woi Posted December 16, 2023 Share Posted December 16, 2023 (edited) On 9/19/2023 at 5:12 AM, schwups said: ... can't verify. On ME it looks the same to me as on XPSP3. This is what I mean (It is something to do with the theme not being friendly with Windows Classic UI, not the OS/KernelEx itself): Noticed that the URL and the Search bar got faded? Edited December 16, 2023 by woi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwups Posted December 17, 2023 Author Share Posted December 17, 2023 If I understand you correctly, you mean that the background of url and search bar shouldn't have the fading effect (should be white). If so, than it is probably a theme bug and more cosmetic. I had also looked at this on Win7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwups Posted January 1 Author Share Posted January 1 Happy New Year to you all. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loblo Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Happy new year, Schwups. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mina7601 Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 Happy new year to you too, schwups, and to loblo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPerceniol Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 ^^^Happy New year.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broken120x120 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 I recently setup a Windows ME installation on an IBM ThinkPad T42 and was curious to give this a try. I installed Microsoft Layer Unicode+ KernelEX 4.5.2 along with the various core updates from Jumper all the way up to v4.22.6658. The Firefox 52.9 ESR installer would freeze at the end, so I had to extract the files with 7-Zip. Firefox.exe and xul.dll are both set to Windows XP SP2 compatibility mode in the KernelEx properties (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\KernelEx\AppSettings\Configs\XUL.DLL="NT2K" was also deleted). I put the mentioned Windows XP SP2 DLL files into the Firefox folder and put ucrtbase.dll version 10.0.14393.33 into the C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM directory. I've also edited the dependentlibs.list like so. However, even after following all of the steps in the initial post, I am unfortunately not able to get Firefox 52.9 ESR to run. It gives an error "Couldn't load XPCOM" each time. This really has left me quite stumped. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwups Posted January 28 Author Share Posted January 28 To narrow down the problem - Can you start Firefox 31 or 48? And you didn't mention Kext (Kstub 824 or 825 + ini file). This is required to start v52, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broken120x120 Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Testing now, I was able to get Firefox 31 to run after setting Windows XP SP2 compatibility on Firefox.exe and xul.dll. However, Firefox 48 does not seem to work. After adding the XP DLLs files to the Firefox folder, it shows the loading cursor for a moment, but nothing else happens after that. No error message at all. Yes, I have the Kstub824 and Kstub825 and their respective ini files. Could it be something to do with the KernelEx Core.ini? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwups Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 (edited) - Don't merge LZDLL_ME.reg or LZDLL.reg for Win98 of KernelEx update18 into the registry! Firefox will crash immediately on start . - Firefox 48 could run without GUI - see issues FF 24-51 first page. Check it with a ProcessManager or TaskManager. Solution: Install DirectX 9c and set "layers.acceleration.force-enabled" => true (prefs.js) Alternatively the boolean "layers.offmainthreadcomposition.force-basic" = true (prefs.js) makes v48 usable. Start and run it with a slightly reduced window size. - Use Kstub824 or 825 - not both. Example contents line in Core.ini: [BASE] contents=std,Kexbasen,Kexbases,Kstub825 desc=Base enhancements (api fixes + extensions) You can check with jumpers Ktree whether it is loaded. Edited January 29 by schwups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broken120x120 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Quote Don't merge LZDLL_ME.reg or LZDLL.reg for Win98 of KernelEx update18 into the registry! Firefox will crash immediately on start . Oops! Setting "layers.acceleration.force-enabled" to true in pref.js seems to have done the trick for Firefox 48. For Firefox 52, I made the core,ini changes that you listed, except I had to use Kstub824 instead of Kstub825 because it would cause explorer.exe to crash upon startup. Now everything works! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerd73 Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) Applying the KernelEx updates mentioned (18/19/25a) breaks my KernelEx installation in a Windows 98SE VM. Any help? Edited February 3 by nerd73 clarify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwups Posted February 3 Author Share Posted February 3 Do you mean the following with "(18/19/25a)"? "Requirements: KernelEx: KernelEx.dll 4.5.2016.25, Kexbasen.dll 4.5.2016.25, Kexbases.dll 25, Core.ini 25h with Kexcom.dll 18, Sheet.dll 19, verify.exe 18 and VKrnlEx.vxd of 18" Do you have a specific error message that refers to a dll, for example? I generally recommend to follow jumpers instructions and not to use any (third-party) installers out there. These can be wildly packed/mixed packages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytam1 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 (edited) regarding mozilla's newer SQLite in 9x, mozStorage returns NS_ERROR_STORAGE_BUSY, which got SQLITE_BUSY from newer SQLite. So I wonder if file locking (i.e. LockFileEx(), which SQLite uses when it detects non-9x from KernelEx) is getting problem. I wonder if KernelEx emulates LockFileEx correctly? Edited June 16 by roytam1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwups Posted June 16 Author Share Posted June 16 Jumper described the problem. I was stuck with testing in October and couldn't get any further. https://msfn.org/board/topic/181424-firefox-24-52-for-me-and-98/?do=findComment&comment=1252539 https://msfn.org/board/topic/181424-firefox-24-52-for-me-and-98/?do=findComment&comment=1254003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now