bristols
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bristols
-
-
98SE2ME · UPDATED · 11-12-2009
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.)
0 -
Last version for 98/98 SE/ME (?):
RECUVA (freeware)
...a freeware Windows utility to restore files that have been accidentally deleted from your computer.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.
0 -
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
0 -
@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=&...st&p=890772
My thanks for that!
(I don't have any version of KernelEx installed.)
0 -
Has anyone tried Opera 10 with Tihiy's modded msimg32.dll (which, I think, ships with KernelEx) and noticed a difference?
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:
Version: 10.10Build: 1844
Operating system: Windows 98
Platform: PC
Summary: Default Tab Bar background image disappears, reappears in Windows Native skin
Steps to reproduce
===================
1.Switch the browser skin to Windows Native.
2. Hover your cursor over the New Tab button on the Tab Bar, or the Close Tab cross on any open tab, or the Closed Tabs button on the Tab Bar. Move from one to the other.
3. If, having hovered one of the above, nothing happens, moving the cursor away from it usually triggers the behaviour.
Expected result
===============
All being well I expect the Tab Bar's background gradient image should remain constant, regardless of whether the browser window loses focus, or any of the above buttons are focused.
Actual result
=============
Depending upon the order in which you hover over the various buttons above, you will see the Tab Bar's gradient background image appear in its entirety, disappear, or appear only partially (e.g., it doesn't span the full length of the Tab Bar). When the browser window loses focus, the background gradient disappears entirely, leaving a grey coloured image slightly off in hue from the Windows native grey colour.
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?
0 -
Last version for 98/98 SE/ME (?):
RECUVA (freeware)
...a freeware Windows utility to restore files that have been accidentally deleted from your computer.Last Version: 1.31.437
Download from: http://filehippo.com/download_recuva/changelog/6294/
0 -
Calm down, everybody, take long breaths, and then read again ERPMan's Homepage: http://erpman1.tripod.com/
It's pretty clear that our good erpdude8 will just transfer the 9x/ME and NT 4.0 pages from the "Current Pages" section to the newly created "Archived Pages" section and stop updating them. He will *not* take them down.
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.)
0 -
What, Erpman closing his site? Mamma mia, how shall we survive this?
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:
will be discontinued Dec. 25, 2009I 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.
0 -
I was considering making one my self
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):
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.
0 -
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:
This release will not work with Windows 98/ME and Mac OS X 10.3.9 (Panther)0 -
You said XHTML requires standards compliance, and HTML doesn't. I assumed that you were talking about the check for well-formedness by the web browser upon parsing an XHTML document, which is only done when sent with the proper MIME type.
If you're not talking about that, how does XHTML require standards compliance and HTML doesn't?
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.
0 -
Leave me another couple of days and I'll upload an enhanced GimPhoto with all the very good plugins and scripts that aren't already included with it.
And I was going to ask eidenk if he would kindly do this. Pity.
(apologies for the off-topic)
0 -
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 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.
That you don't have to in HTML does not mean it doesn't require standards compliance. Or are you referring to something else?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.
By the way, half of that article you linked is hyperbole with misinformation. For instance, it says:So Ian Hickson, XHTML’s biggest critic, fathered HTML 5, an action-oriented toddler specification that won’t reach adulthood until 2022, although some of it can be used today.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/
The dogma exists because instead of focusing on semantically rich web pages, people pick up XHTML, praise its draconian error handling that forces well-formedness, and then serve it with the wrong MIME type so it's essentially HTML4 with some invalid attributes and weird forward slashes. It completely misses the point.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.
0 -
That said, my site is XHTML 1.0 Strict
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)
0 -
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?
0 -
It is interesting how you guys only comment on my style of posting, which is aggressive, sure, but has all the facts correct. Instead of thinking critically, checking when the guy writes, you cry about attitude. Maybe you guys don't like facts, or the idea of learning something new, or digging for information might seem like huge no-noes to you, but to me these are the most important things. Maybe none of you care about the facts, after all, the dude has posted something that fits your way of thinking, so hey, who cares about the facts or the truth, right?
"Right reason", what is that exactly? Getting along with everyone, regardless of what they say? Posting happy smiles after every word? Here you go:
:) For me right reasons are correcting misleading information first and foremost. Not being politically correct with a bunch of people I don't even know.
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:
Do I really need to elaborate? Really? Google has all the answersIt is exactly posts like this that start the flame wars in these forums so complained about by mods. @Mods: please take note.
0 -
I have been stunned when i realized that whole Vista is programmed in .net C#.
Lmao, right from the start you show how much you know about OS development in general and Vista in particular.
.net C#. that makes vista bit more efficientThen 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.
0 -
Although probably not the best place to ask this question, Bristols has a point in that Gape and MDGx both are not as active as they used to be, particularly Gape who I believe had some health problems. The lack of moderation is probably partly more evident because of spam from a particular person. That being said they were great Moderators of this Section when they were active.
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.
0 -
Any takers?
(I ask without having looked into the procedure regarding how mods are appointed...)
0 -
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.
0 -
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?
0 -
Controller has a 95 shell update that fixes this...
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:
0 -
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:
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.
0 -
The OS/browser check is all embedded in Flash, so it's impossible to just load the page source and search for a hole to squeeze through.
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.
0
).
):
Shell 95 Update Project (SH95UPD)
in Windows 9x Member Projects
Posted
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!