bristols

No. However, you can spread Win98 and help others. A further question: do you intend to develop RP or any other 9x project for financial gain?

Personally speaking, if I had programming skills of any kind I would want to try to apply them to help keep 9x alive in other ways - by perhaps maintaining a 9x branch of Firefox, or Media Player Classic, or VLC Media Player, for example. It's nice that you're doing something - all power to you. But it's a shame, I think, that the point of your project is cosmetic, and not functional.

Or as close as, right?! Thanks, to everyone who contributes here, for helping to keep the agile old beast alive.

Further to my earlier positive post: I have to report that I've found Flash movie/FLV playback in 2.0.0.22pre to be not as smooth as in the last official Firefox release. In 2.0.0.22pre, playback is somewhat jerky and choppy. This was the case with both a clean install of 2.0.0.22pre and Flash, and an installation of the 2.0.0.22pre after having uninstalled 2.0.0.20 (using the usual Firefox uninstall routine, which leaves Firefox plugins and settings intact). In this latter scenario, I also experienced errors that stopped the playback of FLV movies. Adobe Flash plugin version 9.0.159. Shockwave version 10.2.0.23.

Wow. I find that 2.0.0.22pre is more responsive than 2.0.0.20, too. Thanks to the xt guy for the tip.

Erpman (erpdude8 in these forums) has just reposted his NT4 SP6a page. Looks comprehensive: http://erpman1.tripod.com/wnt4upd.html Home page: http://erpman1.tripod.com/

While any information about staying clear of and protecting against compromised PDFs files is relevant (edit: and I welcome it!), it's beside the point of my question, strictly speaking. In other words, "it goes without saying". Thanks for pointing these things out. They are indeed additional reasons for looking for an alternative to Adobe Reader. Probably it has. But I'm not sure that anyone has asked for a list of Adobe alternatives for 9x, and I'd nevertheless like to have an up-to-date one. Maybe others would too.

Post here the PDF Reader of your choice for Windows 9x. It is often said these days that more and more malware attacks 3rd-party applications, instead of the underlying OS. There have been a few notable vulnerabilities in Adobe Reader. Us 9x users of course cannot upgrade to the latest 'secure' release, so for this reason alone it makes sense to look for other solutions for reading PDFs. Right now, Adobe PDF Reader is at version 9. The last versions for 9x are (corrections welcome): Adobe Acrobat 5.1 [Windows 95 with IE5x] Adobe Acrobat 6.06 [Windows 98 FE, 98 SE, and ME] Foxit Reader 3 is at best problematic; at worst, doesn't work at all (version 2 was no good for me, with crippling GDI leaks on 98 SE). Foxit Software no longer supports 9x in its testing (thanks noguru). The latest version of Sumatra PDF is for Windows 2000 and above. We're running out of up-to-date options. So what do you use? Suggestions please.

Well... you're wrong. Below is an argument, in brief: I'm playing devils' advocate a bit here, as a means to asking a 'what if...?' question. It seems you're assuming that I'm making definitive statements about updates posted here. I made it clear that I'm not. Not making statements, but asking questions. No-one here is saying that you have to prove or argue for anything. Don't misunderstand me. I have no interest in scoring points, winning arguments, or combat for the sake of it. But I do want to ask some questions that I haven't seen asked. Questions I think should be asked, to explore some aspects of this community's efforts to keep 9x alive that haven't been much talked about. The whole point of me bothering to use my time to post here is that I want to 'keep 9x alive', and keep the efforts here strong by addressing any weak points in them. We may disagree on what the weak points are, of course, and you may not see the value of these questions. I'm not a programmer, and I'm not one of your wise men. So, above are three arguments against the likelihood that any intentional malicious code is in the updates posted here. To state that there has been - or probably has been - a deliberate spread, without evidence to back this up, is ludicrous. However, to consider the possibility - while unlikely - is not. Again, don't misunderstand me. What I'm really asking is whether we should as a community be concerned at all from a security point of view - even just in theory - about the unofficial updates posted here. If we should be concerned, how should that concern translate into action? Maybe a list of guidelines for authors of patches, asking them to explain what patches are intended to do, give a detailed account about changes made to users' systems, provide assurances that the files included were tested by named anti-malware products, suggest any possible downsides to applying their patches (form a security and functionality point of view), and so on? I think a set of guidelines along these lines would have some value for our community. It may be of little use to the wise among you. But for the less knowledgeable, and for the paranoid, it could provide reassurance, and maybe increase their understanding of patches. The feedback from users to authors would likely be more useful if users had a better understanding of their work. I can appreciate the (often thankless) painstaking, long hours of effort that goes into a programmer's work (I experience this myself sometimes). I don't mean to bash such folks. I applaud conscientious programmers. But however conscientious a programmer is, I'm not likely to install his or her product if he either can't or won't communicate to me what it is that I'm installing, and for what purpose. When it comes to installing anything, my default position is wariness. I need to be reassured somewhat as to the quality, effectiveness and reliability of the product before I'll even consider it. Any other evidence of the trustworthiness and intentions of the author is also massively persuasive. Thanks Rick, for providing some clarity to exactly the kind of issues that I think need to be aired. Perhaps they have been already aired here already - please correct me if I'm wrong. But if so, I haven't seen it, and that's why I ask the questions. There are members here far better placed than I am to provide useful answers to the security-related questions that arise from a project like KernelEX. Perhaps some sort of test case can be devised to see if a function vulnerable in NT, introduced to 9x by KernelEX, can be exploited on a 9x system, where before KernelEX was installed that system was not vulnerable. This goes without saying, clearly. No, please continue with the rant!

There is a distinction to be made between: the reliability and intentions of those individuals who make unofficial patches the patches themselves, including all files, modified or otherwise. Just for a moment, imagine that an unofficial patch was found to be 'compromised' in some way. It does not follow that the patch-maker intended it to be that way. It might be that the patch-maker has used files that are compromised, unknown to him/her - maybe because his/her own system is compromised. Also unintentionally, it might be that: Anyway, we can have some idea about the intentions of patch-makers, but can't really know for sure. It would help if we were all programmers with the time to study patches, or even if patch-makers went into more detail about their work (explaining for example how and why they made changes to a system file). The above point might seem a pedantic one. And yes: Yep, most any file could be 'compromised' to work in some way against users' interests, regardless of its origin - whether 'official' (like possible backdoors for example in Microsoft products), from a well-known vendor (like, say, Skype), or from a dedicated open-source project. One difference is that software produced by vendors like Microsoft, Skype, Mozilla, and, say, the VLC media player guys is under much more scrutiny and has much more testing by more (knowledgeable) users and contributors than patches posted here. The patches posted here do not have the same safeguard. How many people 'test' the updates posted here? @herbalist: I hear your concern about 'official' products, but I know of no evidence. Do you have any evidence to back up your suggestion that MS has inserted backdoors? And for what purpose? On the other hand, most of us believe that there is plenty of malware out there for which Microsoft can't reasonably be held responsible - although that could be a whole 'nother debate. Maybe MS has deliberately engineered Windows to be vulnerable, or is indirectly culpable via neglect? At least, I don't think MS is responsible for, say, the Sinowal/Torpig bank account-stealing trojan: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/31/si...l_trojan_heist/ Again, I'm not suggesting that any MSFN member has anything to do with malicious software! I have little reason, no evidence, but most of all, no desire to believe it. But I do have reason to question what exactly any update I apply to my system does, and what it's for. What I am suggesting, at least, is that patch authors reveal more about the patches they release. I think they should assume that we want to know about exactly what we're installing, including any changes made to system files. Then, the more knowledgeable, curious and time-rich among us could check them out if they wanted to. This would mean more work for patch-makers. If there is any other reason why more detail can't be supplied, please let us know. Understood. To make it clear: I have been a visitor to these forums for some time and have used many of the unofficial updates posted here. The 'risk' I'm trying to highlight is to do with security, rather than simply something that doesn't work. Leaving the names of any update out of it, I can easily think of arguments against the ones you outline above. Maybe MSFN is a good place to test malware out. If it gets past that relatively 'techie' audience, it's far more likely to thrive in the wild. Please come back at me with more arguments - I'd like to be wrong about this. Totally agree. Even if the maker made an innocent mistake, he has done no good to the chances of his pack being installed by many people. We have here the start of a possible set of criteria for the information that patch-makers should include with each patch, update pack or modification that they release. The more detail, the better.

Like just about everyone who visits these forums, I'm very grateful to all those folks who produce patches and modifications to extend the life of 9x. They've helped improve my computing life, no doubt. But a lot of trust and faith is involved in installing unofficial updates produced by individuals about whom, really, we know nothing - particularly when the updates include modified system files or files that modify system files. Many of the members here are not programmers, and would have little or no idea themselves about what exactly has been altered in a modified system file. I'm not suggesting that any person who has posted unofficial updates in these forums has, in doing so, malicious intentions - but it is a possibility. Perhaps more likely is the possibility that infected files might be unintentionally passed on to users through an unofficial patch, when a patch-maker's system is infected. Am I alone? Do you trust all the unofficial patches and modifications posted here 100%? If so, why?

Read closely. So, I did a quick search on the Patch Management Mailing List, and sure enough, there's a blurb about NT4 being vulnerable, and that a fix can be built for any customer who has a current Premier contract, and CSA and EHSA for NT4. I find no binaries (official or otherwise) listed anywhere on the searchable net. We have then, it seems, a different understanding of what "unofficial" means in this context. As far as I'm concerned, the channels you outline above for obtaining patches are not the only means of obtaining patches for systems no longer supported by Microsoft. The reason I say this is that, of course, Microsoft is not the sole source of patches for otherwise unsupported systems. Take the 9x community here for example. Members there regularly produce patches for 9x systems that are unofficial, insofar as they are derived from official MS patches not intended for 9x - from, say, an MS patch for Windows 2000. I think that it's with this kind of unofficial patch in mind that the poster asked the question (correct me if I'm wrong, Bleeder!). Anyway, more to the point: could anyone create an unofficial patch for NT4 based on, say, the MS Windows 2000 patch?

All very good information, but the poster asked about an unofficial patch.

Thanks for the latest batch of updates MDGx. Actually Quicktime Alternative 1.56 was the last version of for 98/98 SE/ME. QuickTime Alternative 1.90 requires XP and above (the last version for Windows 2000 was 1.80).

I agree with herbalist - sounds like you've got the unicode version. Meanwhile, have you tried to get your current version working by putting a copy of the file unicows.dll (the Microsoft Unicode Layer) into your CDex directory? Assuming you have the unicode layer already installed, you should find a copy in your System folder (usually c:\windows\system). Copy (don't move) it over, and let us know.

Sure. Many swear by Exact Audio Copy (EAC). I use CDex: http://cdexos.sourceforge.net/ The non-unicode version 1.70 (Beta 2) for 9x works fine. It's very light, highly customisable, and works great with the LAME MP3 encoder version 3.98 (but not 3.98.2 it seems): http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Lame_Encoder.htm (close CDex if open, download the latest LAME .zip file, extract from it the file lame_enc.dll, and then use it to replace the lame_enc.dll file in your CDex program directory). If you install it with LAME 3.98, I recommend that you go to Options > Settings > Encoder and, under Quality, choose "preset fast extreme". Under VBR Quality, "VBR 0" is the highest.

I tried to install this newer SCR579X.EXE on a 98 SE computer that had JSCRIPT.DLL 5.7.0.16535 and received the following error messages: WSCRIPT.EXE file is linked to missing export Kernel32.dll:GetUserDefaultUILanguage then: Error creating process <C:\windows\system\wscript.exe -regserver> Reason: A device attached to the system is not functioning. then, back in Windows immediately after rebooting: Error 429, ActiveX component can't create object in INIAccess.Read_INI This is not the first time I've had problems with a SCR579X.EXE installation. To the unsuspecting Windows 98 SE user, I recommend that they stick to Javascript/MSE 5.6/SCR569X.EXE, and stay clear of MSE 5.7. [edited to correct pre-install JSCRIPT version number]

Adobe Flash Player Adobe Flash Player 9.0.124.0 is the last version available for 98/98 SE/ME. Flash Player 10 (e.g. version 10.0.12.36) requires Windows 2000 or higher: http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewConten...1&sliceId=2 Adobe Flash Player 9.0.124.0 for Internet Explorer (direct download link): http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashpl...player_9_ax.exe Adobe Flash Player 9.0.124.0 for Mozilla, Opera, Non-IE, etc (direct download link): http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashpl...sh_player_9.exe

Adobe Flash Player 9.0.124.0 is the last version available for 98/98 SE/ME. Flash Player 10 (e.g. version 10.0.12.36) requires Windows 2000 or higher: http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewConten...1&sliceId=2

You can download MD's CU v.2.50 from MDGx's website: http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#MDC http://www.mdgx.com/spx/MDCU.ZIP

Yep, that's the version required. It's a shame that Opera couldn't bundle it with the browser. And wow - Opera 9.5 is incredibly slick and fast. It's such a good fit with Windows 98 SE (I'm yet to try it with 95 - thanks Mijzelf for your comment above).

You're right.SCHANNEL.DLL is ver 5.131.2133.2 on WinME. I took schannel.dll from WinME CD, renamed it to 128sc.dll and added it to cryptme.exe for completeness. * Unofficial Windows ME CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2133.6, CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.6072, CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2133.2, ENHSIG.DLL 5.00.1877.8, MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2195.6905, MSCAT32.DLL 5.131.2133.2, MSSIP32.DLL 5.131.2133.2, RSAENH.DLL 5.00.2133.2, SCHANNEL.DLL 5.131.2133.2, SOFTPUB.DLL 5.131.2133.2, WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2133.2 + XENROLL.DLL 5.131.3659.0 128-bit SSL Encryption Security Vulnerability Fixes: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms04-011.mspx Direct download [721 KB, English]: http://www.mdgx.com/files/CRYPTME.EXE Hi MDGx, I notice that you've also added 128sc.dll to your CRYPT9X.EXE package (intended for 98/98SE). But you have removed schannel.dll from it, too. Could you please explain the reasoning here? Do you intend for 128sc.dll to replace schannel.dll, for example? Just by way of comparison, Gape's USP3 installs schannel.dll.

Hmm, thanks for the reply. At the moment I have Windows 95B OSR 2.0 OEM installed on an old test board (not the board I had in mind when I asked my original question), with all updates that I'm aware of installed (the USBUP, etc.). I thought that installing all updates for 95B OSR2.0 effectively turns it into 95C OSR 2.5 (even though System Properties still says 95B). I also have a (really awful) 8 MB SiS AGP card installed on this test board, with the last drivers for that card. Video playback using higher than 16-bit colour is horribly discoloured (a card/driver limitation, I think), but otherwise I have 24-bit colour and 1024x resolution, without problems. When I come to trying Win95 with a NVidia card, perhaps extracting the NVidia files as you mention and installing the card only after all other updates have been applied will work... Thanks PassingBy, very helpful. I will try 82.69 first, and then revert to 61.76 if any issues that arise are unresolvable.

Eck (and anyone else!), what's your opinion on using this Win95 VXD driver with an AGP 3.0-compliant 8x slot? The VIA board I have has a KT600 chipset, and the card I'll use with it is an NVidia GeForce FX 5500 (256 MB), probably with MDGx's unofficial NVidia drivers.

Do these unofficial drivers work with Windows 95? Has anyone tried? The last 9x NVidia release supports AGP cards in Win95, apparently: http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_81.98.html Is there any reason to think that Win95 support is broken by 82.69? Hopefully I'll be able to give answers to these questions soon, if no-one else can (using an AGP card - GeForce FX 5500).