Drugwash

I don't get that behavior here with sndvol.exe 4.10.1998 on 98SE. All the calls are original as mentioned in first post. However I had edited the GUI many years ago to display a horizontal slider instead of the original vertical one. Theoretically this shouldn't affect the behavior but M$ works in mysterious ways... If you want a hotkey-driven OSD volume application, check out VolOSD at my repository (see signature below).

Some ISA cards used to have jumpers that allowed changing some parameters. You'd need the manual to find out how to operate them. If (and only if) you have an AWARD BIOS, you may try to press Ctrl+F1 at the main BIOS screen. If the screen flickers for a split second, you'll see a few hidden settings in certain sections and maybe - just maybe - it will allow you to change the USB and/or ISA IRQ so that it won't be shared anymore. The motherboard manual may also show which IRQs are shared and how, so that moving the card(s) to other slot(s) may fix such issues. Sound cards also used to come with (DOS) configuration applications where one could set up Memory address, IRQ, DMA. Such application would automatically configure autoexec.bat with the BLASTER environment variable required by DOS applications/games. if you don't have the configuration apps and/or drivers, please offer more details on the sound card so that someone here could provide them for you. As a last resort, try to find another sound card that would (hopefully) use other IRQ or would at least have the configuration application.

I do have a Diamond Xtreme driver and it's actually installed on my 98SE machine. Apparently it also works for generic C-Media CMI 8738 sound cards, because mine is one of those and the driver works just fine. Actually I have a whole bunch of drivers from Diamond Multimedia, downloaded sometime in April 2009, one of them (Diamond DT-588) listing NT4.0/95/98/ME/2000/XP compatibility.

Maybe the video driver (the .inf, more exactly) can be edited to add nonstandard (at the time) resolutions such as 16:9, the way it was/is with the unofficial 82.69 driver. A 64MB video card should theoretically be able to go as high as 1866x1050x32bit with the proper driver but it's always a matter of native monitor resolution. Ironic how the newest technology keeps crippling the abilities of the devices - put two monitors side by side, a CRT and an LCD/LED,throw the same 640x480 picture on both and see which one displays better. Can't help with the other issues but LoneCrusader seems to be on the right track. Good luck!

Tried to compile the code in the Easy 7-zip source package under VC6 but got a lot of errors. Some may be fixable but I'm not sure about the ASM ones, that's a bit beyond my rusty knowledge. No idea what's x64 conditions doing in a supposedly x86 code section (folder), for example.

Have you tried the others, older, uploaded with 9.31 at my repository? Anyway, I just tried opening a couple of text files from an XPI archive (a Firefox addon which is actually a plain zip archive) with 9.31 alpha and they opened fine in Metapad (which I installed as Notepad replacement by renaming it to notepad.exe). Right-click file > 7-Zip > Open archive. Also it opened an XML file from a 7z archive in the same Metapad by choosing 'View' from the context menu after opening the archive the same way as in previous example. So it may depend on archive type, text viewer or even system files.

OK, you got lucky. 7-zip v9.31 alpha is here, along with other "missing links", but they're only for historical purposes, since alpha versions may be unstable/incomplete/buggy (as stated in the README.txt). Enjoy! EDIT: Heck, this is what happens when one doesn't refresh the page before posting... No problem, the more the merrier - I hate it when a file is available in a unique place and all so-called hosts do nothing but link to that file, which when pulled by the manufacturer leaves the people in complete blackout.

That might be a little hard. I've lost my main machine twice and the HDDs that stored the downloads (including the 7-zip versions) are now scattered around the house, unconnected. I'll try to find the right one, maybe I manage to connect it to a secondary machine and grab the file. It may take a while. Will post back.

No crash here with Firefox 9.0.1 on wunderground.com. However, a few icons at the bottom-left are not displayed (Like, +1, Tweet, Pin, Follow), neither does the icon in the Search button or the two in the top toolbar and a few others on specific pages. Possibly those on icons.wxug.com that don't get loaded when webfonts are disabled. Loblo's fonts are all installed here. So apparently it's more of an Opera+fonts issue. But the more reports, the closer to the truth.

Yeah... about 7-zip, that was known a while ago already. 9.31 was the very last version compatible with 9x. AFAIK it has been officially released for a while, I do have it installed on my 98SE machine, but I never got the corresponding sources. I've also built an updated version of the Total Commander 7-zip archiver plug-in, an ANSI version based on the 9.20 beta sources that allows (de)compression using LZMA2. It can be found at my repository (see signature below).

Apparently the guys at Seagate, after having bought out Maxtor a while ago, decided to use the old technique that has failed certain Maxtor series long time ago, most notably the N40P: part of the firmware in the chip and part on the platter(s). Incidentally I had a failure with a N40P recently and turned to the HDDGuru guys for help, which I obviously never got. For ATA drives there were a few tools (I used HDD Repair 2.0) but I know of none that can work with SATA/II/III. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that - as noticed by some users already - replacing the PCB would be useless since the firmware's modules on the platter(s) would not match those on the PCB. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to help in this case, as I couldn't even fix my N40P (which belongs to a friend, actually).

I'm glad it works for you too. Welcome at MSFN!

Which msvcrt version exactly? Is it a regular one or a renamed msvcr70?

Yes, I noticed their internal name is missing/garbled. However, I wonder how the site recognizes them for a regular operation - only by link? Type Light (which I installed earlier thanks to your links) can rename a font internally so we can fix them. Indeed, the shape is important to some extent but the contents is the most important, after all. EDIT: Those DDG ProximaNova fonts look like ¤% when size is under 18pt, no matter what I try (gfx.use_text_smoothing_setting disabled/enabled). I must force 'minimum font size' to 18, which blows everything out of proportions. well, back to using own nice fonts...

Yes, I know all of this, I understand it at a very deep level and it kills me that nothing can be done by the regular people (like you and I) to change things for the best. We could talk forever about standards, options, openness, choice, whatever but those in charge will only do what their narrow minds tell them to do, regardless of our opinions. And you know what happens when one pi$$es against the wind...

Thank you for your efforts! I went ahead and based on the names I had previously gathered in EOT format I downloaded the corresponding TTF versions. There are six of them: ddg-serp-icons.ttf ddg-static-icons.ttf ProximaNova-Light-webfont.ttf ProximaNova-RegIt-webfont.ttf ProximaNova-Reg-webfont.ttf ProximaNova-Sbold-webfont.ttf After placing them all in the Windows\Fonts folder and refreshing its contents (important!), everything looks fine now. Nevertheless - what are we supposed to do when each site will use its own (maybe proprietary) version of a font that we don't have a local replacement for? This is getting out of hand!

Thank you, Charles, I had read that topic before but not very carefully. After disabling downloadable fonts (and installing the fonts in loblo's package), the text on DuckDuckGo's results page is displayed correctly and so are the glyphs at Font Awesome (had that font already installed but wasn't working). Unfortunately there still are a few elements on the DuckDuckGo page that won't show correctly, namely the magnifiying glass on the 'go' button at the top, the X on the 'stop' button that appears when hovering the 'go' button and the menu button at the top-right (see screenshot: above XP, below 98SE). Those are also glyph fonts (DDG_ProximaNova). There are a few replacement families in the CSS but the optimum ones (ProximaNova) are not free. The widespreading usage of webfonts is making browsing more and more difficult. The EOT fonts that could be grabbed from IE's temporary folders are unfortunately not convertible, or at least I couldn't find a way (read: offline application, at least) to do it. I also tried to copy the EOT fonts to <FF profile>\extensions\font as I read somewhere long ago, to no avail (haven't restarted Firefox yet). (fixed a minor typo)

Just state the requirements and we'll see what we can do. I already got a test machine with the new KEx and it also has FF 9 and 10 installed.

Thank you, it kinda narrows the issue down to 98(SE) vs ME, at least apparently. I really, really wonder if a CJK Windows 9x does experience such issues, because I suspect it's only Unicode vs ANSI here and those versions may be more resiliant to this.

Thanks for the feedback. Do you have KernelEx installed/enabled (for Firefox)? I have the official 4.5.2 installed and running in Default compatibility mode. I wonder what exactly could be the cause of this misbehavior...

Thank you so much for those fonts, loblo! The Internet has become a filthy dump where nothing useful or of quality can be found anymore, not without (heavy) payment or intrusive and shameless advertising. I've been experiencing the same issue as Nomen with Firefox 9.0.1 on 98SE. Unfortunately I can't find the proper settings. If I go to Menu > Options > Content > Fonts & Colors > Advanced > Allow pages to choose their own fonts [...] and enable it, most or all of the text becomes a random series of (capital) letters. if I disable it and go to FontAwesome homepage, for example, the icon fonts won't be displayed, although that particular font is installed. Even with your whole collection of fonts installed, it won't work. Actually it won't work with that setting either disabled or enabled. Default character encoding is set to Unicode (UTF-8), which has an impact on reading/saving some settings files for the current profile and it's best not to tamper with. Does anybody have a working solution for Firefox 9.x on a 9x system...?

Please get to a usable, stable version soon so I can compile and share it. Today I had a fight with an adult ostrich and he won. I'm still alive but next time I may not be that lucky. No, I'm not kidding (this time).

Maybe 256MB of video RAM are too much for this particular hardware configuration. It would explain why it works with lower-end videocards (assumingly with less video RAM). Which means the 6200 card itself may not be faulty but just inappropriate for this system. Also, as I mentioned to Dave-H in another topic, each card may use different memory ranges and IRQs. Try to manually change configurations in Device Manager > Display > ... , if allowed (and reboot afterwards). AGP aperture, video IRQ assignment and other possibly related settings in BIOS should also be revised and tweaked as necessary. Just write down the original settings before you change anything (for both BIOS and Device Manager) in case anything goes wrong, so you can restore them.

There's always a skeleton in the closet. Maybe you should build yourself a secondary machine for a specific purpose, such as video capturing, using perfectly compatible hardware and software, leaving the currently troublesome one to its own tasks with its own compatible hardware and software. Connect the two through a switch or router and you're a happy camper. Unless there are more skeletons in your closet...

Well, you may try to fiddle with whatever settings the BIOS offers - IRQs, memory range etc. - or get a 9x-compatible nVidia card and get rid of the X800 (unless you wanna keep it as spare). Dunno if setting 'Plug and Play OS' in the BIOS (if available) to 'No' would help, but that may create problems in XP/8.1. It's worth a try, just for your peace of mind. There may also be a slight chance of altering the memory and IRQ configuration for the videocard in Device Manager, if the card allows it. I had a Dell machine with a test 98SE installation which wouldn't take an ATI card under any circumstances. I've tried all possible tricks (BIOS, Device Manager) but still yielded conflicts. After pulling the card out and fiddling with memory ranges in Device Manager, the on-board graphics (Intel or something) was accepted and worked fine. So it may just be that your motherboard hates ATI (as much as I do ).