.NET 4.0 with KernelEx in Windows 98?

[cyberluke]

Hi, there is KernelEx for Windows 2000 and special .NET 4.0 package that requires only KernelEx and .NET 2.0 SP2 installed already discussed on MSFN: 

 

 

Did anyone try it in Windows 98 KernelEx?

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Dave-H
Clarified possibly misleading thread title

[pangoomis]

Windows 2000's KernelEx and Windows 98SE/ME's KernelEx are two completely different things! No chance of getting any newer version of .NET Framework than 2.0 to work on 98SE/ME.

[awkduck]

A person could try older versions of Mono. Since it is opensource, there is a possibility that it could be backported. But it might be a complex undertaking, beyond its value. 

[cyberluke]

5 hours ago, MrMateczko said:

Windows 2000's KernelEx and Windows 98SE/ME's KernelEx are two completely different things! No chance of getting any newer version of .NET Framework than 2.0 to work on 98SE/ME.

I know it is different. I'm software developer as well. But never say never.

[cyberluke]

1 hour ago, awkduck said:

A person could try older versions of Mono. Since it is opensource, there is a possibility that it could be backported. But it might be a complex undertaking, beyond its value. 

Well, I'm developing retrogaming software and backporting some software like Python scripting engine, FreePIE, VJoy. So it has value and I am not scared of complex understanding.

 

I am currently developing something, just asked here and will get back there in 2 weeks.

 

Can you please recommend which version of Mono would run or compile there?

 

I'm not asking to solve it guys. I'm just asking for information and sources and/or if anyone is actively trying that. What has and does not have value is not a subject of this thread. It only depends on our skills and our skills are varying. You know, if I get angry behind keyboard, I send 3 pull requests in 3 opensource repositories at 4 AM for 6 years old bug.

[awkduck]

7 hours ago, cyberluke said:

So it has value and I am not scared of complex understanding.

Understood. I am of that same spirit. It was my intent to mention the option, while warning of "possible" complexity. I would hate to send someone down a rabbit hole, if they were only slightly interested. Obviously, your meter of interest might make it worth while.

I should point out, that I avoid dot net and mono every chance I get. I am not well acquainted with them.

7 hours ago, cyberluke said:

Can you please recommend which version of Mono would run or compile there?

I can tell you what I've done, in similar situations. But you've likely done the same yourself.

Since there is a lot to test, maybe test one from the beginning of every year. The messages and errors will tell you a little about how the project changed. You could then analyze the conflicts between the source, your chosen tool set, and the build target. Hopefully, the version with the most appealing entry point, provides you with the features you need.

A lot of times, I just start at the oldest version and work my way forward.

You will need Win9x unicode support. Also installation will need to be tweaked for windows 98. There were persons building early versions for Windows 98, but I don't know if their work is available anywhere. They may have left some hints in the mailing lists. Google hints at that a little.

[cyberluke]

Yes, thank you.

 

I have Win98 unicode support, actually I fixed the unattended UBCD98 and upgraded it. It does not throw BSOD anymore. I want to share it with the community perhaps next week, busy on all fronts.

 

I'm lucky because the software I need is opensource. And SlimDX is C++ with .NET 2.0 examples. The worst case I rewrite only half of the app as I'm using SlimDX already.

 

I plan to bring multiple usb devices (flight stick, throttle, rudder or steering wheels+pedals) as single composite usb device and support force feedback as well. I don't have experience with Mono, but I am very dependant on DirectX 9 SDK (DirectInput is a must have condition here)

 

Either I will use PPJoy in Win98 (not sure about FFB support), or I will try to recompile VJoy WDM driver somehow. It should be simple to port it to Win98 compatible WDM driver. There is not much code. Otherwise I might try god mode on, a.k.a R.Loew patch :-) and try his WDM patch.

 

There is so much new exciting information and I fix a lot of stuff on the go. I need to set up a camera here and then cut these bits and put it on Youtube.

[awkduck]

Giving the mailing lists a brief scan, I ran into instances of people working with Slimdx.dll. There were bug reports where people compared .net outputs to mono outputs. So maybe there is something there.

13 hours ago, cyberluke said:

There is so much new exciting information and I fix a lot of stuff on the go. I need to set up a camera here and then cut these bits and put it on Youtube.

Being busy on all fronts can make it rough to video document. But it sure does help others learn. I really should put it higher on my own priority list.

Your project sounds exciting, and no doubt will be appreciated. Obviously, no pressure. But it will be delightful to hear how it, really they, progress.

[cyberluke]

Found this: https://github.com/theraot/Theraot/wiki/Features

 

It is .NET compatibility pack and provides support for .NET 2.0.

 

From the website:

These Libraries are an ongoing effort to ease the work on .NET, including a backport/polyfill/bridge of recent .NET features to .NET 2.0, .NET Core 1.0, .NET Standard 1.0, among other things.

Theraot.Core is as close as I am to a ".NET Compatibility Pack" capable to provide a uniform API surface for many .NET platforms.

[cyberluke]

It is good if you can get the source. Anyway, .NET is a byte code (interpreted) language (same as Java) and even Visual Studio provides built-in decompiler.

Edited September 3, 2022 by cyberluke