Drugwash

You could try Miranda IM (check my signature). There are a few voice plug-ins under development, check the addons page as well as the forums. All open-source.

According to DeadDude's post #191: • windows 98 ASP0210 X05-39104 (NM.05) 08 IFPI L894 BARCODE • At the rights side of the hole it says For distribution with a new PC only. For product support, contact the manufacturer of your PC. SECOND EDITION According to Eck's post #189: • Windows 98SE: 0499 Part No. X04-14310 • Windows 98Gold + SE Update: 0499 Part No. X04-12707 • Windows 98SP1: 0499 Part No. X04-64496 According to DeadDude's post #187: • No Auto-patching at all, and it reports 4.10.1999 • Only installed files were Win98SE (after the Gold fiasco), driver CD from GigaByte, and Auto-Patcher 1.7, then 1.8... and that sequence boosted it to 4.95.2222 According to oscardog's post #195: • "With few exceptions, Windows 98 hotfixes are stamped with a version number of 4.10.1999 or greater, which indicates that the file is a newer version than the file that had been originally included with Windows 98. Windows 98 Second Edition hotfixes are generally stamped with a version number of 4.10.2223 or greater" My conclusions: • The CDs are definitely OEM versions • They are Windows 98Gold with hotfixes (and possibly SP1) included • It's possible that they're preliminary versions of 98SE (attempts at) - limited series • The cause of version boost to 4.95.2222 must be found and dealt with

Pardon me for barging in. I noticed that everyone here says: Win98FE (Gold) is 4.10.1998 and Win98SE (Second Edition) is 4.10.2222. Then, what is 4.xx.1999, repeatedly reported by DeadDude? Isn't it possible that at least one of the updates included with the package has a broad range of Windows versions allowed for install, which includes 4.10.1999 and - by changing the kernel, or shell or whatever else - it boosts the WinVer to 4.10.2222? Another question that springs to my mind is why does he say 4.xx.1999 and not 4.10.1999? I may be off-track here, but hopefully someone gets a good idea out of this.

Regarding newest DST update package: how would one go around clicking OK in an unattended installation? Any commandline switch for that? I'm thinking about projects such as auto-patcher and similar, which would incorporate this update. Sorry if I'm out of track.

A quick profiling of Sigcheck in Dependency Walker shows the following errors: • GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [c:\windows\system\KERNEL32.DLL], "IsTNT") called from "c:\windows\system\OLEAUT32.DLL" at address 0x77A23F12 and returned NULL by thread 1. Error: The specified module could not be found (126). • GetProcAddress(0x65F00000 [c:\windows\system\OLE32.DLL], "DcomChannelSetHResult") called from "c:\windows\system\OLEAUT32.DLL" at address 0x77A0FAB3 and returned NULL by thread 1. Error: The specified module could not be found (126). • LoadLibraryW("Riched32.dll") returned NULL by thread 1. Error: This function is only valid in Win32 mode (120). I guess it's the last one that prevents it from sending any output, as it cannot load the richedit32 library. Apparently it tries to load it using a Unicode function (LoadLibraryW), which obviously fails under Win9x.

Welcome back, erpdude8. Sorry to hear about a bad start off; hopefully you'll get over it soon. And thanks for the heads up, will download the updated COPY2GB.EXE right away. @ MDGx: VS6SP6U.EXE dated 28 Nov 2006 at your site is rebooting on finish without warning; you may wanna revise it when possible.

Soporific, you may wanna replace NUSB23e with NUSB24, unless there's a strong reason to keep the older version on the list (can't see any reason though). Keep it up! ;-)

Here's a Miranda IM Wiki (work in progress). I've been fighting for the backwards compatibility to be kept (I myself being a Win98SE user), but honestly - it appears that Win98/ME user base is pretty low and the Win95 user base is almost nonexistant. Therefore it's hard to say what is still working under Win95, and for how long. Another issue here is that - while the core may still be Win9x compatible (in the ANSI version) - most of the plug-ins, which are developed by third parties, are slowly dropping Win9x support, which is sad for an open-source project that at least theoretically should not be under MS politic's pressure. But it's hard to create Win9x-compatible products using VS2005, and - most of all - it's hard or impossible to test the products when there's no Win9x environment available for the respective developers.

How many levels of installing/uninstalling would this system allow? Would it also take into account broken (interrupted/unfinished) installations/uninstallations? I'm asking because with all these power/ultra/super/extra/etc-packs, there might be a chance of multiple installation of the same patch, which might wreak havoc as is or while trying to uninstall (if needed).

Please also take into consideration that an (admittedly narrow) range of users may have a slow Internet connection or no connection at all. Especially for the latter, they may need additional language display support for offline browsing. I have one of my neighbors as example, which has no Internet connection but needs IE as default browser and Pan-European text display support installed, for a medical application (had Firefox as default and the application wouldn't launch at all).

I always install all display support files in IE, but never the input support ones, as I don't need any, currently. Honestly, I'd rather have a few MB on my HDD occupied with those files, than have IE pop up messages stating that it needs this or that update to be able to display the page properly or - having such warning disabled - to see a weird page layout due to lacking proper support. AFAIK, IE setup will recognize any path the install has been started from. So if IE6-SP1 has been installed directly from the auto-patcher CD, the language add-ons would be installed from the same path when required and will ask for the CD. If the language files are not in the IE6-SP1 setup while installation has been performed from the CD, an eventual web update will not be carried out, because IE setup wants to save the respective files to the known path which would be the CD path. So to wrap it up: personally I would like all language display support files to be included with the IE6-SP1 package and to have the possibility to choose between direct CD install and files-on-HDD install. Obviously, I would choose the former, for reasons I've already explained in a previous post. And BTW, having UBCD and auto-patcher on the same CD and being able to batch the install would be the ultimate goal. I wish I would be able to help more, but currently my motivation has been blown out of the water by some recent unfortunate events.

Or get StartupCPL 2.8 (zip version) from here, unpack, install, go to Control Panel > Startup and carefully check the items in each tab. Disable the ones appearing suspect or -if unsure- list the items here so we could advise. Personally I consider StartupCPL a little more friendly than msconfig, but it's all a matter of taste.

Please try a search at Wim's BIOS board, maybe they have something for you. If you can't find your BIOS/Computer model in any of the topics, you may open a request thread.

My problem appears to have been fixed too. Many thanks and have a wonderful year!

I have a somehow similar problem, that needs some explanation. Our network has a proxy for HTTP browsing, which doesn't allow downloading of exe, zip, rar and some other file types. So I sometimes have to disable proxy in my browser to be able to download such files, and it may happen that I forget to enable it back afterwards. Problem is that if I am logged in to MSFN with proxy on and I then open some new page while proxy is off, I appear as not logged in, and the other way around. Even if I reenable (or disable, respectively) the proxy, I would still appear as not logged in, until I do it manually. This doesn't happen with any other forum I visit, nor with Yahoo mail, Hotmail and such. And definitely it wasn't happening before the upgrade. I haven't touched any of the Internet options during this time. Using SlimBrowser, IE-based.

I wonder why that happened... Maybe because they realized it'd be just a waste of time?I mean, the ReactOS project celebrates ten years of existance already, and all they've achieved so far is a handful of applications that merely get installed and only a few that run more or less acceptably. Let me think: what have MS done in these ten years? Windows 95B/C, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows Millenium, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista. Now let me ask: what would be the purpose of having an open-source Win9x, whenever that may happen (meaning: be completely functional), considering the trend that software development follows nowadays - which is: ditch 9x support, embrace Vista? As for ReactOS, I haven't got a chance to test it yet, so I'm not aware of what it's capable - save for what I've read on their website - but I intend to do so in the near future. However, it would be very useful to many people out there if it had a real DOS environment together with its NT platform, so users could switch between DOS and NT at will, for example when playing old DOS games or running other applications that specifically need a pure DOS mode. If that would be possible (if it's not already), then I think all our efforts should be pointed towards helping the ReactOS project, instead of starting from scratch with a project that would have no useful purpose anymore by the time it would show any positive results. Please note that these are just spontaneous thoughts that came to my mind and in no way do I intend to mock anybody's efforts either here, at ReactOS or elsewhere. I do respect everybody's work.

Here's mine: one thing I strongly disliked when I first got my hands on XP was this "safety procedure" of copying all the files on HDD, thus taking up space. While nowadays, generally, HDD space is not a problem anymore for most users, there may still be a certain amount of people that for some reason are stuck with old hardware, including small HDDs.Personally I have a couple of 1.2-2GB HDDs that I intend to use for various tests, and having the installation archives copied on the HDD would take up unnecessary space, possibly preventing me from installing other needed packs/applications/etc. But even if this wasn't the case, I still can't see why I would waste that space with files I'll most probably never need again, when I could simply insert the CD/DVD if I would ever have to. If possible - and I can't see why it wouldn't be - the best solution would be for you to add an option for the user to choose whether the installation would use the optical drive as a source or the archives would be copied to the HDD. When the latter is chosen, please allow for the user to specify a path for the source archives to be copied to, as I imagine someone might want to select a different drive/folder for the source files.

Quote from LLXX: "[...] we don't see any "Why continue to use Windows XP" threads in the XP forum even though there's Vista out there." Although you're right about this discussion turning into a "who got bigger balls" thing, regarding the above quote I have to mention the big differences between 9x and XP: • 9x official support from MS ended; XP is still being supported • 9x support from hardware/driver manufacturers ended in almost all cases; XP is still being supported • 9x support from software developers (commercial, freeware and open-source altogether) is rapidly ending; XP is still being supported Taking all the above into consideration, you see there's no need for a "Why continue to use Windows XP" discussion, because nowadays it's still a viable operating system with full support. The 9x series has been cut off: their usage is being limited to older hardware and older software versions, which will become deprecated sooner rather than later. It has a past, it may have a present but it definitely doesn't have a future. And people wanna look towards something that has a future. That's all. Have a wonderful year, everybody!

Search 1 vs. Search 2 vs. Search 3 vs. Search4 . Show me the confusion, please, because I'm... uhm... confused: where is it??? Maybe your target audience can't even google for the right name...

I asked precisely about the IE6-SP1 additional languages issue in some other thread around (I believe it was "seven years later" thread). Personally I install all possibile additional languages display support in IE, so it wouldn't popup that annoying message when I go to a web page that needs some Asian fonts or whatever. I would expect that every package that installs IE6-SP1 would either allow user to customize items to be installed in IE, or install all of them by default, to avoid further nagging.

What were you thinking? It's like walking into BG's office saying "hey, I got a project called Windoves, it's a small operating system for laptops; do you mind if I advertise it here?" I definitely don't like their approach on the matter, but it's like you asked for it; sorry for being so blunt. Who gives a sh!t on the name, anyway? Only stupid people "buy" the brand name, the others read the label. So scr3w them with their "branded" name.

MediaFire is extremely unreliable. Me and a few others around here have been unable to get a 4MB file off of that host. eD2k may be a bit slow, but it's reliable enough, I got my copy of the Autopatcher just fine, although it took me some time as the queue was pretty full.

Look at my signature. Miranda IM is not cross-platform, it uses pure Win32 API. I've had my share of troubles with the old versions (always testing alpha builds), but I can say now that it has improved a lot compared to 0.3-0.4 versions. While the stable release is currently at 0.5.1 and a 0.6 stable may be released soon, alpha builds are already one step ahead, the 0.7 branch being stable enough and adding lots of features, more or less visible for the common user. Most of my tests as well as common usage were done on a 200MHz PentiumMMX with 64 MB of RAM, so if that's not resource friendly - I don't know what else could one ask. And please note that it was loaded with extra plug-ins, not a bare out-of-the-box installation. But that's talking about the ANSI build, as I was (and still am) running Win98SE on both the old and current boxes. There may still be some work to do in the Unicode build which is relatively young, but it appears to work OK as well.

Yeah, I figured it'd be a b!tch to find out. Oh well, it's been a while since I haven't got any conflict, so I hope the admin (I called him eventually) taught him/her some manners. Thanks for the help, hopefully I won't be needing to perform any such tasks anymore.

OK, I think I found the issue: something in the log-in page has definitely changed. I suspect the autologin was erroneously "clicking" the Search button in the Google ad instead of the Login button in the log-in form. I had to extract the log-in form again and manually set the focus on a different page object, so the data would be extracted correctly. So, my bad - there's no popup, it was just a page reconfiguration that screwed up the auto-login form. Glad to have fixed it.