW; unless someone points out an already existing one(s).

Excellent! Glad you are the sharing type @SweetLow.

I respect your opinion. If you want to expound on your intrigue, no invitation is required. Not that you have to. As is, it is still amusing.

The are some wires to untangle. Vbemp does have 2D acceleration. And that does make a difference. Some older cards, supporting Win3x, did have 3D acceleration. But those that did not, could still play video. Those old videos you've mentioned, are also encoded is a much less complex codec. They system resources, for playback, are much lower. Also, the quality was pretty low. The redraw demands where much lower. There are modern codecs for Win98+, to a degree. But that does not mean your browser can use them. I "personally" don't know what K-Meleon can and can't do. I know newer versions come with codec downloads. Maybe for systems with different SSE capabilities? But, I don't know if that is of any use to the older version. There is the Ringo Mplayer builds. They are newer. I have yet to get any of them to run. Not that I have tried very hard. So you might have luck there. So it probably isn't fair for me to say, that the last supported Mplayer can't handle modern codecs. Edit: The newest Ringo Mplayer build works fine. Keep in mind, Youtube offers several encode types. Occasionally, I've tried to watch something, with a new low priority encoding(AV-1?), and for whatever reason the typical encode types were not available. In this case, I would have to download the Video/Audio and re-encode it myself. From what I can tell, most videos should still work(h264/AAC-LC). As it is for all of us, that post on upstanding forums. The legality changes from country to country, and more concerns the tool(s) creators and their hosting providers. I haven't heard of a person getting in trouble, for using those tools. But I haven't been looking either. The issue with those tools, is that ads are not included. Additionally, content under copyright can be stored locally. I can not say this is true. I haven't tried. What I can say, is that Vbemp may not be your problem. I can say this, since I've had no problem playing most modern encode types. The issues I have had, are when I cannot select less complex video outputs (like SDL). And that "is" related to Vbemp. If a browser has no option to disable accelerated video, or has no updated codecs, that can be a problem. But my experience here, is related to Chrome/Firefox types on modern systems. I don't know what K-Meleon is doing.

It really just depends on the CPU and the browsers configuration/requirements. Unless you are talking about high resolution video. Then all bets are probably off. Mplayer (port from Linux) can play videos, with same the compression format as used by Youtube, without Accelerated 3D drivers (Vbemp). I am not sure about MplayerWW (Mplayer with nice GUI). MplayerWW's UI settings panel seems to only support accelerated settings. But I would think the non-accelerated output could still "somehow" be set; provided those outputs were not disabled at build time. Some Youtube videos include only codecs not likely to play in current Win9x browsers, or even with Win9x supported Mplayer. For now, that is probably going to be the bigger issue, not video acceleration. With the age of the browsers you listed, it may be the exact issue. Anyway, most modern browsers presuppose an accelerated video driver. But they tend to provide an option to disable using video acceleration. Depending on your video card, some browsers perform much better with video acceleration disabled. I don't know about K-meleon, this is just a general statement towards all systems/browsers. There are other ways of obtaining Youtube video streams, without a browser, but the legality of those ways has been highly debated.

I'd say the average "Windows" users didn't really acknowledge that a Java application they used, could likely run on another operating system. But there were hobbyists writing Java applications. Maybe because they didn't pirate VisualBasic, and Java was free. For most of the uninitiated, Java seemed something like VisualBasic; even though they only had a few things in common. But, if you weren't contemplating the multiple platform aspect, you where likely only looking at concepts like bytecode. From a programming point of view, VisualBasic made for faster development of light-ish applications. But Java was a more expressive language. VisualBasic could use the native U.I., in a Rapid-Application-Development like style. Still, Java's U.I. tended to be more expressive. The run-time penalty was higher for Java. And Java was bulky. It did seem like Java gained some popularity, when VisualBasic was initially killed. I don't think it ever got as popular as Delphi, untill after Delphi initially died. C++ was king. I think 2005-2010ish Java seemed to gain some average user traction. It probably started with the switch to JAVA, in AP Computer Science classes (2004). For a short time it was C++ (1999-2003). Starting in 1984, it had been Pascal. I don't have any hard data to follow. But I wonder where Java would be, if it hadn't been for its long standing place in education. It is still there, today. If some other language had be used, would Minecraft have still been written in Java?

That is a kind of "wide open" question. -Why did they not charge for it? They can charge for several types of support. It should be noted, some features were developed to meet "paying" client needs. That kind of support is worth a lot of money. Also, having a developer walk you through your difficulties, while using their product, isn't something you'll often get for free. Especially if it is a big project, you needed done yesterday. -Why did they build it in the first place? To make a standardized platform, on top of platforms that are incompatible. Looks good, If you need something to work; but you don't want to rewrite it, for every platform. Why did they make it for Windows, and not just for *nix and Apple/Mac? If you are going to sell advice, on using a wrench, that advice should apply to as many cars as possible. Although, I'm not sure I would consider Windows users deserving? And considering the result that Java is, I'm not sure what kind of respect it is, that you are insinuating the users/companies deserve. You can hold others in poor or low respect. If Java is the symbol of that respect, I am not sure that you are saying anything nice about Windows users. Note: I mean this all kindheartedly. No actual terseness is intended.

I really should have started my own thread, about running from USB. For my part, it's running from memory; but booted from USB. I run most Win9x systems this way, but not always booting from USB. This is just another note/update. I recently ran into, on and off, blue screen parity errors. On this particular machine, I was using memdisk (Syslinux) with Grub2. It could've been an issue, with the shared Video memory. It is fixed in BIOS at 32mb. I think it was more likely something to do with how Windows/Himem.sys calculates available memory, when using some memory for a HardDisk image. The machine has 1.5gb of RAM. The disk image is 300mb (on the dot). When Windows did successfully load, it would report around 1200mb of memory. After loading, there does not seem to be any stability issues. There is probably some hardware/software initializing sequence, that determines the pass or fail. My assumption would be that this is "more" related to my hardware's initialization. By the time Windows gets a chance to load, the difference between pass or fail has likely already been set. Several memory sticks were swapped out. Some 512mb and others 1Gb. I never tested with only the built in 512mb (this is a laptop). Memory tests cleared the memory as healthy. I am running with Rloew's memory patch. The solution has been to set "MaxPhysPage=", in SYSTEM.INI, and under the "[386Enh]" section. When you figure the amount to set, the drive image must be included in your calculation. You do not set how much memory you expect to see reported in "System Properties". You set that amount, plus the HardDisk image amount. Take the total desired amount, in megabytes, multiplied by 256 and converted into hexadecimal. There is now no occasional parity error, and I have near total memory available. I wasn't sure it that was going to be the case. I started with a setting well below the total amount, and then worked my way up. As this is a live HardDrive image, I could've saved and booted the "live" image, after each adjustment. I just used Qemu, from the live environment, and booted the stored image file to Dos. The Dos text editor provides a quick modification path, to "SYSTEM.INI". This saves on USB writes and time. There may be a different solution. For now, this seems to work great.

Yeah, that is a pretty clean fix. Good job. There should be an emoji, like the one above, but with embarrassed red cheeks. That way the eye roll is directed at self, and no one else. Though, its pretty silly that I nitpick it.

You could compare the original and modified versions, of the patched files. If it isn't too crazy of a patch, you might be able to manually patch those third party programs (they may depend on the newer Shell32/unpatchable). Or, maybe you can redirect them to Shell32.w98, provided it still works. Isn't there a 98lite option to just remove the IE integration, leaving the WinME shell? This may not interest you, but there are alternative shells for Windows. And you can even find alternatives to Explorer, for file management. Depending on your aim, this might displace the need for the Win95 shell. I use Rloews 64bit filesystem patch. For me, this made the Explorer shell non-functional (for most it does not). But I never intended on using Explorer, as a shell/file-manager. I do not miss Explorer.

I have thought about using the "Mini PCI-E", from a laptop Wifi module. You can get a "Mini PCI-E" ribbon, to make it an external interface. Then you would need something to convert it to PCI-E, and connect to something like this. Then you could "potentially" use a Win9x PCI video card. Or maybe something with this, this, or this. I've had some laptops that won't pass post, unless the original device is installed. But not that many. Otherwise, I have no idea it this would work. It doesn't help, if you are on the go. If it worked, it would provide an option for at home. Older laptops use "Mini PCI". That might work too, but I wonder if vendors did more non-standard things.

Not for the 965GM. For 865g*, yes. There is an awful lot of machines, in the world. But there is nothing, at the tip of my tongue. I haven't seen any, that would provide Win9x 3D acceleration. There was mention of a Trio64, but I don't think that chip is going to do what you want (too old). Maybe, and this is a big maybe, you could replace the heatsink and just unplug the fan. Though, this is custom work. A micrometer would be nice, to let you decide how much space you have. If the replacement was all copper, and maybe even covered a larger area, you might not need the fan. The copper bar, on the heatsink, is a "heat rail". It is designed to transfer the heat, to where it can be cooled. It goes to a pretty small aluminum finned cube, that the air vents through. Compare this to modern designs, and the amount of heat being dealt with is much less. You might be able to get away with a full aluminum/graphite heatsink. But copper would improve your chances. Essentially, I'm trying to point out how small/thin the copper heat railing is. By modern standard, that doesn't move much heat. I think this is a "Pentium II"? It is a given, that desktop CPUs are more powerful and run hotter then their laptop CPU siblings. Not very often did the desktop slot "Pentium II" CPUs have fans. They just had a fair amount of aluminum on them. I've never had a desktop socket "Pentum II", but I am sure they only had fans because of the smaller heatsink. Some slot "Pentium III" CPUs had no fan. So you only have a fan, because of the small space and the cost of copper. Edit: This is an interesting idea, for a heat sink. The Wyse Cx0 has a vent, right above that. If you think about the Toughbook CF-18, it has a flat aluminum heat sink; it spreads out under the keyboard. The CF-18 has no vents. I can't remember which model, but I've seen a Toughbook using nothing but copper heat/thermal railing, for cooling. It has something like an "X" design, with the center over the CPU/GPU area. There are options for utilizing the space you have. The "X" design could branch out, where ever you have space. But the Wyse Cx0 design might be easier to mount. Laptops using screws, to mount the heaksink, may make the job easier; just re-use the same screw posts and maybe even screws. A mod that does not alter the device, makes it easy to restore the original configuration. On some of my machines, if you select external display (bios), it works just fine. Display cloning also works; when its a bios option. It is less likely to work, through "Display Settings". Dual independent display, may not be an option.

@jaclaz Very good. That would do it. I agree with the idea of the 5k pot. Although, the older three pin fans may not be that picky.

The best I have found so far, is that it has an application (probably Win2k/XP) that lets you control the CPU and fan speed. Many laptops have such an application. Maybe theirs offers a low power fanless setting. Unlikeliness - That GPU probably needs to be fanned. Potential - There are versions with Pentium-M and Pentium-4. Pentium-M is usually higher processing potential, with less voltage. But I don't actually know that much about mobile Pentium-4. I avoided them, after a friends P4 Thinkpad got so hot it warped the fan vents. The Pentium-M reverted back to earlier high-end Pentium-III designs; which in turn paved the way for core-duo and so on.

I don't know how the, variable speed, fans are wired. I think they are three pin. There may be a way to trick the bios. It may be enough to just pass the post test. It doesn't seem like they test all speeds and performance. I haven't played with it yet. I have a T40 I could test on, or maybe a T41; if it is functional.

I've had a "Pentium I" (133Mhz) and two "Pentium II" (450Mhz) Thinkpads. The Pentium II laptops had NeoMagic audio/video (no 3D) and fans. You could install 512Mb of ram, 47*Mb could be seen (472?). The firmware update didn't fix that. They didn't have Ethernet. The "Pentium I" had NeoMagic video and I believe Crystal Semiconductor audio (some SoundBlaster support), and no fan. I had over 64Mb of ram, in it. But I doubt it supported up to 512Mb. It also did not have Ethernet. You might be able to find a "Pentium II" Thinkpad without a fan. Could be harder to find one that has 3D and no fan, but possible(?). Some 3D chips, back then, didn't even have heatsinks. The issue with Thinkpads, is that they have a large "Fan Club". It can be harder to find the really nice ones. I very much like the S series (30/31). The R and A series are okay too. The I1400/I1500 are also kinda neat.

No fan. They are sometimes used in the desert. You cannot have sand blowing into the fan vent. Many models are said to survive being dropped into water, by design. The harddrive caddie, and the rest of the system, are designed to resist moderate impact. They have some office models, they have fans. But you can tell by the simple appearance, that it those are not "rugged" laptops. I've had the CF-29 and Cf-18. No fans. I bought a "non-functional" CF-28. I gutted it, to use the shell, for a custom "Banana Pi" laptop build. It had no fan.

Then you could let us know how to do it It is always interesting to see peoples experience, with machines I don't own.

The best match, I have seen, Is the Panasonic ToughBook CF-28. There are different models, some fall under the aim. It is also not as nice looking, compared to some of the others. You can get a Display with 1024x768 (touchscreen only has 800x600) Intel 830MG (up to 32Mb), CPU Pentium-M (maybe III) @ 1Ghz-800Mhz, AC97 audio, Maximum memory of 512Mb, Up to 10hrs (with two batteries, 4hrs with one), 2 PCMCIA slots, but I can't tell for certain if it is USB 1.1 or 2. I'm guessing, if Pentium-M, it would be USB2. A 800Mhz Pentium III, might have USB1.1. If it was USB1.1, a PCMCIA card would fix that. But I have bough some PCMCIA, cards that don't always work reliably. The issue with a ToughBook, is getting one in good shape and including the harddrive caddie. A nice one can sometimes be too expensive. These machines have been used by the Construction, Police, and Military. Some of the used ones are a bit worn. Being a nitpicker, I often dislike Laptops with on-board memory. If that memory goes bad, you are stuck with it; unless you are skilled in circuit board repair. The Toughbook has 256Mb on-board with a slot for 256Mb expansion. Note: I don't know how well the Intel 830MG performs, with 3D. I'm just assuming, that with up to 32Mb of unified memory, it does fine.

I should get motivated and test some of this. Sonyu is aiming at 1Ghz, for the lowest speed. That makes it a little harder. But, the VIA laptop, near the beginning of the debate, likely performs near or less than a PIII 650-850Mhz mobile CPU. So that might be something for Sonyu to consider. But, using a 1.4Ghz as an example, throttling down to 800Mhz may still require a fan. If you could get a higher speed CPU down to 800-ish, it might work. I do wonder what a better Heat sink might do. Your suggestion of the Intel GPU is probably the right path. Nvidia and ATI/Radeon GPUs will probably get much hotter. S3, Via, and Intel would be better.

FantasyAcquiesce, probably has done what I have done, a time or two. It is easy to duplicate. First you install Vbemp, then you install whatever Win2k+ driver has a matching hardware vendor and device identification, and finally you reboot with your new driver. But you are not using the Win2k+ driver. You are using Vbemp. The registry changed the name of your device, to match the Win2k+ driver. But if you go to "Device Manager" > properties on the video device in "Display Adapters" > "Driver" tab > "Driver File Details", you will find the the Vbemp driver files are still listed. FantasyAcquiesce has even said, in that thread: The Intel video driver from RetroSystemRevival will not work. In fact, if you don't install Vbemp first, you'll end up with the default (16 color 640x480). I will gladly eat my words, if wrong. The only way to have evidence, the driver works, is to have a screenshot of the "Driver File Details". But I've installed drivers from 2k/XP, on Win98, and have seen the results; even the exact same driver we are talking about. It doesn't work. But, on the bright side, some of those Intel 8**G** chipset and video device drivers seem to support Win98. The device I pointed out had one. The issue is finding something without a fan. It seems anything that old, tends to have a fan.

I haven't much info on this machine, but maybe the Xplore iX104C2 or iX104C3. It seems to come with the Intel 855GME. The audio is AC97. Up to 1Gb memory. 1Ghz or more. I also have no experience with the Intel 855GME. But it appears to support Win9x. Maybe not Win95? Edit: Nope. Watched a harddriver replacement video, and it has a fan. But it is a fairly small fan, and in an ideal location. Temps me to try the C4 at 1.4Ghz, with CPU throttling and a custom (larger) heatsink (Digikey). However, it would probably need USB for a keyboard. So no unicorn here.

I'd say no. But we don't even know, for certain, that the conflict is the one causing the video issue. And we don't know if the laptop you are looking at has the same issue, or not. The pics on Parkytowers show a fan. Well, I hope I'm not making it harder. But, you are very welcome.