ok so i have several questions related to software functionality and usage, specifically for use on windows 95 mainly. 

1. are there any benefits that vlc player 0.8.6d player has over roytam's "TCPMP 0.72RC1 Mod 6" media player, or the other way around, what can roytam's media player do that vlc player 0.8.6d can't? for example, does vlc player 0.8.6d also support youtube video streaming or does it not? 

2. are there any issues with roytam's media player build? 

3. what would explain illegal operation related errors when using vlc player 0.8.6d on windows 95 with the inability for files to load and play on certain computer builds ( which don't seem to occur on 98SE )?

4. how exactly does one install the DivX codec packages and / or which version is the last compatible version for windows 95, as well as for 98SE? 

5. does installing DivX codec package cause any problems in overall system functioning or conflict with files / software? for example, if someone were to install a divx codec package, as well as use vlc player 0.8.6d, would this cause problems with running the program itself or running files from it? 

6. does installing DivX codecs help the system in any way directly or indirectly? for example, if installing Divx codec and running vlc player 0.8.6d, it would allow for slightly better support and functioning of files and videos? 

7. is it necessary to install DivX codecs at all? if so, for what reason? does one need to install it when using vlc player or roytam's media player? 

8. is flash player 7.0, specifically "flashplayer7r73_win", used in any way by vlc player or roytam's build? would it better to install it or would it cause more issues if installing it? 

Hi cov3rt. I just know Windows 98 SE, not 95. To me VLC v0.8.6d versus TCPMP is just a preference. In general TCPMP launches faster and uses less resources, probably also a better chance of it working well in Windows 95. No media players i've tested for vanilla Windows 98 thus far (VLC, SMPlyer/MPlayer, TCPMP) are able to stream directly from YouTube, believe they can not handle the HTTPS connection. Even pasting a direct video URL extracted via my 9xweb script doesn't work.

No idea regarding DivX, all media players mentioned above play what i need (mostly MP4) without extra codecs or software manipulation. What media types do you need support for? Haven't used Flash Player for many years. IMHO if it's not dead yet it should be, Flash has a terrible history for insecurities. A Windows 98 KernelEx user will need to clarify regarding Flash, doubtful for Windows 95 anyway.

AFAIK there are currently two ways to get any YouTube access now in Windows 9x. My 9xweb script downloads (most) YouTube videos as MP4s, no streaming, then can automatically launch the video in the media player of choice. It is confirmed working in Windows 95.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/181417-windows-9x-web-helper-9xweb/

The other method, forum member @siria reportedly has a script for YouTube as well. Don't believe it's been posted yet though, query a work in progress. Also uncertain whether it streams or downloads, my impression is downloads only. Also unsure whether it only works in K-Meleon browser via Windows 98, @siria will need to clarify.

Note the 9xweb script noted above is browser and media player agnostic, use whatever you want, the script just needs the YouTube video URL copied to the system clipboard (ie. right-click video link in browser, select 'copy link location' or similar, then 9xweb can utilize it).

Edit: It would also be worthwhile to know if any KernelEx users, running newer Python, are able to utilize youtube-dl in Windows 9x.

Edited May 17, 20206 yr by Wunderbar98

I'm using (latest) youtube-dl using python 2.7 & KernelEx, no problems. FFMpeg & FFProbe  are also pretty much a requirement  for using it optimally, I use Corone's FFMpeg builds for XP. RTMPDump and/or Fribidi might also be required for some downloads/link extractions.

 

Edited May 17, 20206 yr by loblo

Why don't just use ffdshow for DivX and FLV decoding?! Most download sites claim Win95 compatibility (i can't check it myself currently). You may have to use the VfW filter.

Here is a guide - https://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/how_to_play_flv_files.cfm

10 hours ago, Wunderbar98 said:

Hi cov3rt. I just know Windows 98 SE, not 95. To me VLC v0.8.6d versus TCPMP is just a preference. In general TCPMP launches faster and uses less resources, probably also a better chance of it working well in Windows 95. No media players i've tested for vanilla Windows 98 thus far (VLC, SMPlyer/MPlayer, TCPMP) are able to stream directly from YouTube, believe they can not handle the HTTPS connection. Even pasting a direct video URL extracted via my 9xweb script doesn't work.

No idea regarding DivX, all media players mentioned above play what i need (mostly MP4) without extra codecs or software manipulation. What media types do you need support for? Haven't used Flash Player for many years. IMHO if it's not dead yet it should be, Flash has a terrible history for insecurities. A Windows 98 KernelEx user will need to clarify regarding Flash, doubtful for Windows 95 anyway.

AFAIK there are currently two ways to get any YouTube access now in Windows 9x. My 9xweb script downloads (most) YouTube videos as MP4s, no streaming, then can automatically launch the video in the media player of choice. It is confirmed working in Windows 95.
https://msfn.org/board/topic/181417-windows-9x-web-helper-9xweb/

The other method, forum member @siria reportedly has a script for YouTube as well. Don't believe it's been posted yet though, query a work in progress. Also uncertain whether it streams or downloads, my impression is downloads only. Also unsure whether it only works in K-Meleon browser via Windows 98, @siria will need to clarify.

Note the 9xweb script noted above is browser and media player agnostic, use whatever you want, the script just needs the YouTube video URL copied to the system clipboard (ie. right-click video link in browser, select 'copy link location' or similar, then 9xweb can utilize it).

Edit: It would also be worthwhile to know if any KernelEx users, running newer Python, are able to utilize youtube-dl in Windows 9x.

thanks for the info. i don't think i'll be implementing the streaming thing in my files as it requires too many things to do. i thought it was just copy pasting the web url in the program and that's it. it seems that vlc 0.8.6d should be fine for both 95 and 98SE, although, TCPMP might be a functional substitute in 9x for playing media in general ( if for some reason, vlc player either stalls, freezes or doesn't work properly on the system ), as in my case, that's why i mentioned that for some systems, it had these issues on windows 95 ( not 98SE ), and the issues were specifically with illegal operation or page faults, but i'm just hoping that it wasn't because of a problem with vlc 0.8.6d or not having enough system updates, but rather from running unofficial drivers that somehow conflicted with the program. one system for example i was using some kind of geforce 2 gpu on a laptop, 4.13.01.3150 was the driver version, and i think it was only designed for 98 first edition or newer. it kind of worked, in that i was able to set resolution to 1024x768, but i didn't test it much aside from that. 

my reasons for not using TCPMP is extra space on the archive packages. for 95, i have some space to spare, but for 98SE, it's already reached the limits so adding like another 1-2 MB is not an option, that's why right now i'm in the process again of trying to get a light version of 98SE unofficial service pack from problemchyld so i can add other stuff, although he made me one before, but it was structurally different from the original full version of usp 3.64. i need it to work exactly like the original usp 3.64, except with a few things removed. hopefully he can make me the package i'm looking for. but i may not even need the TCPMP on 98SE, as the main reason i'd be adding it to 95 is because of the problematic issues i explained where it may require using a different media player, but for 98SE, i don't think i ever had these types of issues, and if i did, it probably had to do with some kind of buggy / faulty / unofficial driver support. i much prefer vlc 0.8.6d for all purposes anyways, because it automatically links files in the system to play without having to manually select the files and open them with a specified program. 

i did research k-lite codec packages and divx, and it seems that they probably would do more harm than good, so i'm just avoiding them completely. for example, one source mentioned an issue where if you had divx installed and tried to run vlc player and didn't close it "correctly", then it would corrupt the file or cause some kind of corruption that manually needed you to fix it everytime. you know, weird issues like that. and k-lite just seems unnecessary and perhaps can be problematic too if you already use vlc player and / or that TCPMP program, so i just decided to not implement neither k-lite or divx. as for flash player, the safety issue is one thing, but i don't know, aren't there still some offline programs that can use it? also, i guess hypothetically, some online programs could use it, but it seems that there may be more harm than good. i have flash 11 for unofficial support on 98SE, but i get persuaded on and off whether or not i should keep it or not, and i just don't want to remove it. and i feel like manually install flash 7.0 on windows 95 could still be useful. does anyone know which programs require flash 7.0 to be installed to run?

19 minutes ago, cov3rt said:

i did research k-lite codec packages

Do you realize, that k-lite is a bundle of various codecs, players and tools?

You're better off downloading and installing the separate codecs manually.

Why vlc 0.8.6d instead of vlc 0.8.6i?

 

Thank-you loblo for clarifying, at least three ways to get some YouTube action in Windows 98. For KernelEx users this is great, as youtube-dl supports so many more sites.

Just a general note, if information like this don't turn a user off Flash, go for it, you may be crazier then Evel Knievel :)
https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/flash-vulnerabilities-security/

Curious, if you read this @loblo, are you able to stream a youtube-dl download direct to a media player, similar to below?
youtube-dl URL_HERE -o - | tee replay.mp4 | vlc -

I use similar in a personal GNU/Linux Bash script. Not sure if this is possible in Windows 98, maybe using Enhanced Cygwin-Lite or Cygwin?
$YTDLEXEC -f 18/36/17/flv/worst --no-playlist --youtube-skip-dash-manifest --restrict-filenames -o - "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDRfxk3J5c" | $MEDIAPLAYER - &

On 5/17/2020 at 6:44 PM, jumper said:

Why vlc 0.8.6d instead of vlc 0.8.6i?

 

i don't remember the exact reasons, it's a bit of a long story, but from my research, vlc 0.8.6d was the last "fully" working version with support for processors as old as pentium mmx, or ones that didn't support sse, but newer versions, i'm not sure which ones to be exact somehow broke this and wouldn't work on older processors. again, i don't remember which exact version caused these incompatibilities, but from many ends, 0.8.6d was said to be the last "Better" and more compatible version for windows 9x family in particular, and so that's what i ended up using up to this point. 

do you know yourself what differences are in 0.8.6i vs 0.8.6d? because like i said, i don't remember 100 percent the exact details to why i keep the 0.8.6d version, other than from what i understood at the time, from my personal experience of testing it, it was Best in terms of functioning and compatibility, in other words, any version newer, it caused errors or wasn't as functional. i understand 98SE with kernelex can use newer versions, however, even though i do install kernelex on 98SE, i felt it was unnecessary to use newer than vlc 0.8.6d, so that using 0.8.6d as the latest was better for compatibility and stability. 

Edited May 19, 20206 yr by cov3rt

I have .6i on a backup drive. I tested it back in 2014 on my Via C3 CPU (mmx+3dnow). Basic testing was successful, but not exhaustive, and might have used FineSSE. The Changelog lists a handful of bugfixes, mainly server and streaming related.

Catch-22: If the bugfix code crashes your test, your test needs the bugfix!

.6d should be fine for typical usage.

 

@Wunderbar98: I've fiddled a bit with various commands (without using tee) after visiting the "stream to vlc" github page. Unless I missed something it doesn't seem to stream, it downloads the whole video to a temp file and then passes it to the specified player which cannot be any player as the temp file is without extension. I don't see any advantage over simply downloading the video to desktop.

Thank-you @loblo for the feedback. The main advantage would be for those with limited bandwidth, preview a long video to decide whether it's time and bandwidth worthy of the large download. Similar to launching real time video with a Flash plugin. To each their own, thank-you again for checking into it.

It downloads the entire video to a temp file named like BANCEG or similar before the player gets it, there is no advantage I can see here. But then again, I've spent little time fiddling and maybe I've missed something.

Hi @loblo. Thanks again for trying. Not sure you missed anything, just probably doesn't work in Windows 98. When youtube-dl streaming works properly, there is no file download, the video launches immediately, based on the video player's buffer, not after a full download. So with a long 1 hour duration video, for example, you're already watching in the first five seconds, not waiting for the download. You can pause the video player and even bump forward within the stream's memory buffer. Attempting to go back, however, breaks the stream and crashes the video. The other drawback to streaming vs full download is that the video is not stored on the drive for later viewing, poof it's gone. Tested only in modern GNU/Linux systems using MPlayer and VLC. Unable to get streaming working either in Windows 98.