ivanbuto

Hmm, I'm not quite sure, but I was referring to this:http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/SVG_in_Firefox

If this project is successful, it should also resolve the SVG issues with Firefox and Windows 98, because they also have to do with Cairo. Furthermore, it could help other applications that use Cairo with Win9x compatibility, for example GTK+.

Sounds good, BenoitRen! I'm looking forward to your work.

IE 6? Ugh... You know, I thought I would start arguing, but there is no point. I see, LLXX, that thus far you have been rather skeptical and critical about this whole thing... which is OK, to each his/her own... however, I think it would be best to remain constructive and try to move things forward. That's why I don't even want to argue about IE/Opera/Firefox, and matters of that sort... As you have shown, you have some very good knowledge of programming, and should you choose to contribute, I am sure you would be very helpful...

Well, although it is likely Opera will keep support for Win9x for some time to come, you never know when they will cut it off. The power of open source is that anyone can contribute, i.e. there is an opportunity here with Firefox and continuing support for Win9x.

Great, BenoitRen, thanks for digging into this! It seems that as a start, it would be good to follow the proposal of Robert Callahan by doing the following: 1. Writing the file wincompat.h, which would define all the functions that are missing in Win 9x, including the ones that were modified by this patch. (Example given by R. Calahan: "PeekMessageW gets #defined to Win9x_PeekMessageW") This should include all the APIs present on the current 1.9 trunk that do not work on Windows 9x. It seems like this is mostly mechanical work, anyone with some knowledge of C++ programming could do it. 2. Writing the wrapper, by defining all the Win9x_functions. All the functions removed by the patch would simply be "put back" in this wrapper. This would be a great place to start, and could also attract the attention of Mozilla developers once it's finished. Additional functions which will need to be created for Win9x are some that exist in Cairo and that use APIs not available in Windows 9x. Thus far I know of the following: - GetGlyphIndicesA/W - UpdateLayeredWindow - AlphaBlend (not clear whether this one is needed) - SetWorldTransform I really believe this can be done. Just think about how great it would be to have Firefox 3 ready for Windows 98.

That's a horribly inefficient and roundabout way to do it... Why not just replace PeekMessageW with PeekMessageA and be done with it? Sometimes I really do question the intelligence of these open-source 'programmers'... I think part of the reason they suggest to do it in this way is that it's not just about the Unicode APIs. It's about some APIs used in Cairo which are entirely unimplemented in Windows 9x. It seems that so far there are only few such APIs (check the bugzilla thread for reference).

1. Yes. Again, people, please read the links and the stuff that has already been posted before making comments!! 2. Opinions may vary on this one. I, for one, can't judge. How difficult the effort would be can only be judged by somebody competent in C++ and programming.

If you had done some reading, you would know that the trunk no longer works on Windows 98. Please reread my initial post, and especially go over the stuff at bugzilla and in the mozillazine folders, before you make further comments and give out further advice.

It's nice that you keep posting these links, although also somewhat redundant IMO. The point of this whole thread should have been, and still is, to discuss Firefox 3 and Gecko 1.9 support for Windows 98. I have yet to witness a discussion in this regard.

Wow, Microsoft demonstrating its professionalism yet again.

K-Meleaon and its variations will have the same problem as Firefox and anything based on Gecko, if they will want to use Gecko 1.9.

Thanks for the tips. I fear that doing some of the above might be beyond my capabilities at this point, both knowledge-wise and time-wise. Still, I have to reiterate what I said earlier. The newer versions of DC++ are SUPPOSED to work on Windows 98, i.e. there should NOT be any missing functions. Missing functions came up when DC++ switched to Unicode, but this is exactly the purpose of the Microsoft Layer for Unicode, to enable Unicode applications to run on Win 9x. What we are talking about here, once again, are specific bugs that exist in the source code and that could be fixed IF someone identified WHERE the problem actually occurs. I started this thread specifically with this intent in mind - seeing if someone who can at least understand how MSLU is implemented and who can at least do a basic reading of the source code might be willing to dig into it and try to figure it out. Maybe doing so is very difficult - it's beyond my ability to judge this. Somehow I actually believe the fixes would not be anything major to code.

LLXX, please rethink what you are saying. You can always say "use an older version", to any piece of software. That's not what this is about. Not to mention the newer versions have various features that the old ones don't, and some hubs now do not accept users with 0.4x versions of DC++ anymore. The point is various applications implement MSLU correctly (including, for example, the recent VLC Media Player 0.8.5, or Microsoft's own Windows Media Player, etc.), but there are some bugs in the newer versions of DC++ that cause problems on Windows 98. These are bugs which by all means should be fixed - if someone can figure out why the problems are happening. This is why I posted the links to the source code - I was hoping one of you capable programmers could look into the issues, and perhaps figure out what needs to be changed. The developers of DC++ have pretty much given up on fixing the issues with Windows 9x, therefore the only way things are gonna get fixed is if someone else can do it! Thanks for your consideration, Ivan

Hmm, crashes on my machine upon opening, and so does StrongDC++. Anyway, even if these worked, they are all based on DC++, therefore they will NOT have the issues I talked about resolved.

Attention especially to LLXX, Xeno86, or other capable programmers on this forum. Some of you may be familiar with the file-sharing protocol and application DC++. Since version 0.4033, the application was changed to provide full Unicode functionality; however, this has caused some crashes and bugs on Windows 9x systems. Please refer to these links for more info: http://dcpp.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15649 http://dcpp.net/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=356 The programmers of DC++ have not been able to figure out why there are problems on Windows 9x, and how to fix those problems. There are problems such as the application crashing on opening file lists, the inner windows not having proper close/minimize/restore buttons, the menus not responding to mouse movements, garbled characters upon startup, etc. It is most likely that the problems have to do with an incorrect reference or implementation of the Microsoft Layer for Unicode (MSLU). I would thus like to ask some programmers in this forum whether they could look at the source code for DC++ and figure out the problematic parts. I am actually assuming that these might be pretty simple fixes. I am always available to tell you when exactly the application crashes, if it helps in figuring out what specific part in the source code the crashes relate to. You can download the source code here: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/dcplusplus/?download I recommend downloading version 0.674, NOT the later ones, because they tried to work around it by using OpenCow instead of MSLU, but they did not implement that correctly, and it still uses MSLU anyway. It would certainly be nice to have DC++ fully functional on Windows 98, and would be another "battle won" for Windows 98 users and this operating system. Ivan

When you look at http://www.free-codecs.com/download/FFDShow.htm, indeed the 2006-07-16 version does give the error message and does not want to install on Windows 98. (The SSE or SSE2 versions work. Also note that the non-SSE version is bigger in size, like 4 MB.) You can also go to this site for a version that works on Windows 98, and then of course the site given by LLXX.

Thanks again for the tip, LLXX. Now, if some of you feel like reading some light entertainment (the suject being the capabilities of tech support representatives, such as competence, the ability to read properly and the ability to comprehend written text), here you go: ---------- Your Question/Problem: Hi, I bought a Sandisk 1 GB Ultra II SD Plus card. I could not find a driver for Windows 98 SE on your website, and I am thus unable to use it as a USB device. I thought I would be able to use this on Windows 98, based on the information posted at http://www.everythingusb.com/sandisk_ultra...plus_512mb.html. Could you please provide a driver for me to use? Thank you, Ivan SanDisk Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Hello Ivan, Thank you for contacting SanDisk Technical Support. Unfortunately this card does not support windows 98, you can contact microsoft for usb mass storage drivers in order to possibly get the card working. Sincerely, Ingo L. SanDisk Technical Support Your Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Hi Ingo, making this card work under Windows 98 SE was as easy as adding the following two lines into the appropriate sections of C:\Windows\INF\geneuide.inf: [General] %USB\VID_0781&PID_6100.DeviceDesc%=USBLS120.Dev,USB\VID_0781&PID_6100 [strings] USB\VID_0781&PID_6100.DeviceDesc="SanDisk Ultra SD Plus" SanDisk could provide a driver for download by simply spending a few minutes and editing the already existing driver for the Cruzer USB flash drives appropriately! Best regards, Ivan SanDisk Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Hello, Thank you for contacting SanDisk Technical Support. It has been my pleasure to assist you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us again. We appreciate your interest in SanDisk products. Best Regards, Ingo L. SanDisk Technical Support Your Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Hi again, I would appreciate if you could forward our correspondence and my suggestion of providing drivers to the appropriate department of your company. There is no reason not to provide drivers for older systems in a case like this, where the costs of doing so are trivial. Not all customers can figure out how to manually get this card to work, and it's safe to assume that there are some customers out there (not only in the United States) who would want to use this on a Windows 98 based system. Best regards, Ivan SanDisk Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Hello Ivan, Thank you for contacting SanDisk Technical Support. Our cruzers only work on 98 SE and up here is the driver. Sincerely, Ingo L. SanDisk Technical Support Please refer to the following link(s). Cruzer family 98SE driver Please refer to Link http://www.sandisk.com/assets/File/tech/do...98se-driver.exe Your Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Dear Ingo, you have apparently misunderstood my message. Once again, I am not asking for any drivers from you. I am asking you to let the people in your company know that they should provide drivers for this SD Ultra II Plus Card for Windows 98 SE, because, as I documented, it is a trivial task to do so and it would benefit customers with those configurations. Ivan SanDisk Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Hello Ivan, Thank you for contacting SanDisk Technical Support. Unfortunately we do not support The Ultra cards on any OS lower then XP, therefore we dont have drivers for the cards. Sincerely, Ingo L. SanDisk Technical Support Your Response: (06/29/2006 07:25) Ingo, I will try this one last time. I KNOW you don't have drivers because you TOLD me. I documented to you how easy it is to get the card to work under Windows 98, although it is officially "unsuppported" under such configuration. Therefore, I am suggesting that your company SHOULD support this card for operating systems lower than XP, because there is no technical reason why this couldn't be done, and it would be at most a couple of minuted of somebody's work to provide the drivers and post them for download. If you do not understand what I am trying to say, can you at least please forward this to the appropriate department of your company that is in charge of support policies, or could you give me a direct contact for them? Thank you, Ivan SanDisk Response: (06/29/2006 08:00) Hello Ivan, Thank you for contacting SanDisk Technical Support. We have considered and evaluated supporting windows 98 on our cards and have concluded we will not do so since we are trying to move away from older and obsolete operating systems. Sincerely, Ingo L. SanDisk Technical Support

Thanks for your responses. I already have several UMS drivers installed. I am pasting the contents of my geneuide.inf file from C:\WINDOWS\INF at the bottom of this message. Unfortunately, currently it does not work in order to recognize the USB SD card. I wonder, if I wanted to somehow add this device to the list, how would I find out what it's device ID is? Is this a hardware thing? Also, would the USB entries in the registry (under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\USB and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\USB\) need to be added manually, or are those written during the driver installation process? ---------- UPDATE - SUCCESS! I identified the Hardware ID via Lavalys Everst Home Edition to be "USB\VID_0781&PID_6100&REV_9144,USB\VID_0781&PID_6100". I subsequently installed the USB driver successfully by simply adding the following two lines to C:\Windows\INF\geneuide.inf: [General] %USB\VID_0781&PID_6100.DeviceDesc%=USBLS120.Dev,USB\VID_0781&PID_6100 [strings] USB\VID_0781&PID_6100.DeviceDesc="SanDisk Ultra SD Plus" I found that all the registry entries were subsequently created by Windows, including entries under: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\USB HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\USBSTOR\DISK HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum\SCSI HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\DiskDrive HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\hdc HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\USB Kind of ridiculous that SanDisk would make this product officially "unsupported" for Windows 98!! Ivan

Hi everyone, I recently purchased the following product: http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Default.aspx?CatID=1119 It's basically a SD memory card for digital cameras, with the advantage that it can also be directly plugged into the USB port. I was under the impression that SanDisk had drivers for Windows 98, but unfortunately they do not. This is the response that I got from their tech support: "Thank you for contacting SanDisk Technical Support. Unfortunately this card does not support windows 98, you can contact microsoft for usb mass storage drivers in order to possibly get the card working." I wonder: - Is the USB mass storage driver the file C:\WINDOWS\INF\geneuide.inf? I tried to manually use this file as the driver, but Windows wouldn't take it. - How difficult would it be to write a driver for this card, or what modifications would one need to make to the geneuide.inf file work? - If I wanted to use Maximum Decim's package, would I need to remove all my current USB devices from the registry? Thanks for any help, Ivan

Before people start posting in this thread, they should perhaps actually read through it and take a few minutes to look at some information. Firefox 2 is NOT based on Gecko 1.9, it's based on a 1.8 branch. In order for Windows 98 to be able to run anything that's based on 1.9, it will require some coding work to substitute for missing APIs. For more recent discussions about these issues, see also the following: http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=8887 http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archiv...me_support.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archiv...ox_2_updat.html

Yes, the intent of this thread was to get a community going that would continue to provide Win9x builds of Firefox, which is already done for some other OS's. Also, Firefox 2.0 will still work on Windows 98.

Yes, the recent Alpha 3 release of FF 2.0 has the new installer, and it indeed works fine, including installing and uninstalling shorcuts properly.

That is why the official builds won't support Windows 98 anymore. However, no reason why not to have a branch of Win9x compatible builds, so that people with older machines can use the latest Firefox stuff and improvements in internet technology. Well, how long "should" a computer be living? I don't like if someone tells me that my computer shouldn't live anymore, just because it's seven years old, and just because I don't see the point of having a throw away and replace mentality.Additionally, the problem is that this "should be living" is determined by all kinds of factors, some of them having to do with politics and money. (See for example the reason why Adobe 7 or MSN Messenger 7.5 won't run on Windows 98.) That being said, I don't think anyone is disputing some of the limitations of Win9x here. Agreed!

Tihiy, would you be able to write the patch refered to here? How difficult would something like that be? Then, in a separate file, one would need to implement the functions. Currently it's those two, but I think they eventually plan to remove all "unnecessary" Win9x code from the official source code. For the Unicode functions, MSLU would have to be used, or Mozilla's MZLU/opencow. I'm not sure whether the "compatibility library" for Win9x would essentially be an extension and continuation of the MZLU project. I'm trying to get an answer in bugzilla.