[frogman]

Dave-H, on 08 March 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

frogman, on 08 March 2011 - 03:08 PM, said:

I did, but when I find the msi installer and I open it I receive a windows message saying " This installation package could not be opened, contact the application vendor to verify this is a valid windows installer package".

What is in the folder with the msi file?

There are 2 files, one being the installer, and the other is an image file called OpenOffice_banner.

And I have the system set to show ALL files.

[Dave-H]

That's the problem then, you need at least Data1.cab as well.
Try running the installer package again, and leave it running when it throws up the OS error message.
Search for Data1.cab and you should now find it in the folder with the msi file.
Copy and paste all the files in that folder to a temporary folder.
About the running installation, at which point the original folder you found the files in will probably be deleted by the installer.
Go the the folder you copied the files to and run the msi file.
Should work!

[frogman]

Dave-H, on 08 March 2011 - 03:54 PM, said:

That's the problem then, you need at least Data1.cab as well.
Try running the installer package again, and leave it running when it throws up the OS error message.
Search for Data1.cab and you should now find it in the folder with the msi file.
Copy and paste all the files in that folder to a temporary folder.
About the running installation, at which point the original folder you found the files in will probably be deleted by the installer.
Go the the folder you copied the files to and run the msi file.
Should work!

Nope, when I open the installer the error message appears right away, and the cab file does not show in the folder where the installer is.

I have searched my system for the Data1.cab, and there are 3 instances of this file, but none of them work as suggested so perhaps these 3 are not the ones we are looking for.

[Dave-H]

The files you need should be in C:\Windows\Application Data\Sun\Java\jre1.6.0_24
If they're not there after you run the installer package I don't know why.
When you say the error message appears straight away when you run the installer, do you mean the msi installer or the original package installation file?

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 08 March 2011 - 06:11 PM

[frogman]

Dave-H, on 08 March 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:

The files you need should be in C:\Windows\Application Data\Sun\Java\jre1.6.0_24
If they're not there after you run the installer package I don't know why.
When you say the error message appears straight away when you run the installer, do you mean the msi installer or the original package installation file?

The msi installer.

Anyway I managed to install it, but it's no good because even though it installed and shows as the updated version in control panel when I test it using FF3.6.15 and I.E6 it brings up 2 ms dos windows, one after the other both in black, then when the disappear the box where the applet should be is in black too, so in other words although it installed the java doesn't work when testing or playing yahoo pool.

[Dave-H]

Glad you got it installed!

Does it work on the java test page at
http://www.java.com/...help/testvm.jsp?

[CyberyogiCoWindler]

Dave-H, on 08 March 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:

The files you need should be in C:\Windows\Application Data\Sun\Java\jre1.6.0_24
If they're not there after you run the installer package I don't know why.
When you say the error message appears straight away when you run the installer, do you mean the msi installer or the original package installation file?

May it be that your installer file was an incomplete download?

With my Java installer FineSSE showed a stack overflow when it exited during installation. Closing the window did not remove the MSI file from its unpack location. After install Firefox displays its existence in the Add-on list. But the "Java" icon in the system control panel does nothing. (May I need to uninstall all old Java versions before installation?)

[Steven W]

Could we please have someone put up a "sticky" post about Java? Please!? Hoping some will, here's a bit of advice:

Mention the last officially working versions for 95, 98 and ME.

Have a walk-through (perhaps with pictures) about how to get the latest version to install on 98 and ME.

Mention the fact that the Next-gen plugin needs disabled in the Control Panel. (Probably needs the plugin folder renamed too).

Inform folks that (at least as of now) that Firefox 3.6.x and 4.x aren't going to work. 3.5.x and Seamonkey (as of now) are.

Find out if KernelEx is absolutely required for the latest Java ( I don't think that it is).

This post has been edited by Steven W: 09 March 2011 - 12:26 AM

[dencorso]

Posts are not stickified on request, only when really proven useful.
That said, a How-to for Java is ceirtainly welcome. Any volunteers?

[EvanD]

frogman, on 08 March 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

<snip>

The msi installer.

Anyway I managed to install it, but it's no good because even though it installed and shows as the updated version in control panel when I test it using FF 3.6.15 and I.E6 it brings up 2 ms dos windows, one after the other both in black, then when the disappear the box where the applet should be is in black too, so in other words although it installed the java doesn't work when testing or playing yahoo pool.

JRE u24 java applets will work with Firefox 3.5.16. They will not work with FF 3.6.x. The trick for installing it is given by WIN98SE here. You can test your installation at Java Test. (I also uncheck Java Control Panel - Advanced - Java Plug-in - Enable the next generation plug-in.)

FF 3.5.16 works well as long as you're not a stickler for the latest browser security updates.

IE6 java applets no longer appear to test properly at the above Java Test but they do seem to work when they're tested at javatester.org.

This post has been edited by EvanD: 09 March 2011 - 04:51 PM

[Steven W]

EvanD, on 09 March 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

FF 3.5.16 works well as long as you're not a stickler for the latest browser security updates.

That's not exactly accurate, the 3.5.x branch is still being updated. I believe Mozilla keeps updating the current release as well as the previous. There's been some delay with the release of 4.0, so 3.5.x is still being updated. As a matter of fact, you can get 3.5.17 now:

http://www.mozilla.c.../all-older.html

Even their site is misleading, it states "Firefox 3.5.x will be maintained with security and stability updates until August 2010." 3.5.17 was released March 1, 2011:

http://www.mozilla.c...7/releasenotes/

This post has been edited by Steven W: 09 March 2011 - 05:50 PM

[rustweaver]

Is anyone here having issues with firefox 4 portable?

I just can't get it to run properly. It keeps freezing and crashing on basically every site i try to visit. The only two web pages that work (i.e. manage to load) are "welcome to firefox" page, and firefox homepage (google). I tried various combinations of JIT compilation, even turning it completely off for both chrome and content, i disabled flash plugin, out of process plugins, hardware acceleration (just in case). What's funny is that firefox 4 consumes less memory on startup (according to wintop), and its UI feels more responsive than that of firefox 3.6, it's just that web pages are not loading and then whole application becomes unresponsive.

It might be due to seriously underpowered system i'm trying to run it on, (p3 500, 128mb ram), but still on that same system firefox 3.6 runs just fine.

Any ideas?

p.s
Win98 SE with KernelEx 4.5 final.

This post has been edited by rustweaver: 09 March 2011 - 09:47 PM

[loblo]

rustweaver, on 09 March 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

It might be due to seriously underpowered system i'm trying to run it on, (p3 500, 128mb ram), but still on that same system firefox 3.6 runs just fine.

Same here with an AMD Opteron 154 (2.8Ghz) and 2GB of RAM.

[rainyd]

loblo, on 09 March 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

rustweaver, on 09 March 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

It might be due to seriously underpowered system i'm trying to run it on, (p3 500, 128mb ram), but still on that same system firefox 3.6 runs just fine.

Same here with an AMD Opteron 154 (2.8Ghz) and 2GB of RAM.

In that case, it's most probably not hardware related problem because of big difference in computational power between both systems.

[frogman]

Hope this is in the right place, but I tried to install the latest Quicktime player with KernelEx, but a windows message appears saying it needs Windows XP or Vista, but I have tried it in either default compatibility, or in XP mode, and also tried using the msi but unfortunately there is no KernelEx showing in the properties, so therefore I am unable to change any compatibility modes, and even trying the msi in default brings up the same message about the system requirements.

Any ideas?

[Dave-H]

frogman, on 16 March 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Hope this is in the right place, but I tried to install the latest Quicktime player with KernelEx, but a windows message appears saying it needs Windows XP or Vista, but I have tried it in either default compatibility, or in XP mode, and also tried using the msi but unfortunately there is no KernelEx showing in the properties, so therefore I am unable to change any compatibility modes, and even trying the msi in default brings up the same message about the system requirements.

Any ideas?

The latest version of QuickTime that supports Windows 98 is 6.5.2.
I don't think anyone has got any version of QuickTime 7 to work on Windows 98, and the latest version even for Windows 2000 is only 7.1 (current is 7.6).
Later versions can be made to work on Windows 2000 using the KDW extensions, but I don't think the KernelEx extensions will allow them to work on Windows 98 I'm afraid.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 16 March 2011 - 04:31 PM

[rainyd]

frogman, on 16 March 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Hope this is in the right place, but I tried to install the latest Quicktime player with KernelEx, but a windows message appears saying it needs Windows XP or Vista, but I have tried it in either default compatibility, or in XP mode, and also tried using the msi but unfortunately there is no KernelEx showing in the properties, so therefore I am unable to change any compatibility modes, and even trying the msi in default brings up the same message about the system requirements.

Any ideas?

In the first place, why you need QuickTime - it's well known bloatware.

I would recommend you to install (if you really need it) a QuickTime Alternative.

[frogman]

Dave-H, on 16 March 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

frogman, on 16 March 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:

Hope this is in the right place, but I tried to install the latest Quicktime player with KernelEx, but a windows message appears saying it needs Windows XP or Vista, but I have tried it in either default compatibility, or in XP mode, and also tried using the msi but unfortunately there is no KernelEx showing in the properties, so therefore I am unable to change any compatibility modes, and even trying the msi in default brings up the same message about the system requirements.

Any ideas?

The latest version of QuickTime that supports Windows 98 is 6.5.2.
I don't think anyone has got any version of QuickTime 7 to work on Windows 98, and the latest version even for Windows 2000 is only 7.1 (current is 7.6).
Later versions can be made to work on Windows 2000 using the KDW extensions, but I don't think the KernelEx extensions will allow them to work on Windows 98 I'm afraid.

Ah, that will be the reason then perhaps, I have 6.5.2 player installed anyway, when I check that installer it says version is 7.69.80.9, and the msi says 192e1da.

[Dave-H]

Yes, that's the latest version.
If you are happy to pay for QuickTime Pro, I would say it's well worth it, but if you only want the free player, I would agree with rainyd, there are better "alternatives".
If you just want to play later QT files, such as HD files which QT 6 won't play, use QT Alternative or indeed the VLC Player.
The last version of VLC for windows 98 (0.8.6i) plays HD H264 files quite happily.

[ivanbuto]

Has anyone had success with running the latest version of Docx2Rtf under Windows 98?
The previous version (3.8) worked fine without KernelEx. The current one gives me an illegal operation, even if used with KernelEx.