Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kernel-Ex dont run Firefox properly
88 views
Skip to first unread message
tange...@toyotamail.com
Feb 25, 2014, 11:45:46 PM2/25/14
to
Kernel-Ex Version 4.5.12 says it's intended to run Firefox 8.0.
While FF 8.0 does load, it's crashes almost everytime I close it, and
often when I clear the history (cache, cookies, etc). A few times this
crash locked up the whole computer, which has not happened to me in
years.
Before this, I had the previous version of Kernel-EX, and was running FF
3.0.0.28. That one dont crash, even though that version loads slower
than molasses in January (up to 2 minutes), and recently keeps giving me
problems on some websites, such as "no longer supported" messages on
sites like Youtube. And it also tends to get a lot of script errors
too. But this ver dont crash.
Just for the heck of it, I installed FF 4.x (most recent ver of 4).
Same as ver 8.0. Crashes when closing and sometimes when I clear cache.
I finally just uninstalled all of them and went back to version 3.
Kernel-EX dont seem to work as it claims, at least not for FF. I guess
it's time to start using XP on the internet, there just is no browser
that works in 98 anymore. My old favorite, K-Meleon gets a script error
every 5 minutes, Seamonkey (for 98) is also too old, and i dont use IE.
(it's not even installed). I wont touch Opera with another man's _ick
on the end of a 10 foot pole. I looked into a few others and none are
suited for Win98 anymore.....
I'm not real fond of XP, but I guess the time has come to force myself
to like it.... I know I'll miss W98se.
While FF 8.0 does load, it's crashes almost everytime I close it, and
often when I clear the history (cache, cookies, etc). A few times this
crash locked up the whole computer, which has not happened to me in
years.
Before this, I had the previous version of Kernel-EX, and was running FF
3.0.0.28. That one dont crash, even though that version loads slower
than molasses in January (up to 2 minutes), and recently keeps giving me
problems on some websites, such as "no longer supported" messages on
sites like Youtube. And it also tends to get a lot of script errors
too. But this ver dont crash.
Just for the heck of it, I installed FF 4.x (most recent ver of 4).
Same as ver 8.0. Crashes when closing and sometimes when I clear cache.
I finally just uninstalled all of them and went back to version 3.
Kernel-EX dont seem to work as it claims, at least not for FF. I guess
it's time to start using XP on the internet, there just is no browser
that works in 98 anymore. My old favorite, K-Meleon gets a script error
every 5 minutes, Seamonkey (for 98) is also too old, and i dont use IE.
(it's not even installed). I wont touch Opera with another man's _ick
on the end of a 10 foot pole. I looked into a few others and none are
suited for Win98 anymore.....
I'm not real fond of XP, but I guess the time has come to force myself
to like it.... I know I'll miss W98se.
Bill in Co
Feb 26, 2014, 1:23:20 AM2/26/14
to
customized to be pretty close to 98SE, for all intents and purposes. Plus
with XP, you can at least run a lot more software since the past decade. :-)
That said, I miss 98SE, at least on some occasions.
But some of the latest software nowadays is even requiring Vista or Win7.
Fortunately, nothing I want, however. :-)
tange...@toyotamail.com
Feb 26, 2014, 2:18:36 PM2/26/14
to
hundreds of programs set up in 98, for all needs and uses. 98 continues
to work perfectly for music, videos, inage editing, and my home office
needs. It's just the web browsers that are constantly screwing up and
irritating me. I feel pretty safe using 98 online, regarding viruses
and malware. No one attacks 98 anymore, and aside from some adware, I
have not had any virus or severe problems with malware in years. I dont
feel the same about XP, which seems to attract malware lke a trap. So,
in some ways, maybe having the internet separated from my other programs
may be a good thing. But I need to get one of those switchers for the
Kbd, Mse, and Monitor. Having two of each takes up too much space,and
tends to confuse me too.
I would like to find a step by step text file showing me how to make XP
look and act more like 98. Yea, I got the classic style desktop set,
and the same for the Start button menu, but it still does things that
annoy me. Of course I have my W98 computer setup more like Win3.x, than
most people. I like having everything in icons on the desktop, Each
group has many programs inside of it. There are groups like OFFICE -
INTERNET - VIDEOS - UTILITIES - SYSTEM - NOTES - GRAPIHICS - MUSIC PROGS
- etc.... I rarely use the START button except to turn off the
computer.
Anyhow, that seems to be the plan. For one thing I run an old dos
database, which contains phone - address, - email and other stuff for
everyone i know, and for my business. It has hundreds of entries. I'm
not about to retype all that into a windows based DB. I dont know how I
can run that thing in XP. So, I guess the way to go is to use two
computers, and XP will just be for the internet mostly. I would not
even consider Vista, that was a disaster right from it's start. I'd
rather go right to Win 7 or 8, if I had to go past XP, but that would
mean a much newer and costly computer. I'll just stick to my homemade
systems that i put together from older systems, which do all I need.
tange...@toyotamail.com
Feb 26, 2014, 2:55:57 PM2/26/14
to
Hot-Text
Feb 26, 2014, 8:41:48 PM2/26/14
to
"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:AeGdnYt_a4bEFZDO...@earthlink.com...
And miss it no more
< http://win98.virtual.css.alt.mynews.ath.cx:81/ >
I have a Virtual PC Windows 3.11 on a XP
I look all around here for my Windows 95 B
My Wife say it in the attic
But you know it's cool up there
>> I know I'll miss W98se.
>
> I used to feel the same way you do. But I've got XP pretty well tamed and customized to be pretty close to 98SE, for all intents
> and purposes. Plus with XP, you can at least run a lot more software since the past decade. :-) That said, I miss 98SE, at least
> on some occasions.
> But some of the latest software nowadays is even requiring Vista or Win7. Fortunately, nothing I want, however. :-)
Bill in Co Put virtual PC 2004 Run on that Win7!
>
> I used to feel the same way you do. But I've got XP pretty well tamed and customized to be pretty close to 98SE, for all intents
> and purposes. Plus with XP, you can at least run a lot more software since the past decade. :-) That said, I miss 98SE, at least
> on some occasions.
> But some of the latest software nowadays is even requiring Vista or Win7. Fortunately, nothing I want, however. :-)
And miss it no more
< http://win98.virtual.css.alt.mynews.ath.cx:81/ >
I have a Virtual PC Windows 3.11 on a XP
I look all around here for my Windows 95 B
My Wife say it in the attic
But you know it's cool up there
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 1, 2014, 4:07:37 AM3/1/14
to
In message <bsdsg9pep4fulmnb0...@4ax.com>,
stable. (Having said that, I have hardly had any problems with my old
'98SElite machine for years, but then I only use it for a very limited
range of things now. [Including accessing one website, with Firefox 2 -
I haven't got KernelEx on it.] Actually come to think of it my _other_
98SElite machine, the sound is screwed.)
>>with XP, you can at least run a lot more software since the past decade. :-)
And it _does_ work more happily with quite a lot of USB devices - all
memory sticks, card readers, and webcams I've tried.
>>That said, I miss 98SE, at least on some occasions.
Me too - mainly its simplicity. Also (though I haven't done it for
years), I like knowing I could boot from a DOS floppy and still access
all the files. Mind you, _if_ installed on FAT rather than NTFS, that
would probably apply to XP too - though I have a sneaking feeling (and
I'm sure a lot of its enthusiasts would insist on it) that the better
robustness I've experienced with this XP machine _might_ have something
to do with it being on NTFS. (FWIW, I've set up BARTPE - as recommended
to me by ERUNT's author when I asked him for something similar - as an
alternative thing to boot into should XP ever be unbootable; I've never
had to use it [though did check I _could_ restore using it!], though.
I'd definitely recommend ERUNT - it's ERU for NT-based systems; ERU
under '9x got me out of holes often enough under '9x that I felt happier
with it there.)
one - a netbook - just around the time XP was being replaced by Vista (I
was certainly lucky _there_: from experience I've had with Vista on
other people's machines, it _is_ a bit of a pain to use). However,
partly perhaps due to its portability (it's a _large_ netbook, about a
12", not one of those 10" - apart from anything else, that means the
keyboard keys are 9x% full size, which they aren't on the smaller
models), it has become my main machine, and the 98 ones don't get turned
on much - the desktop one just to access files really, and the laptop
for that website. There is a _lot_ of freeware out there that means I've
got this XP much as I had '98 - lots of utilities, and beaten into
submission.
>irritating me. I feel pretty safe using 98 online, regarding viruses
>and malware. No one attacks 98 anymore, and aside from some adware, I
I actually feel the same now about XP: I have an ancient firewall (Kerio
2.1.5), that still seems to work (pop up and ask me whenever anything
tries to go in or out that I haven't previously told it to pass or
block), and an AV that's still being updated (I am using Avira, but
several of the others have also said they'll continue to support XP for
a while). There's obviously concern that the black hats are storing up
vulnerabilities until just after A-day, but I suspect (with no evidence
mind!) that this is exaggerated or at least will be controlled by the AV
folk. (I've never actually _had_ a virus on XP - nor '9x or 3.1x, for
that matter. I think practicing "safe hex" - as those of us who've been
around this long, including you of course, probably do instinctively -
keeps one OK.)
>have not had any virus or severe problems with malware in years. I dont
>feel the same about XP, which seems to attract malware lke a trap. So,
I think it's going down - they're moving to 7 and beyond - though
obviously go carefully. In particular, as regards unwanted things rather
than actual malware as such, when installing freeware utilities, these
days always select the custom option not the default install, as
otherwise you'll get extras you don't want; this isn't really something
new with XP (it certainly applies to 7 and later too), just a new
funding model freeware authors are switching to in large numbers (and
one can't really blame them), and the only reason it hasn't really
affected '9x is that there's so little _new_ (or updated) being written
for that.
>in some ways, maybe having the internet separated from my other programs
>may be a good thing. But I need to get one of those switchers for the
>Kbd, Mse, and Monitor. Having two of each takes up too much space,and
>tends to confuse me too.
Get a laptop for the XP - or a big netbook like this one. (I thought the
lack of an optical drive [which is what I think makes it a netbook]
would be a pain, but to be honest I've only used the external drive I
bought for it extremely rarely; CDs and even DVDs are sort of old hat
these days.)
think a general such file would be practical as each migrator would want
slightly different things. (You can email me privately too if you wish.)
The XP 'group is microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion; it no longer has
anything to do with Microsoft (they withdrew usenet support some years
ago, but various newsservers around the world continue to carry it), and
in fact it's now inhabited by older XP users in much the same way the
'98 'groups were/are.
>annoy me. Of course I have my W98 computer setup more like Win3.x, than
>most people. I like having everything in icons on the desktop, Each
>group has many programs inside of it. There are groups like OFFICE -
>INTERNET - VIDEOS - UTILITIES - SYSTEM - NOTES - GRAPIHICS - MUSIC PROGS
>- etc.... I rarely use the START button except to turn off the
>computer.
I have the Start menu set up much as you describe, with groups -
#genealogy, #hardware, #internet, #processes, #screensavers,
#sound&vi.deo, #utils - into which I've moved most of the other things;
it's a little bit easier to rearrange than under '9x (you can actually
drag things around in it, though that _can_ be irritating, but you can
also right-click and open/explore bits of it), and I tend to use it
rather than my desktop icons (which I, too, have a lot of) because
they're under something. (I tend to have more things open at once than I
used to, though I think that's just experience rather than XP, i. e. I
would have under '9x too I think if I were still using it. I _do_ still
have a few desktop icons I use a lot - but they tend to be around the
edge of the screen where they get obscured less [I rarely run windows
full-screen].)
in XP, apart from obviously they use 8.3 filenames (which are still
there in XP). For example, SUBST, Xtree Gold, Edit (if you really want
it!), and the 453-byte (yes!) fire simulator I have. Oh, and some
Windows 3.1 utilities too.
>computers, and XP will just be for the internet mostly. I would not
>even consider Vista, that was a disaster right from it's start. I'd
Agreed, for anyone who actually wants to tweak. My brother's main
computer is Vista, but as he's an application user - he uses email, a
browser, and word processors, and that's more or less it - he cares
little what the underlying OS is.
>rather go right to Win 7 or 8, if I had to go past XP, but that would
>mean a much newer and costly computer. I'll just stick to my homemade
Indeed.
>systems that i put together from older systems, which do all I need.
>
Do you have some sort of XP licence? Or an XP machine already set up,
just not yet hammered into submission? Either way, the one thing I'd say
is go for getting all the downloads/updates etc. sooner rather than
later: I suspect the servers at Microsoft will already be getting very
busy, as everybody XP does the same, in case MS turn them off in April.
(To be fair they haven't said they will, only stop writing _new_
bugfixes, but they could.)
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Charity sees the need not the cause. -German proverb
tange...@toyotamail.com writes:
>On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:23:20 -0700, "Bill in Co"
><surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>tange...@toyotamail.com wrote:
[]
>On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:23:20 -0700, "Bill in Co"
><surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>tange...@toyotamail.com wrote:
>>> I'm not real fond of XP, but I guess the time has come to force myself
>>> to like it.... I know I'll miss W98se.
>>
>>I used to feel the same way you do. But I've got XP pretty well tamed and
>>customized to be pretty close to 98SE, for all intents and purposes. Plus
Me too. And - grudgingly - I _do_ have to admit it seems a lot more
>>> to like it.... I know I'll miss W98se.
>>
>>I used to feel the same way you do. But I've got XP pretty well tamed and
>>customized to be pretty close to 98SE, for all intents and purposes. Plus
stable. (Having said that, I have hardly had any problems with my old
'98SElite machine for years, but then I only use it for a very limited
range of things now. [Including accessing one website, with Firefox 2 -
I haven't got KernelEx on it.] Actually come to think of it my _other_
98SElite machine, the sound is screwed.)
>>with XP, you can at least run a lot more software since the past decade. :-)
memory sticks, card readers, and webcams I've tried.
>>That said, I miss 98SE, at least on some occasions.
years), I like knowing I could boot from a DOS floppy and still access
all the files. Mind you, _if_ installed on FAT rather than NTFS, that
would probably apply to XP too - though I have a sneaking feeling (and
I'm sure a lot of its enthusiasts would insist on it) that the better
robustness I've experienced with this XP machine _might_ have something
to do with it being on NTFS. (FWIW, I've set up BARTPE - as recommended
to me by ERUNT's author when I asked him for something similar - as an
alternative thing to boot into should XP ever be unbootable; I've never
had to use it [though did check I _could_ restore using it!], though.
I'd definitely recommend ERUNT - it's ERU for NT-based systems; ERU
under '9x got me out of holes often enough under '9x that I felt happier
with it there.)
>>
>>But some of the latest software nowadays is even requiring Vista or Win7.
>>Fortunately, nothing I want, however. :-)
Ditto.
>>But some of the latest software nowadays is even requiring Vista or Win7.
>>Fortunately, nothing I want, however. :-)
>>
>
>At this point, I'm gonna just setup XP for the internet. I have
>hundreds of programs set up in 98, for all needs and uses. 98 continues
>to work perfectly for music, videos, inage editing, and my home office
>needs. It's just the web browsers that are constantly screwing up and
It was my intention to keep the '98 as my main machine. I bought this XP
>
>At this point, I'm gonna just setup XP for the internet. I have
>hundreds of programs set up in 98, for all needs and uses. 98 continues
>to work perfectly for music, videos, inage editing, and my home office
>needs. It's just the web browsers that are constantly screwing up and
one - a netbook - just around the time XP was being replaced by Vista (I
was certainly lucky _there_: from experience I've had with Vista on
other people's machines, it _is_ a bit of a pain to use). However,
partly perhaps due to its portability (it's a _large_ netbook, about a
12", not one of those 10" - apart from anything else, that means the
keyboard keys are 9x% full size, which they aren't on the smaller
models), it has become my main machine, and the 98 ones don't get turned
on much - the desktop one just to access files really, and the laptop
for that website. There is a _lot_ of freeware out there that means I've
got this XP much as I had '98 - lots of utilities, and beaten into
submission.
>irritating me. I feel pretty safe using 98 online, regarding viruses
>and malware. No one attacks 98 anymore, and aside from some adware, I
2.1.5), that still seems to work (pop up and ask me whenever anything
tries to go in or out that I haven't previously told it to pass or
block), and an AV that's still being updated (I am using Avira, but
several of the others have also said they'll continue to support XP for
a while). There's obviously concern that the black hats are storing up
vulnerabilities until just after A-day, but I suspect (with no evidence
mind!) that this is exaggerated or at least will be controlled by the AV
folk. (I've never actually _had_ a virus on XP - nor '9x or 3.1x, for
that matter. I think practicing "safe hex" - as those of us who've been
around this long, including you of course, probably do instinctively -
keeps one OK.)
>have not had any virus or severe problems with malware in years. I dont
>feel the same about XP, which seems to attract malware lke a trap. So,
obviously go carefully. In particular, as regards unwanted things rather
than actual malware as such, when installing freeware utilities, these
days always select the custom option not the default install, as
otherwise you'll get extras you don't want; this isn't really something
new with XP (it certainly applies to 7 and later too), just a new
funding model freeware authors are switching to in large numbers (and
one can't really blame them), and the only reason it hasn't really
affected '9x is that there's so little _new_ (or updated) being written
for that.
>in some ways, maybe having the internet separated from my other programs
>may be a good thing. But I need to get one of those switchers for the
>Kbd, Mse, and Monitor. Having two of each takes up too much space,and
>tends to confuse me too.
lack of an optical drive [which is what I think makes it a netbook]
would be a pain, but to be honest I've only used the external drive I
bought for it extremely rarely; CDs and even DVDs are sort of old hat
these days.)
>
>I would like to find a step by step text file showing me how to make XP
>look and act more like 98. Yea, I got the classic style desktop set,
>and the same for the Start button menu, but it still does things that
You can ask here and on the XP 'group about specific things - I don't
>I would like to find a step by step text file showing me how to make XP
>look and act more like 98. Yea, I got the classic style desktop set,
>and the same for the Start button menu, but it still does things that
think a general such file would be practical as each migrator would want
slightly different things. (You can email me privately too if you wish.)
The XP 'group is microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion; it no longer has
anything to do with Microsoft (they withdrew usenet support some years
ago, but various newsservers around the world continue to carry it), and
in fact it's now inhabited by older XP users in much the same way the
'98 'groups were/are.
>annoy me. Of course I have my W98 computer setup more like Win3.x, than
>most people. I like having everything in icons on the desktop, Each
>group has many programs inside of it. There are groups like OFFICE -
>INTERNET - VIDEOS - UTILITIES - SYSTEM - NOTES - GRAPIHICS - MUSIC PROGS
>- etc.... I rarely use the START button except to turn off the
>computer.
#genealogy, #hardware, #internet, #processes, #screensavers,
#sound&vi.deo, #utils - into which I've moved most of the other things;
it's a little bit easier to rearrange than under '9x (you can actually
drag things around in it, though that _can_ be irritating, but you can
also right-click and open/explore bits of it), and I tend to use it
rather than my desktop icons (which I, too, have a lot of) because
they're under something. (I tend to have more things open at once than I
used to, though I think that's just experience rather than XP, i. e. I
would have under '9x too I think if I were still using it. I _do_ still
have a few desktop icons I use a lot - but they tend to be around the
edge of the screen where they get obscured less [I rarely run windows
full-screen].)
>
>Anyhow, that seems to be the plan. For one thing I run an old dos
>database, which contains phone - address, - email and other stuff for
>everyone i know, and for my business. It has hundreds of entries. I'm
>not about to retype all that into a windows based DB. I dont know how I
>can run that thing in XP. So, I guess the way to go is to use two
Probably just by trying it! So far, I've found most DOS things work fine
>Anyhow, that seems to be the plan. For one thing I run an old dos
>database, which contains phone - address, - email and other stuff for
>everyone i know, and for my business. It has hundreds of entries. I'm
>not about to retype all that into a windows based DB. I dont know how I
>can run that thing in XP. So, I guess the way to go is to use two
in XP, apart from obviously they use 8.3 filenames (which are still
there in XP). For example, SUBST, Xtree Gold, Edit (if you really want
it!), and the 453-byte (yes!) fire simulator I have. Oh, and some
Windows 3.1 utilities too.
>computers, and XP will just be for the internet mostly. I would not
>even consider Vista, that was a disaster right from it's start. I'd
computer is Vista, but as he's an application user - he uses email, a
browser, and word processors, and that's more or less it - he cares
little what the underlying OS is.
>rather go right to Win 7 or 8, if I had to go past XP, but that would
>mean a much newer and costly computer. I'll just stick to my homemade
>systems that i put together from older systems, which do all I need.
>
just not yet hammered into submission? Either way, the one thing I'd say
is go for getting all the downloads/updates etc. sooner rather than
later: I suspect the servers at Microsoft will already be getting very
busy, as everybody XP does the same, in case MS turn them off in April.
(To be fair they haven't said they will, only stop writing _new_
bugfixes, but they could.)
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Charity sees the need not the cause. -German proverb
pedro
Mar 1, 2014, 8:04:16 PM3/1/14
to
On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 09:07:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bsdsg9pep4fulmnb0...@4ax.com>,
>tange...@toyotamail.com writes:
(snip)
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bsdsg9pep4fulmnb0...@4ax.com>,
>tange...@toyotamail.com writes:
>You can ask here and on the XP 'group about specific things - I don't
>think a general such file would be practical as each migrator would want
>slightly different things. (You can email me privately too if you wish.)
>The XP 'group is microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion;
(more snip)
>So far, I've found most DOS things work fine
>in XP, apart from obviously they use 8.3 filenames (which are still
I never could get XTree Gold to behave really nicely even in 98SE, so
I switched to eXtreme. Uses pretty much all the XTree commands BUT is
sensitive to caps lock status on some.
Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
stalling scripts etc etc.
I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
Win7U.
What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
serial/parallel ports.
98 Guy
Mar 2, 2014, 8:07:51 AM3/2/14
to
pedro wrote:
> As I could never get Kernelex to play nice
What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU, and how
> As I could never get Kernelex to play nice
much RAM?
Is it some special install of win-98 like Lite?
KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out and get
it by default.
Have you done a full defrag / scandisk / surface scan on your hard
drive? You might have some file-system errors or bad sectors that are
the underlying problem.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 2, 2014, 9:47:01 AM3/2/14
to
In message <2605h9tpvrk0h3vqt...@4ax.com>, pedro
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general - not quite the same.
[]
real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)
As for the legacy apps, they may well still work (though you _might_
have to learn a few wrinkles) under XP; try them. If you still have the
install discs (or can download the installers), try those first -
failing that, try copying over the relevant folders, though that's less
likely to be trouble-free (as it would indeed be under 98).
<m...@privacy.net> writes:
>On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 09:07:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <bsdsg9pep4fulmnb0...@4ax.com>,
>>tange...@toyotamail.com writes:
>(snip)
>
>>You can ask here and on the XP 'group about specific things - I don't
>>think a general such file would be practical as each migrator would want
>>slightly different things. (You can email me privately too if you wish.)
>>The XP 'group is microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion;
>
>98?? typo?
Oops - more a matter of copying the wrong line (-:. It's
>On Sat, 1 Mar 2014 09:07:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <bsdsg9pep4fulmnb0...@4ax.com>,
>>tange...@toyotamail.com writes:
>(snip)
>
>>You can ask here and on the XP 'group about specific things - I don't
>>think a general such file would be practical as each migrator would want
>>slightly different things. (You can email me privately too if you wish.)
>>The XP 'group is microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion;
>
>98?? typo?
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general - not quite the same.
[]
>Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
>good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
>nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
>stalling scripts etc etc.
>
>I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
>lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
>OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>Win7U.
>
>What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
>legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
>serial/parallel ports.
To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
>good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
>nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
>stalling scripts etc etc.
>
>I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
>lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
>OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>Win7U.
>
>What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
>legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
>serial/parallel ports.
real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)
As for the legacy apps, they may well still work (though you _might_
have to learn a few wrinkles) under XP; try them. If you still have the
install discs (or can download the installers), try those first -
failing that, try copying over the relevant folders, though that's less
likely to be trouble-free (as it would indeed be under 98).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
After all is said and done, usually more is said.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Hot-Text
Mar 2, 2014, 5:01:34 PM3/2/14
to
"98 Guy" <"98"@Guy. com> wrote in message news:leva7u$nmg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4237 >
Put it in c:\windows\systems32\
Then Restart Computer
For KernelEx will fine it there
> pedro wrote:
>> As I could never get Kernelex to play nice
> What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU, and how
> much RAM?
> Is it some special install of win-98 like Lite?
>
> KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out and get
> it by default.
Download and Info for Microsoft® unicode.dll.
>> As I could never get Kernelex to play nice
> What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU, and how
> much RAM?
> Is it some special install of win-98 like Lite?
>
> KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out and get
> it by default.
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4237 >
Put it in c:\windows\systems32\
Then Restart Computer
For KernelEx will fine it there
pedro
Mar 2, 2014, 9:08:44 PM3/2/14
to
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:47:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2605h9tpvrk0h3vqt...@4ax.com>, pedro
><m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
>>good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
>>nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
>>stalling scripts etc etc.
>>
>>I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
>>lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
>>OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>>Win7U.
>>
>>What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
>>legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
>>serial/parallel ports.
>
>To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
>real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)
It's about the mobos. Yes I can add boards to a desktop to provide
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2605h9tpvrk0h3vqt...@4ax.com>, pedro
><m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
>>good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
>>nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
>>stalling scripts etc etc.
>>
>>I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
>>lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
>>OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>>Win7U.
>>
>>What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
>>legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
>>serial/parallel ports.
>
>To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
>real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)
these ports, but the apps can't defeat HAL.
>As for the legacy apps, they may well still work (though you _might_
>have to learn a few wrinkles) under XP; try them. If you still have the
>install discs (or can download the installers), try those first -
>failing that, try copying over the relevant folders, though that's less
>likely to be trouble-free (as it would indeed be under 98).
some go tits up.
pedro
Mar 2, 2014, 9:14:41 PM3/2/14
to
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:07:51 -0500, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>pedro wrote:
>
>> As I could never get Kernelex to play nice
>
>What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU, and how
>much RAM?
P3/666/512M
>pedro wrote:
>
>> As I could never get Kernelex to play nice
>
>What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU, and how
>much RAM?
>Is it some special install of win-98 like Lite?
>KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out and get
>it by default.
something I tend to create a folder for it within a folder called
"sources" so that later reinstalls aren't an issue. Right now in the
E:\00\sources\KernelEx folder I find:
KernelEx-4.5-Final.exe
unicows.exe
useragentswitcher.xml
>Have you done a full defrag / scandisk / surface scan on your hard
>drive? You might have some file-system errors or bad sectors that are
>the underlying problem.
98 Guy
Mar 2, 2014, 9:36:45 PM3/2/14
to
pedro wrote:
> > What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU,
> > and how much RAM?
>
> P3/666/512M
There are going to be some multimedia instructions (MMX) that I think
> > What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU,
> > and how much RAM?
>
> P3/666/512M
your CPU doesn't have, which will make stuff like flash not work
properly or efficiently.
You'd be better to find some P4 i845 system that someone has thrown out
and use that as a win-98 system.
See - this is the problem with the people that complain that win-98
wasn't stable or has this or that problem. They all have this pathetic
old hardware.
There is no excuse for anyone that wants to run win-98 to be doing so on
a system with a P4 CPU. People have been throwing those systems in the
garbage for the past 5 years, so I don't know why there are people that
cling to P2 and P3 systems.
> > KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out
> > and get it by default.
>
> It was the best part of two years back when I tried it. When I d/l
> something I tend to create a folder for it within a folder called
> "sources" so that later reinstalls aren't an issue. Right now in the
> E:\00\sources\KernelEx folder I find:
>
> KernelEx-4.5-Final.exe
> unicows.exe
> useragentswitcher.xml
c:\windows or c:\windows\system (or both places).
I have 8 different unicows.dll files scattered in various places. The
ones I have in c:\windows is version 1.1.3790.0.
After installation, KernelEx will want you to re-boot, and right after
that reboot it should put up a message saying KernelEx installed and
working.
pedro
Mar 3, 2014, 4:18:15 AM3/3/14
to
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:36:45 -0500, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>See - this is the problem with the people that complain that win-98
>wasn't stable or has this or that problem. They all have this pathetic
>old hardware.
Never complained about stability. From that angle it was mint. This
>See - this is the problem with the people that complain that win-98
>wasn't stable or has this or that problem. They all have this pathetic
>old hardware.
box IS old but kept using it because it was so stabele. Only passage
of time (i.e. things like HTML5, and scripts effing up FF operations)
have made a move necessary IMO.
Hot-Text
Mar 3, 2014, 5:16:16 PM3/3/14
to
"pedro" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:d2i8h9phl2ja101tt...@4ax.com...
I use my Windows 98 SE ie-sp1
as a Web server for 10 years @
< www.hot-text.ath.cx >
Go Opera 10
No need to up date for HTML5
as a Web server for 10 years @
< www.hot-text.ath.cx >
Go Opera 10
No need to up date for HTML5
pedro
Mar 3, 2014, 9:46:56 PM3/3/14
to
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:16:16 -0600, "Hot-Text"
<hot-...@billyrferrell.forgot.his.name:81> wrote:
>
> Go Opera 10
>No need to up date for HTML5
Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
<hot-...@billyrferrell.forgot.his.name:81> wrote:
>
> Go Opera 10
>No need to up date for HTML5
Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.
98 Guy
Mar 3, 2014, 10:20:46 PM3/3/14
to
pedro wrote:
> Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
> Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.
I'm able to run Opera 12.02 with KernelEx, and I use it as a last resort
> Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
> Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.
when FF 2.0.0.23 (Bon Ami) or Pale Moon 3.6.32 aren't good enough.
I'm constantly playing with a lot of google ajax and apis host-file
entries, so sometimes it's probably my own meddling that is resulting in
website dysfunction.
I really don't know why you can't get Kex running on your ancient PC.
You still haven't explained why you're so stuck on saying with a P3
system with 512mb ram (and probably a pathetic video card). Even if you
want to move away from win-98 to something like XP, you would be hard
pressed to run XP on such an old system.
Bottom line: I wouldn't want to run win-98 on any system that would run
XP poorly.
pedro
Mar 4, 2014, 7:51:36 PM3/4/14
to
flawlessly for most things I have on it, a lot of which is legacy
stuff and much of that requires ISA slots.
Even after "migration" to Win7 on the other box, this one will still
be needed to support some of those tasks.
Current video card is a Sapphire Radeon 9200SE Atlantis (128MB)
(fanless, quiet).
>Bottom line: I wouldn't want to run win-98 on any system that would run
>XP poorly.
Hot-Text
Mar 6, 2014, 11:22:20 AM3/6/14
to
"pedro" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:uifah919k0n02j97e...@4ax.com...
As I say Windows 98 SE is a Web Server
NT, 2000, XP Suck as Web server
Win 7 like 98 a dam good Web server
98 Work good on Virtual PC Machine too
I am making a USB-Key
on it a
Virtual Windows 98 SE
WWW Server.
that run on Win 7
NT, 2000, XP Suck as Web server
Win 7 like 98 a dam good Web server
98 Work good on Virtual PC Machine too
I am making a USB-Key
on it a
Virtual Windows 98 SE
WWW Server.
that run on Win 7
Computer Nerd Kev
Mar 6, 2014, 9:00:38 PM3/6/14
to
pedro <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:47:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <2605h9tpvrk0h3vqt...@4ax.com>, pedro
>><m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>>>Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
>>>good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
>>>nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
>>>stalling scripts etc etc.
>>>
>>>I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
>>>lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
>>>OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>>>Win7U.
>>>
>>>What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
>>>legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
>>>serial/parallel ports.
>>
>>To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
>>real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)
>
> It's about the mobos. Yes I can add boards to a desktop to provide
> these ports, but the apps can't defeat HAL.
There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs and 1GB
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:47:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <2605h9tpvrk0h3vqt...@4ax.com>, pedro
>><m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>>>Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
>>>good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
>>>nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
>>>stalling scripts etc etc.
>>>
>>>I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
>>>lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
>>>OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>>>Win7U.
>>>
>>>What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
>>>legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
>>>serial/parallel ports.
>>
>>To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
>>real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)
>
> It's about the mobos. Yes I can add boards to a desktop to provide
> these ports, but the apps can't defeat HAL.
RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative). They'll run a basic XP
install fine if you don't clog it up, and most should have at least a
parallel port (Office PCs kept the parallel port on for a while in
particular). Check the mobo manuals too, there might be a com1 header
sitting unused.
If you want to spend your cash, there are industrial motherboards that
have ISA, Parallel, Serial etc. along with all the modern essentuals.
>>As for the legacy apps, they may well still work (though you _might_
>>have to learn a few wrinkles) under XP; try them. If you still have the
>>install discs (or can download the installers), try those first -
>>failing that, try copying over the relevant folders, though that's less
>>likely to be trouble-free (as it would indeed be under 98).
>
> Have tried them under XP. Some work (when the ports are there) and
> some go tits up.
machine in the new one and see what 98 does. Or just make an image of
the old disk.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
98 Guy
Mar 6, 2014, 9:45:41 PM3/6/14
to
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs
> and 1GB RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative).
That's what I've been trying to tell him.
> There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs
> and 1GB RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative).
And god knows why he needs ISA slots (most probably there's an ancient
sound card he's trying to hang on to, or possibly one of those FM-radio
tuner cards - I have one or two of those).
But even still, I can recommend the Soyo SY-P4i845PE and
SY-P4i845GVISA/plus. That board came in two basic versions - with
low-end 8mb on-board Intel video (and NO AGP slot) and the other version
having an AGP slot (and no onboard video). That is a P4 motherboard
with 3 isa slots and 4 PCI slots. Probably only available on ebay or
kijiji at this point. But these boards had bad capacitors - I've fixed
about a dozen of them. If your good with a soldering iron, then $10
worth of capacitors bought from Digikey will fix it.
The computer I'm typing this post on is a Soyo P4i845GVISA, with 80 gb
IDE hard drive, some no-name 2-port SATA PCI card, eVGA 6200 AGP video
card, 750gb and 1500gb SATA hard drives, and Windows 98se with
KernelEx. All hard drives are formatted FAT32.
There was one other P4 motherboard that had either 1 or 2 ISA slots that
I had at one time in the past - but it did not have on-board audio (!).
> If you want to spend your cash, there are industrial motherboards
> that have ISA, Parallel, Serial etc. along with all the modern
> essentuals.
about is this:
---------
MB-P4BWA Industrial Motherboard with ISA Slots
http://www.amazon.com/MB-P4BWA-Industrial-Motherboard-ISA-Slots/dp/B004HLOQH6
---------
I've built a few XP systems with that motherboard, and I still have 3 of
them in-box, unused. They cost an obscene $320 at the time I bought
them. It uses a socket-775 cpu. It would probably be a struggle to get
win-98 running on it (off hand I don't remember what chipset it uses).
If you didn't need ISA slots (and I really do think that Pedro could
live without ISA) then my recommended win-98 motherboard would be the
Asrock 4-core DUALVSTA (and it's sister board, the model name escapes
me). They're based on socket 775 with VIA 880 chipset. They have PCIe
and AGP slots (but can't use both at the same time) and they have DDR
and DDR2 memory sockets (again, can't use both at the same time). All
motherboard components have win-98 drivers except for on-board
hi-definition audio.
> You could always do a dual boot.
twice, and it's very nice. Dual-boot XP and DOS-7.1 to experience full
DOS-mode access to your file system!
NTFS is total garbage if you ask me. All the hype centered around
journaling is complete bullshit. Format a large drive with FAT32 and
force it to use 4kb clusters and you kill the other FAT32 argument about
wasted slack-space.
98 Guy
Mar 6, 2014, 9:52:43 PM3/6/14
to
Hot-Text wrote:
> As I say Windows 98 SE is a Web Server
>
> NT, 2000, XP Suck as Web server
I have two machines, each of them P3-800 mhz, Gigabyte motherboard,
> As I say Windows 98 SE is a Web Server
>
> NT, 2000, XP Suck as Web server
BX440 chipset. One has 512mb ram, the other has 768 mb. Both have 500
gb IDE hard drives. Both are running NT4 Server. One has IIS 4 and is
used as a web server. The other runs post.office (smtp server) and
AccPac accounting data base (SQL server). They've both been in service
since 1999 on a continuous basis.
If it's not broke - don't fix it.
Hot-Text
Mar 7, 2014, 2:46:33 PM3/7/14
to
"98 Guy" <"98"@Guy. com> wrote in message news:lfbc1l$c46$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
(SQL server) run good on Win7 Lol
Don't add to it
Will Not Brake
No Fix Needed
Don't add to it
Will Not Brake
No Fix Needed
Computer Nerd Kev
Mar 7, 2014, 7:54:01 PM3/7/14
to
98 Guy <"98"@guy. com> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs
>> and 1GB RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative).
>
> That's what I've been trying to tell him.
>
> And god knows why he needs ISA slots (most probably there's an ancient
> sound card he's trying to hang on to, or possibly one of those FM-radio
> tuner cards - I have one or two of those).
Yes one of the fabled most rediculous internal PC devices widely produced.
> Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs
>> and 1GB RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative).
>
> That's what I've been trying to tell him.
>
> And god knows why he needs ISA slots (most probably there's an ancient
> sound card he's trying to hang on to, or possibly one of those FM-radio
> tuner cards - I have one or two of those).
Never seen one myself though, perhaps they never made it that far into
Australia...
Mind you, there were a few special uses for the ISA port that were
a bit more purposeful than being able to say "look! I can play radio on my
PC!". For example I recently finished grabbing the software for a fairly
good EPROM programmer off a late 80s Compaq Portable III, so now I can use
it in any old PC that I want (in particular one that offers more data transfer
options than one 5.25" FDD that won't work for love or money (I'll save you
from details of the hassle that was getting the software off)). a good
EPROM programmer can be well in the hundreds new.
>> If you want to spend your cash, there are industrial motherboards
>> that have ISA, Parallel, Serial etc. along with all the modern
>> essentuals.
>
> I'm not quite sure who makes it, but one example of what you are talking
> about is this:
>
> ---------
> MB-P4BWA Industrial Motherboard with ISA Slots
> http://www.amazon.com/MB-P4BWA-Industrial-Motherboard-ISA-Slots/dp/B004HLOQH6
> ---------
>
> I've built a few XP systems with that motherboard, and I still have 3 of
> them in-box, unused. They cost an obscene $320 at the time I bought
> them. It uses a socket-775 cpu. It would probably be a struggle to get
> win-98 running on it (off hand I don't remember what chipset it uses).
their models a couple of years ago, but I didn't bite.
pedro
Mar 8, 2014, 8:55:46 PM3/8/14
to
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 21:45:41 -0500, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs
>> and 1GB RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative).
>
>That's what I've been trying to tell him.
>
>And god knows why he needs ISA slots (most probably there's an ancient
>sound card he's trying to hang on to, or possibly one of those FM-radio
>tuner cards - I have one or two of those).
No such garbage - the main one is a very exotic data acquisition board
>Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs
>> and 1GB RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative).
>
>That's what I've been trying to tell him.
>
>And god knows why he needs ISA slots (most probably there's an ancient
>sound card he's trying to hang on to, or possibly one of those FM-radio
>tuner cards - I have one or two of those).
which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
"If it ain't broke, don't fsck with it (especially if it's expensive)"
applies here. The internet-facing aspect is the only real problem,
but that is currently being circumvented by moving that role onto a
companion Win7 box.
In an ideal world a KVM switch would let them reside at the same
workstation, but I've yet to find one that works as described. They
all seem to hiccup at some point. The last one (four-port
"self-powered" - sources power from connected pooters) would fail to
get started if one pooter was powered up from black while the other
was still black. It was a juggling act in starting simultaneously to
get it to not fsck up the boot process by leaving the peripherals
undetected. The previous Belkin one also had issues. The no-name
before that was supposed to be all automatic, hot-key or push-button
flipping, but never did seem to reliably sense which box was being
powered up (we don't leave boxes on 24/7 like MS assume for Win7/8).
98 Guy
Mar 9, 2014, 2:57:28 PM3/9/14
to
pedro wrote:
> > And god knows why he needs ISA slots
>
> > And god knows why he needs ISA slots
>
> - the main one is a very exotic data acquisition board
> which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
> amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
> was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
So here's what I don't get.
> which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
> amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
> was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
If so, then I have to wonder why you are being handicapped by win-98
since presumably you wouldn't be using such a system for ordinary
desktop or workstation functions (like browsing the web, reading usenet,
etc). I say that because industrial or commercial DAq systems usually
like to just sit in a rack or instrumentation shelf and do their job
without someone using them to check fecebook, read email or surf for
porn.
If you're using this computer - with it's super-special ISA board - to
surf the web, read email, post to usenet or twitter, then I have to
wonder what sort of "mission-critical" use the ISA hardware is being
used for.
> The internet-facing aspect is the only real problem, but that is
> currently being circumvented by moving that role onto a
> companion Win7 box.
win-9x/me when it comes to facing the internet. History has proven that
to be the case time and time again.
Again, I have to ask why you are concerned with the usefulness of win-98
from a consumer web-surfing or you-tube-watching point of view when the
system in question apparently has a commercial or industrial role that
would preclude it from being used as trivially as someone's home
computer.
If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a 14-year-old
PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be worried about is
compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or Flash 12 or HTML5.
pedro
Mar 10, 2014, 2:54:19 AM3/10/14
to
On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:57:28 -0400, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > And god knows why he needs ISA slots
>>
>> - the main one is a very exotic data acquisition board
>> which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
>> amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
>> was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
>
>So here's what I don't get.
>
>You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
>
>Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
SOHO
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > And god knows why he needs ISA slots
>>
>> - the main one is a very exotic data acquisition board
>> which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
>> amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
>> was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
>
>So here's what I don't get.
>
>You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
>
>Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
>If so, then I have to wonder why you are being handicapped by win-98
>since presumably you wouldn't be using such a system for ordinary
>desktop or workstation functions (like browsing the web, reading usenet,
>etc). I say that because industrial or commercial DAq systems usually
>like to just sit in a rack or instrumentation shelf and do their job
>without someone using them to check fecebook, read email or surf for
>porn.
>If you're using this computer - with it's super-special ISA board - to
>surf the web, read email, post to usenet or twitter, then I have to
>wonder what sort of "mission-critical" use the ISA hardware is being
>used for.
>
>> The internet-facing aspect is the only real problem, but that is
>> currently being circumvented by moving that role onto a
>> companion Win7 box.
>
>Win7 (and all NT-based versions of Windoze) is way more vulnerable than
>win-9x/me when it comes to facing the internet. History has proven that
>to be the case time and time again.
>Again, I have to ask why you are concerned with the usefulness of win-98
>from a consumer web-surfing or you-tube-watching point of view when the
>system in question apparently has a commercial or industrial role that
>would preclude it from being used as trivially as someone's home
>computer.
>
>If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a 14-year-old
>PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be worried about is
>compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or Flash 12 or HTML5.
acquisition role to continue while being able to use more contemporary
browser(s). The DAq role doesn't require manned attendance but
intermittent oversight is warranted. So flip-flopping between boxes
via KVM switch is a viable approach that minimises desktop footprint
while alllowing "normal" net use to continue. The alternative is to
physically flipflop between separate(d) workstations. The partial
migration to Win7 is implementing that latter approach.
98 Guy
Mar 10, 2014, 9:08:17 AM3/10/14
to
pedro wrote:
> > You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
> >
> > Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
>
> SOHO
>
> > You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
> >
> > Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
>
> SOHO
>
> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
> I did mention that I had considered a KVM approach to allow the
> data acquisition role to continue while being able to use more
> contemporary browser(s).
So you are going to use one monitor, keyboard and mouse, but use a KVM
switch to switch between the win-98 and some win-NT machine?
Do you have such little desktop or office space that you can't allocate
a separate keyboard, mouse and monitor to each computer?
> The DAq role doesn't require manned attendance but intermittent
> oversight is warranted.
can't devote a keyboard, mouse and monitor to the win-98 system, and (b)
why you would even contimplate using the win-98 system for general
computing tasks when it has some presumably important DAQ role to
perform.
What is the data rate (how many kb/sec) or samples per second, across
how many channels, is this DAC monitoring?
Is it saving this data, or is it just monitoring it?
Is it doing this 24/7, or on a schedule, or when-ever you feel like
doing it?
Will the DAQ software run under win-NT (2k/xp/7) ?
Hot-Text
Mar 11, 2014, 1:35:28 AM3/11/14
to
"pedro" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:6vnqh9pcnir0hbidq...@4ax.com...
Just News-Groups
411 No
Such group
alt.binaires
Is Not one of Them
On a Dell Dimension XPS T550
I use a HD-TV for my
Windows 98 Plus with IE 6 SP-1
Compatibility
MySQL Server 5.6
MySQL AB for Win32
MySQL Connector/ODBC 5.2
PHP 5.8
MagickStudio-1.9.3
ActivePerl 5.8.4.810
NetworkActiv Web Server 3.5
Ruby193
Python 27
I use my Network stations
To do all my Editing with
MW XP MCE 2005
Dam I look my HP
For I see all
Win-98 files that I
Need to Work with
On my XP Network
I have not see my 98 for 3 mouth
HD-TV
But day
I have to View
That Old 98
Just to see
If
Day Light Save Time
Is running
On Time ;)
Pop a Link
And see if I tell the Truth
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 14:57:28 -0400, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>>pedro wrote:
>>> > And god knows why he needs ISA slots
>>> - the main one is a very exotic data acquisition board
>>> which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
>>> amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
>>> was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
>>So here's what I don't get.
>>You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
>>Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
> SOHO
>>If so, then I have to wonder why you are being handicapped by win-98
>>since presumably you wouldn't be using such a system for ordinary
>>desktop or workstation functions (like browsing the web, reading usenet,
>>etc). I say that because industrial or commercial DAq systems usually
>>like to just sit in a rack or instrumentation shelf and do their job
>>without someone using them to check fecebook, read email or surf for
>>porn.
> Not into porn or twit-face ....
Guy 98 not in to Porn now days
>>pedro wrote:
>>> > And god knows why he needs ISA slots
>>> - the main one is a very exotic data acquisition board
>>> which, with the accompanying software, would still cost four-figure
>>> amounts to replace. Not to mention the custom add-on software that
>>> was developed to extend the COTS functionality.
>>So here's what I don't get.
>>You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
>>Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
> SOHO
>>If so, then I have to wonder why you are being handicapped by win-98
>>since presumably you wouldn't be using such a system for ordinary
>>desktop or workstation functions (like browsing the web, reading usenet,
>>etc). I say that because industrial or commercial DAq systems usually
>>like to just sit in a rack or instrumentation shelf and do their job
>>without someone using them to check fecebook, read email or surf for
>>porn.
> Not into porn or twit-face ....
Just News-Groups
411 No
Such group
alt.binaires
Is Not one of Them
I use a HD-TV for my
Windows 98 Plus with IE 6 SP-1
Compatibility
MySQL Server 5.6
MySQL AB for Win32
MySQL Connector/ODBC 5.2
PHP 5.8
MagickStudio-1.9.3
ActivePerl 5.8.4.810
NetworkActiv Web Server 3.5
Ruby193
Python 27
I use my Network stations
To do all my Editing with
MW XP MCE 2005
Dam I look my HP
For I see all
Win-98 files that I
Need to Work with
On my XP Network
I have not see my 98 for 3 mouth
HD-TV
But day
I have to View
That Old 98
Just to see
If
Day Light Save Time
Is running
On Time ;)
Pop a Link
And see if I tell the Truth
pedro
Mar 11, 2014, 7:42:04 AM3/11/14
to
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 09:08:17 -0400, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
>> >
>> > Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
>>
>> SOHO
>>
>> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
>> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
>> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
>> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
>
>You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
What's to reply? You stated "the last thing I'd be doing ...". Your
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > You have a legacy DAq setup that would cost thousands to replace.
>> >
>> > Is it being used in an industrial or commercial setting?
>>
>> SOHO
>>
>> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
>> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
>> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
>> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
>
>You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
right to have a view. Go for it.
>> I did mention that I had considered a KVM approach to allow the
>> data acquisition role to continue while being able to use more
>> contemporary browser(s).
>
>I really didn't follow that.
>
>So you are going to use one monitor, keyboard and mouse, but use a KVM
>switch to switch between the win-98 and some win-NT machine?
approach had been rejected.
>Do you have such little desktop or office space that you can't allocate
>a separate keyboard, mouse and monitor to each computer?
>> The DAq role doesn't require manned attendance but intermittent
>> oversight is warranted.
>
>I still don't know why your situation is so challenged that you (a)
>can't devote a keyboard, mouse and monitor to the win-98 system
>, and (b)
>why you would even contimplate using the win-98 system for general
>computing tasks when it has some presumably important DAQ role to
>perform.
It has been doing both for some years, with the only issues being as
>why you would even contimplate using the win-98 system for general
>computing tasks when it has some presumably important DAQ role to
>perform.
posted earlier in this thread (eg HTML5/browsers).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But now there is something that
needs fixing. That's what this is about.
>What is the data rate (how many kb/sec) or samples per second, across
>how many channels, is this DAC monitoring?
>
>Is it saving this data, or is it just monitoring it?
>Is it doing this 24/7, or on a schedule, or when-ever you feel like
>doing it?
>Will the DAQ software run under win-NT (2k/xp/7) ?
but that's where the big $$ come in.
This is getting entirely away from the original query/comment (and
asked in another post that went unanswered) - how to get Kernelex
established and behaving on this 98SE box.
98 Guy
Mar 11, 2014, 10:05:24 AM3/11/14
to
pedro wrote:
> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
> >
> > You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
>
> What's to reply? You stated "the last thing I'd be doing ...". Your
> right to have a view. Go for it.
So this DAQ board is some sort of image acquisition or processing
> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
> >
> > You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
>
> What's to reply? You stated "the last thing I'd be doing ...". Your
> right to have a view. Go for it.
board? Or a PBX / digital phone system board?
Obviously this is a hobby thing. Your SOHO is obviously not dependant
on the operation of this board.
> > Do you have such little desktop or office space that you can't
> > allocate a separate keyboard, mouse and monitor to each computer?
>
> No, but it adds clutter that I don't need.
new) is - clutter?
You place those on top of your ancient P3 computer (which obviously is a
desktop case) - where's the clutter?
> It has been doing both for some years, with the only issues being as
> posted earlier in this thread (eg HTML5/browsers).
>
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But now there is something that
> needs fixing. That's what this is about.
> Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
> Win7U.
Curious - why didn't you choose to run XP? Much more usable for anyone
> Win7U.
coming directly from win-9x.
> how to get Kernelex established and behaving on this 98SE box.
What was it that wasn't behaving?
pedro
Mar 12, 2014, 2:32:17 AM3/12/14
to
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:05:24 -0400, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
>> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
>> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
>> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
>> >
>> > You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
>>
>> What's to reply? You stated "the last thing I'd be doing ...". Your
>> right to have a view. Go for it.
>
>So this DAQ board is some sort of image acquisition or processing
>board? Or a PBX / digital phone system board?
Nope.
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > If I had a super-expensive ISA-based DAq board running on a
>> > 14-year-old PC running windows 98, the last thing I'd be
>> > worried about is compatibility with Firefox 28 or IE15 or
>> > Flash 12 or HTML5.
>> >
>> > You really haven't replied to the above observation or opinion.
>>
>> What's to reply? You stated "the last thing I'd be doing ...". Your
>> right to have a view. Go for it.
>
>So this DAQ board is some sort of image acquisition or processing
>board? Or a PBX / digital phone system board?
>Obviously this is a hobby thing.
>Your SOHO is obviously not dependant
>on the operation of this board.
>> > Do you have such little desktop or office space that you can't
>> > allocate a separate keyboard, mouse and monitor to each computer?
>>
>> No, but it adds clutter that I don't need.
>
>A $75 (new) flat panel monitor, a keyboard ($10 new) and a mouse ($5
>new) is - clutter?
>You place those on top of your ancient P3 computer (which obviously is a
>desktop case) - where's the clutter?
>> It has been doing both for some years, with the only issues being as
>> posted earlier in this thread (eg HTML5/browsers).
>>
>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But now there is something that
>> needs fixing. That's what this is about.
>
>> Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
>> Win7U.
>
>Curious - why didn't you choose to run XP? Much more usable for anyone
>coming directly from win-9x.
was/is smoothing the wrinkles. I've been using XP-SP3 on a lappie in
the field since '08, and a Win7 lappie since early 2012. Comfortable
in either.
>> how to get Kernelex established and behaving on this 98SE box.
>
>How do you know that Kex wasn't installed correctly?
>
>What was it that wasn't behaving?
- the folder I d/l-ed into was created Jan 2011.)
renamed old, installed it and some things were "different". Tried a
later version of FF and it didn't work. That's about all I recall
98 Guy
Mar 12, 2014, 12:08:49 PM3/12/14
to
pedro wrote:
> > Obviously this is a hobby thing.
>
> Nope
>
> > Your SOHO is obviously not dependant
> > on the operation of this board.
>
> Neither my existence nor livelihood are dependent on it.
The board is not involved in any aspect of the operation, management,
> > Obviously this is a hobby thing.
>
> Nope
>
> > Your SOHO is obviously not dependant
> > on the operation of this board.
>
> Neither my existence nor livelihood are dependent on it.
income or revenue stream of your SOHO, and you don't use the board for
leisure or hobby. I don't know what's left. And yet it's important
enough for you to devote time and effort on a technical, ergonomic
solution in a cramped SOHO situation.
> > How do you know that Kex wasn't installed correctly?
> >
> > What was it that wasn't behaving?
>
> Don't recall exactly. It was probably two years back.
> (Just checked - the folder I d/l-ed into was created Jan 2011.)
>
> renamed old, installed it and some things were "different".
> Tried a later version of FF and it didn't work. That's about
> all I recall
The last time you putzed with it was 2 years ago?
(Sometimes I really have to wonder about some people)
Download the latest version and run it. When it reboots, it either will
or will not display a message saying that Kex is installed and working.
http://softlayer-dal.dl.sourceforge.net/project/kernelex/KernelEx/4.5.2/KernelEx-4.5.2.exe
As for Firefox, don't get your hopes up that Kex will make things
better. What I know about that is that some version of FF 3.5 or 3.6 is
the last best version that Kex will allow to run on Win-98 with full
functionality. You will be able to run later versions of FF (I think up
to 15) but anything beyond 3.5 or 3.6 will not have functional bookmarks
or history.
Kex will allow more recent versions of Flash and Java (although Java is
not terribly common for general browsing, but is used for more
interactive websites that have elements with controls such as graphs).
I don't use FF 3.5 because of an issue with while lines being drawn
through graphics as I scroll a page up and down. So I stick with FF
2.0.0.23 and rarely have issues that make it necessary to use another
browser.
For those few sites that give me problems I use Opera 12.02 (which needs
Kex to run).
pedro
Mar 13, 2014, 12:14:58 AM3/13/14
to
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:08:49 -0400, 98 Guy <"98"@Guy. com> wrote:
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > Obviously this is a hobby thing.
>>
>> Nope
>>
>> > Your SOHO is obviously not dependant
>> > on the operation of this board.
>>
>> Neither my existence nor livelihood are dependent on it.
>
>The board is not involved in any aspect of the operation, management,
>income or revenue stream of your SOHO, and you don't use the board for
>leisure or hobby. I don't know what's left. And yet it's important
>enough for you to devote time and effort on a technical, ergonomic
>solution in a cramped SOHO situation.
You insist on reading too much into this and heading off at a tangent.
>pedro wrote:
>
>> > Obviously this is a hobby thing.
>>
>> Nope
>>
>> > Your SOHO is obviously not dependant
>> > on the operation of this board.
>>
>> Neither my existence nor livelihood are dependent on it.
>
>The board is not involved in any aspect of the operation, management,
>income or revenue stream of your SOHO, and you don't use the board for
>leisure or hobby. I don't know what's left. And yet it's important
>enough for you to devote time and effort on a technical, ergonomic
>solution in a cramped SOHO situation.
While my livelihood isn't dependent on it (as stated) that doesn't
mean it is insignificant. Anyway, whay does what I am doing with it
affect the original question?
>> > How do you know that Kex wasn't installed correctly?
>> >
>> > What was it that wasn't behaving?
>>
>> Don't recall exactly. It was probably two years back.
>> (Just checked - the folder I d/l-ed into was created Jan 2011.)
>>
>> renamed old, installed it and some things were "different".
>> Tried a later version of FF and it didn't work. That's about
>> all I recall
>
>So you haven't downloaded the most recent version?
file name is KernelEx-4.5-Final.exe (229,625 bytes). Now if final
doesn't mean final then no I haven't tried the latest version.
>The last time you putzed with it was 2 years ago?
>(Sometimes I really have to wonder about some people)
>Download the latest version and run it. When it reboots, it either will
>or will not display a message saying that Kex is installed and working.
>
>http://softlayer-dal.dl.sourceforge.net/project/kernelex/KernelEx/4.5.2/KernelEx-4.5.2.exe
>
>As for Firefox, don't get your hopes up that Kex will make things
>better. What I know about that is that some version of FF 3.5 or 3.6 is
>the last best version that Kex will allow to run on Win-98 with full
>functionality. You will be able to run later versions of FF (I think up
>to 15) but anything beyond 3.5 or 3.6 will not have functional bookmarks
>or history.
>
>Kex will allow more recent versions of Flash and Java (although Java is
>not terribly common for general browsing, but is used for more
>interactive websites that have elements with controls such as graphs).
>I don't use FF 3.5 because of an issue with while lines being drawn
>through graphics as I scroll a page up and down. So I stick with FF
>2.0.0.23 and rarely have issues that make it necessary to use another
>browser.
>
>For those few sites that give me problems I use Opera 12.02 (which needs
>Kex to run).
latest that vanilla 98SE would support). It works on some sites but
renders some terribly. I only pull it out when desperate. (No, even
when desperate I wouldn't dream of using IE.)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Mar 12, 2014, 7:45:42 PM3/12/14
to
In message <lfn4u0$fkl$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
>pedro wrote:
[]
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Someone once said that scientists and prostitutes get paid for doing what they
enjoy. - Prof Stepehen Hawking in RT 2013/12/7-13
>pedro wrote:
[]
>> > Do you have such little desktop or office space that you can't
>> > allocate a separate keyboard, mouse and monitor to each computer?
>>
>> No, but it adds clutter that I don't need.
>
>A $75 (new) flat panel monitor, a keyboard ($10 new) and a mouse ($5
>new) is - clutter?
What have the prices to do with whether they're clutter or not?
>> > allocate a separate keyboard, mouse and monitor to each computer?
>>
>> No, but it adds clutter that I don't need.
>
>A $75 (new) flat panel monitor, a keyboard ($10 new) and a mouse ($5
>new) is - clutter?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Someone once said that scientists and prostitutes get paid for doing what they
enjoy. - Prof Stepehen Hawking in RT 2013/12/7-13
98 Guy
Mar 13, 2014, 8:20:18 AM3/13/14
to
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
> >> No, but it adds clutter that I don't need.
> >
> > A $75 (new) flat panel monitor, a keyboard ($10 new) and a mouse
> > ($5 new) is - clutter?
>
> What have the prices to do with whether they're clutter or not?
In case he was working with old CRT monitors, I was pointing out the
> >> No, but it adds clutter that I don't need.
> >
> > A $75 (new) flat panel monitor, a keyboard ($10 new) and a mouse
> > ($5 new) is - clutter?
>
> What have the prices to do with whether they're clutter or not?
relative cheapness of a new flat panel with a much smaller footprint.
And mini-towers are not really space-savers, as the ability to stack
your monitor on top of a desktop case is something you can't do with a
mini-tower.
98 Guy
Mar 13, 2014, 8:50:58 AM3/13/14
to
So are you going to try the latest version - and definitively establish
if Kex works on your system?
Or are you going to come back here in a year or two and start this
thread all over again?
http://softlayer-dal.dl.sourceforge.net/project/kernelex/KernelEx/4.5.2/KernelEx-4.5.2.exe
> I put Opera 10.63 on this box a fair while back (as reputedly the
> latest that vanilla 98SE would support). It works on some sites but
> renders some terribly. I only pull it out when desperate. (No, even
> when desperate I wouldn't dream of using IE.)
The Kex you installed 2 years ago is probably working just fine on your
system.
You probably attempted to install some version of FF that was known to
be incompatible with Kex and then assumed that Kex wasn't functional on
your system.
You don't say if you tried to install any other software (such as VLC or
Flash) that would have shown if Kex was or wasn't working for you.
Firefox 3.5/3.6 is a pretty big jump from 2.0 and should make many
websites more viewable compared to 2.0.
Some people claim that Opera 11.64 is more stable than 12.02, but
nonetheless I recommend one or the other over 10.63 once you have
installed the latest KernelEx.
What version of DirectX do you have installed?
If you go Start, Run, and enter "dxdiag", it will tell you what version
you have. It should be 9.0c.
I suggest you read this thread:
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/2011/11/kernelex-v4-5-2-released/#comments
Particularly a post made by "RP" on August 20, 2012.
One thing you may not know about kernelEx is that if it's installed
correctly, when you right-click the properties of any exe or dll file,
you will get a KernelEx compatibility tab where you can change how
KernelEx will handle the file. There are some programs that need to be
set to "Windows 2000" compatibility mode, and some that need to be set
to XP/SP-2 mode.
Some fiddling with getting the correct or a particular version of
MSVCRT.DLL and it's associated registry entries might also be an issue
for some programs.
if Kex works on your system?
Or are you going to come back here in a year or two and start this
thread all over again?
http://softlayer-dal.dl.sourceforge.net/project/kernelex/KernelEx/4.5.2/KernelEx-4.5.2.exe
> I put Opera 10.63 on this box a fair while back (as reputedly the
> latest that vanilla 98SE would support). It works on some sites but
> renders some terribly. I only pull it out when desperate. (No, even
> when desperate I wouldn't dream of using IE.)
system.
You probably attempted to install some version of FF that was known to
be incompatible with Kex and then assumed that Kex wasn't functional on
your system.
You don't say if you tried to install any other software (such as VLC or
Flash) that would have shown if Kex was or wasn't working for you.
Firefox 3.5/3.6 is a pretty big jump from 2.0 and should make many
websites more viewable compared to 2.0.
Some people claim that Opera 11.64 is more stable than 12.02, but
nonetheless I recommend one or the other over 10.63 once you have
installed the latest KernelEx.
What version of DirectX do you have installed?
If you go Start, Run, and enter "dxdiag", it will tell you what version
you have. It should be 9.0c.
I suggest you read this thread:
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/2011/11/kernelex-v4-5-2-released/#comments
Particularly a post made by "RP" on August 20, 2012.
One thing you may not know about kernelEx is that if it's installed
correctly, when you right-click the properties of any exe or dll file,
you will get a KernelEx compatibility tab where you can change how
KernelEx will handle the file. There are some programs that need to be
set to "Windows 2000" compatibility mode, and some that need to be set
to XP/SP-2 mode.
Some fiddling with getting the correct or a particular version of
MSVCRT.DLL and it's associated registry entries might also be an issue
for some programs.
jaugu...@verizon.net
Apr 1, 2014, 10:08:23 AM4/1/14
to
>Kernel-Ex Version 4.5.12 says it's intended to run Firefox 8.0.
>
>While FF 8.0 does load, it's crashes almost everytime I close it, and
>often when I clear the history (cache, cookies, etc). A few times this
>crash locked up the whole computer, which has not happened to me in
>years.
>
>Before this, I had the previous version of Kernel-EX, and was running FF
>3.0.0.28. That one dont crash, even though that version loads slower
>than molasses in January (up to 2 minutes), and recently keeps giving me
>problems on some websites, such as "no longer supported" messages on
>sites like Youtube. And it also tends to get a lot of script errors
>too. But this ver dont crash.
>
>Just for the heck of it, I installed FF 4.x (most recent ver of 4).
>Same as ver 8.0. Crashes when closing and sometimes when I clear cache.
>
>I finally just uninstalled all of them and went back to version 3.
>
>Kernel-EX dont seem to work as it claims, at least not for FF. I guess
>it's time to start using XP on the internet, there just is no browser
>that works in 98 anymore. My old favorite, K-Meleon gets a script error
>every 5 minutes, Seamonkey (for 98) is also too old, and i dont use IE.
>(it's not even installed). I wont touch Opera with another man's _ick
>on the end of a 10 foot pole. I looked into a few others and none are
>suited for Win98 anymore.....
>
>I'm not real fond of XP, but I guess the time has come to force myself
>to like it.... I know I'll miss W98se.
>
Hi Tangerine,
I use Kernel-Ex (version?) and FF3.6 for most sites. Some sites, I reboot
my computer and use WinXP and FF14.
Several of my computers have a dual boot system. The hard disk
drive(s) is "split" into two logical drives, C: and D:.
I installed Win98se on C: and the aps I use. Next, I install
WinXP (home edition), but I select "D:" for the destination.
WinXP creates the dual boot system for me as a result.
My WinXP Backup "System".
I disable automatic updates, turn off hibernation and "System Restore".
Note: I also use "Selective Startups" (MSCONFIG) and uncheck non essentials.
I reboot my PC and use Win98. Then I use WinZip (7.0) to "zip" the 3 main
folders in D: which are "WINDOWS", "Program Files", and "Documents and
Settings". The .ZIP files are created in C:\BACKUPS\WINXP folder.
Also, I put those .ZIP files on a USB flash drive.
John
>
>While FF 8.0 does load, it's crashes almost everytime I close it, and
>often when I clear the history (cache, cookies, etc). A few times this
>crash locked up the whole computer, which has not happened to me in
>years.
>
>Before this, I had the previous version of Kernel-EX, and was running FF
>3.0.0.28. That one dont crash, even though that version loads slower
>than molasses in January (up to 2 minutes), and recently keeps giving me
>problems on some websites, such as "no longer supported" messages on
>sites like Youtube. And it also tends to get a lot of script errors
>too. But this ver dont crash.
>
>Just for the heck of it, I installed FF 4.x (most recent ver of 4).
>Same as ver 8.0. Crashes when closing and sometimes when I clear cache.
>
>I finally just uninstalled all of them and went back to version 3.
>
>Kernel-EX dont seem to work as it claims, at least not for FF. I guess
>it's time to start using XP on the internet, there just is no browser
>that works in 98 anymore. My old favorite, K-Meleon gets a script error
>every 5 minutes, Seamonkey (for 98) is also too old, and i dont use IE.
>(it's not even installed). I wont touch Opera with another man's _ick
>on the end of a 10 foot pole. I looked into a few others and none are
>suited for Win98 anymore.....
>
>I'm not real fond of XP, but I guess the time has come to force myself
>to like it.... I know I'll miss W98se.
>
Hi Tangerine,
I use Kernel-Ex (version?) and FF3.6 for most sites. Some sites, I reboot
my computer and use WinXP and FF14.
Several of my computers have a dual boot system. The hard disk
drive(s) is "split" into two logical drives, C: and D:.
I installed Win98se on C: and the aps I use. Next, I install
WinXP (home edition), but I select "D:" for the destination.
WinXP creates the dual boot system for me as a result.
My WinXP Backup "System".
I disable automatic updates, turn off hibernation and "System Restore".
Note: I also use "Selective Startups" (MSCONFIG) and uncheck non essentials.
I reboot my PC and use Win98. Then I use WinZip (7.0) to "zip" the 3 main
folders in D: which are "WINDOWS", "Program Files", and "Documents and
Settings". The .ZIP files are created in C:\BACKUPS\WINXP folder.
Also, I put those .ZIP files on a USB flash drive.
John
0 new messages