[JayPea]

Since Firefox 3 and PDF Xchange are two of my most used applications, installed KernelEx 4.5 to take advantage of them under W98SE.

GOOD: Firefox 3.6.16 is running fine (with the anomaly reported previously that tab names appear with a special character at the end represented as a solid bar)

BAD: PDF Xchange 2.0 Build 54 will not install. After choosing English as the preferred language it reports an Error pane of "This program requires Windows version 5.0 or later". Both the full package (PDFX4.exe) and the viewer only (PDFXVwer.exe) react the same way.

UGLY: Making the change recommended by RodgerOver in post 898516 to get past installation barriers did not help (temporarily change Version and VersionNumber at HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion from "Windows 98" and "4.10.2222" to "Windows NT" and "5.20").

Something is awry because:

herbalist, on 26 February 2010 - 01:50 PM, said:

...the present version of PDF-Xchange viewer (2.0 build47) works with KernelEX and doesn't deplete resources, although it's memory usage can get high when multiple documents are opened. So far, it seems stable with KernelEX, enough so that I'm considering making it my default PDF reader.

The only other reference to PDF Xchange was in a response....

EvanD, on 29 January 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Does PDF-XChange Viewer print on Win 98SE? I'm using KEX 4.5 Final and I've tried versions 2.0.42, 2.0.47 and 2.5.191 on 2 different machines and neither one will print from PDF-XChange. The reader part works fine for all versions. I can print form Foxit 3.3.1 and Acrobat 7.0.9 so I have workarounds. This forum has been clear about the Firefox 3+ printing problems but I haven't seen any mention of PDF-XChange 2+ print problems.

.... to which I could find no reply.

PDF Xchange Build 54 must be checking more than CurrentVersion in the registry, but have no idea how to discover what it is or come up with a way to fake it out.

There is nothing in the Wiki about Xchange.

A copy of Build 47 would help determine whether the cause lies with the Build 54 or if something on my system is interfering with discovery. No luck so far in obtaining a copy.

Given the depth of experience in this thread I am hopeful that there is an answer to be found.

Any ideas out there on what might get me past the Error pane will be welcome indeed.

[EvanD]

JayPea, on 29 March 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

<snip>

BAD: PDF Xchange 2.0 Build 54 will not install. After choosing English as the preferred language it reports an Error pane of "This program requires Windows version 5.0 or later". Both the full package (PDFX4.exe) and the viewer only (PDFXVwer.exe) react the same way.

PDF-Xchange should work with KernelEx 4+ (See the bottom of this post.) I'm using PDF-Xchange version 2.5 from the Tracker Software site. Get the 'exe' installer and, after downloading, left-double-click on the file and it should install. KernelEx 4.5 Final is set-up to recognize this installer so no other intervention should be necessary.

Correction: I just reinstalled according to my aforementioned instructions and found that I needed to right-click on the installer 'exe,' open the KernelEx tab and set the Compatibility mode to 'Windows XP SP2.' During the installation, I got some complaining dialogs but the install completed and vers. 2.5.194.0 worked properly.

FYI: PDF-Xchange bookmarks work but 'Print' doesn't. On Foxit, it's the other way around. Consequently, Foxit is my default viewer but for long documents with bookmarks I use PDF-Xchange to navigate.

This post has been edited by EvanD: 30 March 2011 - 03:41 PM

[loblo]

Latest PDF Xchange Viewer doesn't work properly even with KernelEx here, it crashes on opening documents with uninitialized function pointer error in Dr Watson.

As for the installer, it will work if you set it in 2K compatibilty mode. Other than that there is a portable version which is just a zip or you could be using inno unpacker on the installer as well, no lack of means to install that one.

Latest Foxit Reader on the other hand works like a charm.

Various versions to test on FilePig btw: http://filepig.org/d...xchange_viewer/

This post has been edited by loblo: 29 March 2011 - 02:57 PM

[herbalist]

I just installed version 2.5.194 of PDFXchange, over the top of my existing version. It installed just fine with KEX set to XP-SP2 compatibility. It wouldn't install on the default setting. I left KEX set to default for the installed executable. I just opened 6 PDFs of various sizes and content, scrolled then and switched back and forth between them with no issues. Can't test printing, never found 98 compatible drivers for it.

KernelEX is extremely variable in regards to how well it works on different hardware. On my P4 Dell, it works very well. On my older P3 and P2 PCs, it does not work near as well and has compatibility issues with several apps on these PCs. I'm fairly sure that how well KEX will work depends on the processor type and chipset of the PC. In this thread, if/how well flash player works has been tied to which processor the PC uses. I've run into similar issues with KEX and System Safety Monitor, different results on different hardware. It would seem that this applies to other applications as well. Starting in post 146 of that thread, Jumper made a debugger available that may be useful in determining why PDFXchange works on some systems and not others.

[loblo]

herbalist, on 29 March 2011 - 05:25 PM, said:

KernelEX is extremely variable in regards to how well it works on different hardware. On my P4 Dell, it works very well. On my older P3 and P2 PCs, it does not work near as well and has compatibility issues with several apps on these PCs. I'm fairly sure that how well KEX will work depends on the processor type and chipset of the PC.

I don't think KernelEx is affected by hardware, it doesn't make much sense. I would rather think that some apps won't be running well on different hardware for their own intrinsical reasons despite the fact KernelEx provides for them missing NT software functions.

And since you mention the Flash Player issue, it is my understanding that the reason it doesn't work on older CPUs is entirely down to the lack of SSE registers in those CPUs, not a KernelEx issue at any rate (unless I've missed something of course).

This post has been edited by loblo: 29 March 2011 - 06:41 PM

[JayPea]

Verifying the installation brought up a pane which made no sense to me at the time:

"KernelEx has been successfully installled and is now enabled for all applications. To make newer applications run or fix old applications crash, you may need to go to the KernelEx tab in the properties of application executable or its shortcut."

EvanD, on 29 March 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

I needed to right-click on the installer 'exe,' open the KernelEx tab and set the Compatibility mode to 'Windows XP SP2.' During the installation, I got some complaining dialogs but the install completed and vers. 2.5.194.0 worked properly.

The penny dropped, the tab was in Right Click/Properties and I selected Win2000 SP4

The two errors were for PDSAVER4 which is a debug tool, so nothing to be concerned about. The tests I've run have been trouble free, but the Firefox idiosyncracy of a special character on tabs represented by a thick bar occurs a few times and there are heiroglyphics for the % of zoom being used. All in all, am delighted.

Thanks to you all for the help.

[herbalist]

Quote

I don't think KernelEx is affected by hardware, it doesn't make much sense. I would rather think that some apps won't be running well on different hardware for their own intrinsical reasons despite the fact KernelEx provides for them missing NT software functions.

Bad choice of words on my part. Since some of these apps work well on one KernelEX equipped system but not on another, it stands to reason that they have other requirements that some systems provide but others don't. I also think that it's a reasonably safe assumption that most of our 98 systems are as upgraded as we can get them, and in spite of the differences in how they're equipped, most of them are quite similar at their core. The biggest differences in our systems is the hardware, primarily the processor type and chipset. I've run into these types of variable results here as well, where an app runs well on a P4-Dell but either doesn't run or requires a different compatibility setting on a P3-Compaq or a P2-HP. Of course, these all have different chipsets as well. I've wanted to investigate this but was down to one working monitor which made it almost impossible.

I think it would benefit all of us when we encounter these variable results with an application (such as this one) if we specify the processor and chipset of the PC involved. I also suspect that any KernelEx compatibility database we put together is going to have to take this into account.