Jump to content

bristols

Member
  • Posts

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Everything posted by bristols

  1. You can find it in the Windows 95 Service Pack 1 Update: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/143003 ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/SETUP.EXE Also just FYI, there's an unofficial v4.00.953 EXPLORER.EXE that incorporates Dr Hoiby's 256 Colour Icons patch: http://www.mdgx.com/files/explor9x.php http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPLOR95.EXE Hope your exams went well!
  2. Welcome back MDGx! Notwithstanding everyone else's efforts here, you've been missed. The latest release of 98SE2ME is more than 1 MB larger than the previous one. How come (just out of interest)? Would that just be the addition of IRPROPS.CPL and IRFTP.EXE? (Also, I've sent you a PM.)
  3. Last Version: 1.31.437 Download from: http://filehippo.com/download_recuva/changelog/6294/ Hi, I just try the lastest version 1.32.444 from yesterday on 2 pc (one running KerneEX et the other without KernelEX) and it work well on both That's great. Thanks for your report.
  4. Seems that the last version of Avast Home Edition for 9x is 4.8.1356. At least, the Program Update option in 4.8.1356 does not work on 98 SE, meaning that there's no update to version 4.8.1358. Edit: My mistake. I took too much notice of an announcement on Filehippo of a new version of Avast Home. ONGD - FREE - Avast! 4 Home (4.8.1367) --- http://www.avast.com
  5. @Tihiy: Is your modded MSIMG32.DLL (5.00.2218.1 (KernelEx special version), that was included with older versions of KernelEx) included in the latest version? If not, is it still available anywhere else? I found that it solved various problems with Opera 10: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=890772 My thanks for that! (I don't have any version of KernelEx installed.)
  6. I've just replaced the Windows ME version of MSIMG32.DLL (5.00.2218.1 - having previously replaced the version that ships with 98 SE) with the modded version included with an old version of KernelEx (version 0.3.6, I think). Doing this fixed the issues in the following Opera bug report: GDI resources seem far more stable. No noticeable side-effects yet. I'm not sure whether the modded MSIMG32.DLL is still available for download. Tihiy, Xeno86, anyone?
  7. Last version for 98/98 SE/ME (?): RECUVA (freeware) http://www.recuva.com/ Last Version: 1.31.437 Download from: http://filehippo.com/download_recuva/changelog/6294/
  8. All calm here. ;-) Thanks for pointing that out, dencorso. Obviously I wasn't paying enough attention. (Maybe I'll leave that aforementioned on-hold website project on-hold for a bit longer.)
  9. No, he doesn't say that he is closing his site. On his homepage, next to the links to both his 98/ME and 95 pages, is the following message: I take it that this means that he will remove these pages, rather than stop updating them (maybe Erp will clarify here if he sees this thread). He gives no reason there for this decision. Anyway, regardless of that, I've been thinking of compiling a comprehensive 9x site for some time (drawing on the knowledge and work of others almost exclusively in terms of any links and information it will carry). This site I would set out in as clear and logical way as I can. I would try to make it a bit easier on the eye than an unadorned text-heavy list of links (although, since the site I envisage consists of lots of text-heavy lists of links, I might not achieve anything else ). It'll only happen if I: a. get enough time at it, and b. feel that it brings something to 9x users that well-known existing sites don't A combination of those two conditions being unfulfilled is why I put the idea on hold some time ago.
  10. Mmm, me too. Especially since it seems that unfortunately Erpman (MSFN user erpdude8) will take his 98/ME and 95 pages down later this year (no idea why): http://erpman1.tripod.com/ This is something I almost embarked upon a couple of years back. I still have some preliminary HTML I wrote for a future 9x site.
  11. So it's not this that you're looking for?: http://downloads.videolan.org/pub/videolan....0-test2/win32/ http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48286 Edit: this from the above forum page:
  12. For the second time: no, I did not say that, and I certainly do not mean that. You have (I guess) misunderstood. Please go back and re-read.
  13. And I was going to ask eidenk if he would kindly do this. Pity. (apologies for the off-topic)
  14. The only difference between the two is that you have to close every element in XHTML if it's sent with the proper MIME type. It is not the only difference. For example, elements and attributes have to be lowercase in XHTML. In HTML, you can have one or the other or both. And you're wrong regarding the condition that it be sent with the proper MIME type. The W3C Validator faults uppercase element and attributes names, and unclosed elements, regardless of whether the page is served as text or XHTML. You misunderstand and make an incorrect attribution to me. Of course (and this was my point), HTML does not require the degree of well-formedness of XHTML to be standards-compliant. It can mix cases, for example, and yet still be 100% compliant. I code standards-compliant sites using both HTML and XHTML, and on the whole do not see that one deserves my loyalty over the other. My concern is with building accessible, standards-compliant, semantically- and (where possible) economically-coded sites. If you bother to read the spec, you'll see that 2022 is jokingly referred to be the year when IE supports HTML5. I don't wholly endorse the article I linked to. Indeed, neither does it's author (it would seem). Perhaps you've read the comments in which he and Ian Hickson lend some clarity to the 2022 date. The thrust of the article is sound though - that XHTML 1 is a perfectly stable, mature, and usable standard. Perhaps I should have made the context the article was written in clearer. No doubt you've read the XHTML 5 spec, then. Maybe you'll be happy to learn that the author of the article I linked to - Jeffrey Zeldman, along with a few friends - has since warmed to XHTML 5: http://www.zeldman.com/superfriends/ I'm really glad that I don't share your agitation with serving XHTML as text. While you do have a point regarding the MIME type, I think such agitation misses a larger point (although, actually, I can't pretend that I really know what the effective consequences of your point are. Please explain if you have the time). Could you explain your assertion that using XHTML instead of HTML means that a developer is focusing less on semantically-rich web pages? HTML vs XHTML is a trifle. Compliant and semantic code is far more important.
  15. *facepalm* That article is not completely without merit, but the author presents some straw-man arguments to support his conclusion. Who claims that XHTML 1.0 Transitional is "the latest standard"? No-one I have heard or read. Clearly it is not. He's correct that you can choose to be as strict in HTML as you are in XHTML. Of course you can. The difference is, in terms of standards compliance, XHTML 1.0 Strict (forgetting any transitional doctype, be it HTML or XHTML) requires it. HTML does not - there is a margin for coding inconsistencies (not necessarily errors, but inconsistencies) in HTML that does not exist in XHTML. The author neglects to mention this - probably because this fact doesn't serve his message that we should all say "just say no to XHTML". You can be strict with HTML. Fine, I like HTML 4.01 Strict. As with XHTML. Why the dogma? For an article putting the contrary point of view, take a look at Zeldman's In defense of web developers. (apologies to everyone for the off-topic)
  16. Like some others I have had problems with Opera 10's resources usage. I'm not sure if a leak in Flash had anything to do with them, but I found that things improved significantly when the standard skin, special effects and smooth scrolling were disabled. Pity, it's a nice skin, and I like Jon Hicks (a senior designer at Opera responsible for it). Has anyone tried Opera 10 with Tihiy's modded msimg32.dll (which, I think, ships with KernelEx) and noticed a difference?
  17. You make all kinds of assumptions, all in favour of yourself, you give no-one but yourself any credit, and you're rude. It took calling you on your attitude (which was completely uncalled for, and yet fairly common from non-9x users here) to even get any facts out of you. Since you are so fond of facts - no doubt you are a real defender of truth and, I dare say, a hero - you should know that facts and knowledge ought to be shared, not kept for the sole exclusive bragging rights of individuals. Of course, I did ask you to substantiate your assertions (preferably with facts), more than I called you on your attitude. In response, you asked whether you need to bother to substantiate your assertions: It is exactly posts like this that start the flame wars in these forums so complained about by mods. @Mods: please take note.
  18. Lmao, right from the start you show how much you know about OS development in general and Vista in particular. Then you show how little you know about programming in general. You expect anyone to take you seriously? @Leo Natan: Unless you explain and elaborate upon your comments in this thread - for those not as 'skilled' as you clearly think you are - then your input is useless. If you can explain, please do so, and show some respect while you're doing it. If you can't - or won't - then refrain from posting here. Bye.
  19. Apologies if my post came across as a bit blunt. In no way do I mean to disrespect Gape & MDGx, who were fine moderators back when they were active and who have made a truly great contribution to keeping 9x alive (at times, seemingly almost single-handedly). The issue I'm addressing here seems to me to be an elephant in the room (or in the forum). Neither Gape nor MDGx have been here for months. Perhaps no-one here knows why; I do hope they're both OK and are simply too busy (I'd be sorry to hear that they've lost interest). But we need a moderator to be around more often. I'm not suggesting that either Gape or MDGx should be replaced as moderators. I assume that the forum could have an additional moderator.
  20. Any takers? (I ask without having looked into the procedure regarding how mods are appointed...)
  21. MDGx, Your home page says that 98SE2ME was updated 06-25-2009 (but on your site's 98SE2ME page itself, that it was updated April 12 2009). The date given at the top of this thread, however, is 2-14-2009. Could you explain which date I should take to indicate when the 98SE2ME executable was updated, and what the other dates refer to (if anything - such as a simple update to the content of the 98SE2ME page)? At the moment, it's confusing. Thank you.
  22. Just a note to MDGx (although he seems to have been away from these forums for a long time ): Some of the Visual Studio/Visual C++/Visual Basic updates listed at your site's URL below have been superceded: http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#VS6 The Visual Basic 6.0 (VB6) SP6 update (VB60SP6-KB926857-x86-ENU.msi) has been replaced by VB60SP6-KB957924-v2-x86-ENU.msi, here: KB article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/957924 Download: http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/6...-v2-x86-ENU.msi Would it be possible for you to recompile your Unofficial VS6 SP6 Runtime + ActiveX Controls Libraries (DLLs) update to include the updated files from KB957924?
  23. Really? I looked over that page but didn't find such a patch...maybe I've missed it. =( It's here: http://ctuser.net/download.php?win98pro,sh...patch_0504a.zip From this web page: http://ctuser.net/content/docs/win98pro_en.htm
  24. I intend to try SH95UPD with Windows 95. Looking forward to doing so. In the future, would it be possible to implement the USER32.DLL function MonitorFromRect? Doing so would allow the wonderful Quintessential Media Player version 5 (latest) to work in Windows 95: http://www.quinnware.com/ This function exists already in Windows 98. I realise that you are not focused on providing a Shell update for Windows 95, and I'm not sure about all the implications of what I'm asking for Windows 98/98 SE/ME, but like Advanced User I'd really love to see a KernelEx for Windows 95.
  25. As I said earlier, Flash is not part of the web. It's a cancer. Ridiculous hyperbolic language. I don't like Flash much, either. But, like it or not, Flash is part of the web. It is used to deliver web content.
×
×
  • Create New...