RetroOS

Visual Studio 2008 and Windows 9x

35 posts in this topic

Thanks, found some interesting things there. ;)

I had already patched and repacked beta2 of VC2008 for Win9x use, last year in November but didn't mess with the msi within, which still holds a system32 folder (should be system for Win9x).

Also I'm not familiar with the [blockProductCode] section in the original install.ini.

I see you completely overhauled the installation process; I tried a minimal-change approach. Might give it another try when I feel like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While he/she sounds very confident in their approach, they seemed to have left out describing what if anything this will cost, and to whom?

Would something like $29.95 (individual developer license) be too much in your opinion? Some corporate developers might not even take it seriously at that price, while for others anything more than free would be too expensive. I exchanged ideas about the possible pricing. A small price would still give customers technical support and updates, i.e. if new functions emerge, they would likely be added to the library, etc.

Legacy Extender is not as vast as KernelEx. It focuses on what Visual Studio adds or breaks that the developer did not want in the first place. If the developer used some other XP-only functions on purpose, Legacy Extender will not help much. On the other hand, Legacy Extender is great if you already have a "legacy" project, and simply want to update the compiler, and you thought the only way was to run two different versions of Visual Studio.

I doubt that Microsoft would be interested (as a customer), because they have demonstrated that they do not care about legacy compatibility. To the contrary, it seemed to me that they introduced or at least supported incompatibility on purpose. Do you remember how Visual Studio 2005 became incompatible with Windows 95? At the time it did not really break much. It would not have taken more than a few hours of work for Microsoft to retain compatibility by just not using certain functions. Lots of programmers had proposed solutions, patches, etc. I proposed one to Microsoft myself after I filed a bug report (I thought it was a bug!), they filed the "bug" as something like "by design" and closed the case!

As for whether it works or not, it's currently being tested in public. Anyone can access it. You are free to decide for yourself, provide feedback, etc.

Just my two cents!

yes

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visual C++ 7.x Packs were updated according to KB954885 and VS .NET 2002 SP1. List of updated files include:

ATL71A.DLL 7.10.3077.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

ATL71U.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71CHS.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71CHT.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71DEU.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71ENU.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71ESP.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71FRA.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71ITA.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71JPN.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71KOR.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MFC71U.DLL 7.10.6041.0 -> 7.10.6088.0

MSVCI70.DLL 7.0.9466.0 -> 7.0.9955.0

Look for new links in previous posts (#23 and #30).

Edited by Advanced User
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visual C++ 7.x Packs were updated according to KB971089. List of updated files include:

ATL71A.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

ATL71U.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71CHS.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71CHT.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71DEU.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71ENU.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71ESP.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71FRA.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71ITA.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71JPN.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71KOR.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

MFC71U.DLL 7.10.6088.0 -> 7.10.6101.0

Look for new links in previous posts (#23 and #30).

Edited by Advanced User
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

few months ago i unpacked msvcr2008 with any extracting program (twice, or three times). later with Kernel EX 0.3.6 i executed the setup and copied the extracted files to system32 directory. After tests with some applications for visual studio 2008 i considered this manually installed package as fully working on windows 98 SE with newest KernelEX. i just had no time to make tutorial for this :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.