Last version of Adobe Shockwave for 98

[ralph...@private.com]

What is the last version of Adobe Shockwave Flash that can be used with
Win98se with the latest version of Kernal-EX?

I'm running Firefox 8, and have Shockwave 10.xxxx installed, and
constantly got messages to update it. I finally disabled it entirely.
I'm not sure what purpose it serves, but it appears that I cant view
youtube videos now that it's disabled.

[98 Guy]

ralph...@private.com wrote:

> What is the last version of Adobe Shockwave Flash that can be used
> with Win98se with the latest version of Kernal-EX?

According to this:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html

I have Flash Player Version 11.6.602.171.

The latest version being shown for windoze 7 and 8 is 11.6.602.180.

> I'm running Firefox 8, and have Shockwave 10.xxxx installed, and
> constantly got messages to update it. I finally disabled it
> entirely.

You might be able to run flash version 10 (it's called flash, not
shockwave) on win-98 without kernelex.

> I'm not sure what purpose it serves, but it appears that I cant
> view youtube videos now that it's disabled.

Not sure where you've been lately, but pretty much all video content
streaming is done using flash. Microsoft is trying to compete with
something called Silverlite (or Silverlight?) but it's not very common
(and no version of silverlight runs on win-98 as far as I know).

What you are looking for is either msi or exe off-line install file for
Flash. The file will be install_flash_player_11_plugin.msi and
something like 17mb or FlashPlayerPlugin_11_6_602_168.exe (under 2 mb?)

You might have to modify a couple of registry files (windows/current
version) to make your system appear as if it's running windows 2000
(5.0) instead of Windows 98 (4.10.2222).

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
VersionNumber = "5.0"
CurrentVersion = "5.0"
Version = "Windows NT"

Same info goes here (you might have to create this key):

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion

[ralph...@private.com]

Thanks for the help.

Oddly enough, Firefox refers to it as "Shockwave". And that is psrt of
the confusion, because besides Adobe Flash, I have something called
"Shockwave" installed, along with another thing called "Director". I'm
not sure if they combined all of them into one program, or if I need all
of them still.....

I have flash 10.x installed. I upgraded to a newer version of 10.x and
that seemed to stop the nag screen. I didn't yet try to see if I can
run ver 11.x. I'm not sure if I want to even try, because upgrading ver
10.x solved the problem, and I've recently found that some of these (not
made for 98) installations dont work properly, even with Kernal-Ex. I
installed Firefox 8, and it worked fine at first, except for the
bookmarks not working. I was ok with this. Suddenly FF8 just started
to crash everytime I would close it, and when I would restart it, it
would say something about unable to open tabs from last crash or send a
crash report. (I have crash reports unchecked anyhow, so they are not
sent). After this message, FF would not load at all, not even in safe
mode. Everytime I had wanted to use it, I had to reinstall FF8. I
finally uninstalled it completely, and went back to FF3.x. There is no
sense fighting with a piece of software that just wont run properly, and
I really did not see any significant improvement anyhow.

[Auric__]

ralphdorman wrote:

> Oddly enough, Firefox refers to it as "Shockwave". And that is psrt of
> the confusion, because besides Adobe Flash, I have something called
> "Shockwave" installed, along with another thing called "Director". I'm
> not sure if they combined all of them into one program, or if I need all
> of them still.....

Flash used to be called Shockwave Flash, back in the Macromedia days. Flash
was considered sort of a weaker, less-powerful Shockwave.

--
...a walking copyright infringement waiting to happen...

[ralph...@private.com]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:07:52 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
<not.m...@email.address> wrote:

>ralphdorman wrote:
>
>> Oddly enough, Firefox refers to it as "Shockwave". And that is psrt of
>> the confusion, because besides Adobe Flash, I have something called
>> "Shockwave" installed, along with another thing called "Director". I'm
>> not sure if they combined all of them into one program, or if I need all
>> of them still.....
>
>Flash used to be called Shockwave Flash, back in the Macromedia days. Flash
>was considered sort of a weaker, less-powerful Shockwave.

Like I said, I have Flash, Shockwave, and Director installed. Are you
saying I can remove Shockwave because it no longer does anything? What
about Director?

This is the one problem of running an older computer, with an operating
system that has installations and software going back to 1998. I have
removed software I no longer use, and upgraded others, but things like
Shockwave are pretty much invisible. Does it still work for anything?
I really dont know????? I dont suppose it hurts anything being there,
but I do like to eliminate stuff that is not needed to save drive space
and just get rid of clutter.

Actually, if you really want to get technical, I still have some stuff
on this computer going back to the 1980s. Some Dos programs (which I
still use), and several libraries of clipart and photos, as well as some
Windows apps made for Windows 3.x. (which I still use). This stuff just
gets moved from computer to computer over the years. Of course I'm not
complaining. I like the old stuff, and in most cases like it better
than this new bloated shit they make now. Not to mention that I still
use my computer to do stuff, unlike these kids now-a-days, who only use
facebook and nothing else. Heck, I recently asked one of them if they
ever leave facebook and go on the web, or send email, or do anything
else on their computer. The answer was "Email is outdated, there's
nothing on the web, and what else can you do on a computer?". When I
asked if they ever used the newsgroups, that reply was "what's that?".

One of their friends did admit to using the computer for something
besides Facebook. She said "I play music on it". WOW!!! I was
impressed!

[ralph...@private.com]

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet. :)

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9". I think MS has a problem when they come out with their
next version. I wonder what they'll change the name to next time. The
latest versions were all numbers. That preceeded Vista (where did they
ever get that name?). And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from. I think they should have stuck with the
YEAR. Windows 95 (1995), windows 98 (1998), and Windows 2000 (2000).
And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

I think they should reintroduce Windows 98 as Windows 9, just fix a few
of the things it lacks, and I'd be happy!

[who where]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600, ralph...@private.com wrote:

>The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
>so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
>That's even better yet. :)
>
>Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
>"Windows 9".

Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

>The latest versions were all numbers.

ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

>And then there was XP. Another name I never
>understood where it came from.

Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

>And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
>was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
>either).

ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version, able
to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE) *and*
networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions) but, after its
release, Win2000 was found to not work well on standalones, so the
revised standalone version became WinME.

Daniel

[98 Guy]

"Dani...@teranews.com" used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

> As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
> able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
> *and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)

Wrong on several counts.

First, you make some sort of distinction between networked and
non-networked operating systems, as if to imply that win98 was somehow
not suited for networked use (that it was somehow designed for
stand-alone use) - which couldn't be further from the truth.

Second, you imply that win-2k was a direct replacement for win-98. That
is also wrong. Anyone running win-98 was doing so as a non-system
administrator (in an organizational setting) or was running it in a
home/soho setting. They would continue to run win-98 in those settings
until their next computer purchase - which could have been a computer
with windows ME or Windows XP.

So-called power users, developers or servers would have already been
running windows NT4 either in an organizational setting or soho setting,
and those are the ones that would have switched over to Windows 2k.

Home users that were also "power users" or early adopters didn't switch
from win-9x/me to Win-2k for a variety of reasons, but predominantly
because early driver support was lagging on win-2k, particularly for
sound cards. Power users (in home settings) are more likely to be avid
game players.

Micro$oft's own sales documents specifically mention that win-2k was not
designed for home use (the support load that microsoft would have
experienced from home users trying to figure out how to use win-2k would
have been overwhelming). And the hardware requirements in terms of CPU,
ram and hard-drive size were higher for win-2k vs 9x/me, and in those
days that difference equated to significantly more expensive price tag.

So you might think that win-2K was somehow part of the upgrade or
migration path for win-9x/me - but for all the reasons mentioned above,
it wasn't.

Just look at your own experiences with people you know, and how many of
them went from win-98 to win-2k (in 2000 or 2001) vs win-xp (in 2002 and
beyond).

> but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
> standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME.

Again, this distinction between OS functionality or OS performance and
the network "connected-ness" of the machine is bogus.

[ralph...@private.com]

Actually you got that wrong. WinME was the upgrade from Win98se, but it
never caught on because it had too many problems. Windows 2000 was the
beginning of XP. Actually it was dan near the same, except it didn't
come with all the bloat that XP has. I run both 98 and 2000 (dual boot).
Once and awhile I cant run an app on 98, so I boot to 2000. The thing I
never understood is why a lot of software written for XP wont run on
2000, when 2000 has the same core. Windows 2000 is the last version of
MS Windows that I'll ever run. Once they got into that verification
shit, I stopped using their shit.

I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy
XP, and still have to perform their verification shit. And being a
laptop, I cant install a second harddrive like I can in my desktop. My
only option is to dump all my music and videos onto a USB drive and
carry that around with the computer, because that 40gig harddrive fills
up fast.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

98 Guy wrote:
> "Dani...@teranews.com" used improper usenet message composition style
> by unnecessarily full-quoting:
>
>> As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
>> able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
>> *and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)
>
> Wrong on several counts.
>
> First, you make some sort of distinction between networked and
> non-networked operating systems, as if to imply that win98 was somehow
> not suited for networked use (that it was somehow designed for
> stand-alone use) - which couldn't be further from the truth.
>
> Second, you imply that win-2k was a direct replacement for win-98. That
> is also wrong.

No, not at all, as, in the part of my post that you snipped I typed

"but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME."

Sorry, after reading to the end of your post, I now see you didn't snip
that bit at all, sorry!!

> Anyone running win-98 was doing so as a non-system
> administrator (in an organizational setting) or was running it in a
> home/soho setting. They would continue to run win-98 in those settings
> until their next computer purchase - which could have been a computer
> with windows ME or Windows XP.
>
> So-called power users, developers or servers would have already been
> running windows NT4 either in an organizational setting or soho setting,
> and those are the ones that would have switched over to Windows 2k.

Again, as I typed, Win2000 was supposed to be the combine, but didn't
work in standalone situations, so implying it did work as a networked
replacement

>
> Home users that were also "power users" or early adopters didn't switch
> from win-9x/me to Win-2k for a variety of reasons, but predominantly
> because early driver support was lagging on win-2k, particularly for
> sound cards. Power users (in home settings) are more likely to be avid
> game players.
>
> Micro$oft's own sales documents specifically mention that win-2k was not
> designed for home use (the support load that microsoft would have
> experienced from home users trying to figure out how to use win-2k would
> have been overwhelming). And the hardware requirements in terms of CPU,
> ram and hard-drive size were higher for win-2k vs 9x/me, and in those
> days that difference equated to significantly more expensive price tag.
>
> So you might think that win-2K was somehow part of the upgrade or
> migration path for win-9x/me - but for all the reasons mentioned above,
> it wasn't.
>
> Just look at your own experiences with people you know, and how many of
> them went from win-98 to win-2k (in 2000 or 2001) vs win-xp (in 2002 and
> beyond).

I stuck with Win98SE (on my desktop computer, which I still use,
occasionally) until I brought this laptop which came with Win7
pre-installed. I then dual-installed various Linux installations which
is where I send most of my on-line time, basically just booting Win7 to
get various updates!

At my last place of work, the Australian Taxation Office, they only
updated to Win7 from WinXP, sometime after I left in 2011. Don't know
when any previous updates had occured.

Most family members have updated Windows versions as they brought new
computers, so no real "updating" of OS's.

>> but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
>> standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME.
>
> Again, this distinction between OS functionality or OS performance and
> the network "connected-ness" of the machine is bogus.

O.K., as I started my previous post "As I understood it,", your
understanding was different!!

Daniel

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

I typed that the Win98->Win2000 upgrade didn't work so MS brought out
Win2000, so where was I wrong??

> Actually it was dan near the same, except it didn't
> come with all the bloat that XP has. I run both 98 and 2000 (dual boot).
> Once and awhile I cant run an app on 98, so I boot to 2000. The thing I
> never understood is why a lot of software written for XP wont run on
> 2000, when 2000 has the same core. Windows 2000 is the last version of
> MS Windows that I'll ever run. Once they got into that verification
> shit, I stopped using their shit.
>
> I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
> ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
> larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
> licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy
> XP, and still have to perform their verification shit. And being a
> laptop, I cant install a second harddrive like I can in my desktop. My
> only option is to dump all my music and videos onto a USB drive and
> carry that around with the computer, because that 40gig harddrive fills
> up fast.

To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search for
a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this program,
here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that is connected
via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on your new,
bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the amount of the HD
which Windows would be allowed to "see".

Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what
someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the divisions
on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called dd.

Daniel

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <IUD5t.260446$LX2.2...@newsfe31.iad>,
"Dani...@teranews.com" <dx...@albury.nospam.net.au> writes:
>ralph...@private.com wrote:
[]

>> I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
>> ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
>> larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
>> licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy

[]

>To clone your current 40Gb HD to a bigger one, do an Internet search
>for a program called something like dd.exe. Somebody mention this
>program, here-abouts, as a way to clone an installed HD to a HD that is
>connected via USB. This will copy your 40GB HD to a 40GB portion on
>your new, bigger, HD and then it should allow you to increase the
>amount of the HD which Windows would be allowed to "see".

(I had a quick google, and it seems it's very command-line based.)

Does it clone such that the cloned drive is still authorised/registered
or whatever the term is - i. e. so that it will work without requiring
any communication with Microsoft? I thought the serial number, model
number, of the HD changing was moderately likely to trigger a
re-reg/auth being required.

>
>Note I've never actually used this dd.exe program, just relating what

[Is "someone else" here (-:?]

>someone else typed. When I want to fiddle with the size of the
>divisions on this HD, I use the equivalent Linux function, also called
>dd.
>
>Daniel
>

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't play "stupid" with me... I'm better at it.

[dx...@albury.nospam.net.au]

Sorry, John, I did a bit of a search on my Usenet groups but could not
find a reference to "dd.exe", so couldn't find who it was that
recommended the program.

Doing a Google search gave me a program related to FujiFilm, but,
interestingly, the first comment on that page was about the program I
had heard about.

http://www.file.net/process/dd.exe.html

User Comments
There is a "dd.exe" which is part of package Unxutils". It is tool used
to copy, convert and format files based on various options.
Pierre Lafreniere (further information)

One of the other google finds was
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070624103623AA6lUFC

"How do I use the "dd.exe" command correctly for copying an image? (I am
using FAU for Windows).?

I just installed Forensics Acquisition Utilities for windows"

Might help those in need!!

Daniel

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <QJg6t.36621$Z16....@newsfe04.iad>, "Dani...@teranews.com"

Thanks.

>
>Daniel
>
>

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call it
a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)