[mrsk565]

jumper, on Yesterday, 08:29 PM, said:

Quote

I don't know if its main intended function, to automatically free memory, has any side effects, so I've disabled this feature for now.

Thank you very much for the program suggestion, I will give it a try and be aware of your advice about the auto-free memory feature.

[halohalo]

Mozilla Release Engineering team will begin upgrading to Visual Studio 2010, so Firefox 12 will be the final supported Firefox release for Windows 2000.
http://weblogs.mozil...efox_win2k.html

[loblo]

halohalo, on 29 January 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Mozilla Release Engineering team will begin upgrading to Visual Studio 2010, so Firefox 12 will be the final supported Firefox release for Windows 2000.
http://weblogs.mozil...efox_win2k.html

Latest release of Firefox fork Palemoon appears to be built with MSVC2010 already and it runs fine if using the hacked msvcr100.dll I posted a little while ago.

http://www.mediafire...49bc54r28b94w0x

[mrsk565]

Too many new cpu's now support dual-proccesing or multi-core quad octo-core and so on. So to only be able to use one core is a waste for newer computers and no one will use 9x. Plus we haven't fixed BSOD'S, Microsoft plugged those holes in 2k and the codename whistler xp betas. If we find out what they did then maybe we could apply those fixes or files which stablize the OS. Of course these are just some thoughts, But may I ask what is holding us back from putting multi-threading into 9x ? Please be discriptive.

[rloew]

mrsk565, on 11 February 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Too many new cpu's now support dual-proccesing or multi-core quad octo-core and so on. So to only be able to use one core is a waste for newer computers and no one will use 9x. Plus we haven't fixed BSOD'S, Microsoft plugged those holes in 2k and the codename whistler xp betas. If we find out what they did then maybe we could apply those fixes or files which stablize the OS. Of course these are just some thoughts, But may I ask what is holding us back from putting multi-threading into 9x ? Please be discriptive.

Windows 9x's Kernel is designed around a single "Current" Thread, Context, etc. Using multiple Cores would require a significant redesign of the Kernel as all of the routines would have to choose among an array of Current Threads, Contexts etc. Synchronization also becomes much more complicated.

After acquiring a Multi-Core Processor, I decided that a simpler approach was needed. I decided on an API that can run Threads independently from Windows and provides basic Coordination Functions. My Multi-Core API provides basic management of Threads in the other Cores. Higher level coordination of these Threads is the User's responsibility as Windows does not even know the other Threads exist.

[mrsk565]

Quote

I decided on an API that can run Threads independently from Windows and provides basic Coordination Functions. My Multi-Core API provides basic management of Threads in the other Cores. Higher level coordination of these Threads is the User's responsibility as Windows does not even know the other Threads exist.

This is sad, Im a huge 98se fan and if there was a patch or mod out there for multi-core then I'd use it. Of course after fixing that there is another problem. Newer comp are built to support the newer systems of windows. If we want more people to switch then we would have to find a way to port drivers back to 9x. Graphics and all, KernelEX dosen't support driver emulation so we need a driver emulator to fix this problem cause its no use without drivers either.
We got the style down good though, I like revolutions pack. It can look and feel like a modern windows without the bloat. Thats good, and I might just be impatientent and need to give it time.

[herbalist]

Quote

If we want more people to switch...

I don't see that as a viable goal. We're not competing with XP and Win 7 or trying to increase a market share. We're modernizing the OS we prefer to use. Earlier you asked:

Quote

Is there some way we could implement Nt kernal into win9x/ME family ?

Why convert 98 into an OS we already have? Instead of doing all that, why not just use Win 2K? I can't speak for everyone here, but one reason many of us use 98 is that we don't want to use an NT kernel or a service based operating system. IMO, we'll do better making 98 into the OS it could have become, not converting it into something we already have. 98 has become much more capable and stable than it ever has been and is still getting better.

[dencorso]

herbalist, on 14 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Quote

If we want more people to switch...

I don't see that as a viable goal. We're not competing with XP and Win 7 or trying to increase a market share. We're modernizing the OS we prefer to use. Earlier you asked:

Quote

Is there some way we could implement Nt kernal into win9x/ME family ?

Why convert 98 into an OS we already have? Instead of doing all that, why not just use Win 2K? I can't speak for everyone here, but one reason many of us use 98 is that we don't want to use an NT kernel or a service based operating system. IMO, we'll do better making 98 into the OS it could have become, not converting it into something we already have. 98 has become much more capable and stable than it ever has been and is still getting better.

I couldn't agree more. The point 9x/ME becomes an NT-family OS is the point I'd dump it for XP, which I already also use. The main attractive of 9x/ME is that its *NOT* an NT-family OS. My 2 ¢, of course.

[jumper]

I've removed NT Services from the wish list. If anyone wants it back on, they'll need to be very specific about what feature they want to see and very persuasive as to why it can only be implemented as a service.

[loblo]

herbalist, on 14 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

we don't want to use an NT kernel or a service based operating system

Well if you don't want to use an operating system based on services, don't use any 9x flavor either as it's also based on services (which are provided by a myriad of vxds rather well hidden from the end user and which make the core of the OS).

Is this correct? Are the hidden vxd services the equivalent of NT services which run visibly as exe?

[dencorso]

loblo, on 15 February 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

herbalist, on 14 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

we don't want to use an NT kernel or a service based operating system

Well if you don't want to use an operating system based on services, don't use any 9x flavor either as it's also based on services (which are provided by a myriad of vxds rather well hidden from the end user and which make the core of the OS).

Is this correct? Are the hidden vxd services the equivalent of NT services which run visibly as exe?

No. VxDs are drivers, not services, although there can be dinamically loaded and unloaded VxDs, but that doesn't make them services. Now, LINUX daemons *are* services. And no, VxDs are not hidden at all: all one needs is APSoft VxDView and they'll be in plain view whenever one wants.

BTW, @loblo, is the red part of my quote of your post actually a quote? If so, whence? Please do not quote silently, it's confusing.

[herbalist]

Quote

How about a service emulator that can also run the services of apps that use their own, like VirtualBox or SandBoxie? Either or both would be useful as long as we don't end up turning 98 into a service based OS and end up building XP (with all its vulnerabilities) all over again.

It appears that my "wish list" suggestion was unclear. When I made the above suggestion, I was asking if it was possible to emulate (imitate, fake, insert correct term) individual services for user apps that require them, and to provide the means for 98 to run the specific services that are part of some user applications. SandBoxie, VirtualBox, SSM pro, and some of the newer firewalls come to mind. SandBoxie for instance would be an excellent foundation for a security package on 98.

Part of the problem with implementing actual NT services in 98 is their interdependency. One service requires another to be running which requires yet another, which opens these ports, etc. Many of them end up requiring Remote Procedure Call, which IMO, is the last thing 98 needs. AFAIC, one of 98s strengths is the level of control the user retains. That level of control gets more difficult to maintain when services enter the picture. NT services are regularly targeted part of the attack surface of NT systems, an attack surface that doesn't exist on 98. Keeping them up to date and patched against the latest exploits would be extremely difficult. There are no existing tools that could secure or protect this expanded attack surafce. Even if the security issues could be addressed, they would still add more running processes and additional load on the system, which would decrease performance.

[dw2108]

jds, on 03 January 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

My 2c (these probably fall into the KernelEx domain) :

1. Fix the XP SP2 (+) emulation, so it is as stable as the 2000 SP4 emulation. Many applications and their installers (Opera 11, Acrobat Reader 7.09, etc.) work pretty well using the latter, but crash with the former. Missing/buggy functions?
2. Solve the "new style" Java plug-in problem, so we can get Java on Opera 11, FF 3.6+, etc.
3. Get other FF plug-ins, such as the 20-20/Ikea "kitchen planner" to work (with NT5, this even works with FF 2.0.0.22pre).
4. Solve remaining issues with Opera, such as crashing when a new instance is attempted, or when it is the default browser and you double-click on a HTM file.
5. Solve remaining issues with Acrobat Reader 7.09, such as crashing when you right-click within a File-Open or File-Save dialogue, or the blank text in the search results when you use the "binoculars".
6. Get Adobe Air version 1.5 or higher (and Adobe Air applications) to work.

Joe.

PS. :
7. Fix the history & bookmark problem with FF 5/6/7/8.

PPS. :
5a. Stop Acrobat Reader 7.09 crashing when you select "Document Properties" in the "File" menu.

PPPS. :
8. Office 2007 File Format Converters (Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint File Formats).

For Opera, to solve all those problems, set the opera.exe, opera.dll, netscape.exe, and flash plugin files to 2000 SP4 mode. On the others, you will have to set the EXE's and DLL's of the app to the 2000 SP4 or XP mode. This is working for me. It helps to have the latest M$ runtime, installer and scripting updates. As per java, once on the drive, some of those have to be set to the best mode possible.

Each PC is different. The latest BIOS updates are absolutely necessary as are the most recent drivers. The biggest problem is with the chipset drivers. A standard Gateway GP6-400 with a PII 400 MHz CPU and WD HD with no modifications to the motherboard at all will love KEX and have no problems at all, where-as a Micron with PIII 600 MHz CPU and reworked board shall encounter some problems with KEX owing to exotic drivers which hook incorrectly until the registry is modified.

For the registry reason I advocate running unregistered apps because the registry is a dour security issue itself. With 9x, it's time to incorporate the old DOS philosophy that a registry ought be more a stack registry that an "on-the-drive ROM risk."

Dave

[loblo]

dencorso, on 15 February 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

BTW, @loblo, is the red part of my quote of your post actually a quote? If so, whence? Please do not quote silently, it's confusing.

I wasn't quoting anyone, very sorry for confusing you.

Btw, there are a few executables running as services under win98/ME, on my system there are mprexe.exe, msgsrv32.exe, mmtask.tsk, ddhelp.exe and sometimes spool32.exe.

This post has been edited by loblo: 22 February 2012 - 11:09 AM

[go98]

My wish for 2012 is a ROCK-SOLID unbloated 98 operating system.

[dencorso]

loblo, on 22 February 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

Btw, there are a few executables running as services under win98/ME, on my system there are mprexe.exe, msgsrv32.exe, mmtask.tsk, ddhelp.exe and sometimes spool32.exe.

Those are services, all right. But services or daemons (or whatever you may call them) are part of OSes since way back. They aren't inherently good nor bad. They are just OS tasks that perform their missions unobstrusively and without bothering (or interacting with) the user. On the NT-Family OSes, they can be set to start at boot time, at kernel time or at user time (= after logon), and if the latter, automatically, on demand or not at all... so, the NT-Family OSes gives the Admin a very fine control of how each service will run, and the developers liked it so that lots of things became services under the NT-Family OSes. Other OSes do have them, but sometimes in a much less standardized way. And yes, services are exploitable, as also are any other parts of any OS.

[herbalist]

The could very much depend on what gets defined as services on a 9X system. To my understanding, mprexe.exe, msgsrv32.exe, and mmtask.tsk are core system components. DDhelp and spool32 are support applications that can be and often are parented by any number of processes. The OS itself does not require them to be running. Services are those items listed under the RunServices key which are parented by mprexe.exe. Most items listed under that key are updates like the 891711 fix, the task scheduler, and applications like firewalls or other apps that need to start before explorer.exe runs. In this regard, mprexe.exe functions are similar to those performed by services.exe. The difference here is that none of the services listed in RunServices are required OS components. They can be shut down without killing the OS. On 9X, the services aren't opening ports by default and aren't interconnected in such a way that disabling one disables other you might need. IMO, the services based design of the NT systems adds far more processes than are needed and makes it more difficult for the user to maintain control.

Edited typos

This post has been edited by herbalist: 22 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

[loblo]

herbalist, on 22 February 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Services are those items listed under the RunServices key which are parented by mprexe.exe.

None of the services I have listed are starting from a registry runservice key as far as I can see and to tell you the truth I have never been able to find the startup vectors for any of them despite looking quite a bit.

mprexe.exe, msgsrv32.exe, and mmtask.tsk all run with a service flag.

Quote

They can be shut down without killing the OS.

Shutting down those processes may not kill the OS but it comes at the cost of significant loss of functionality for most of them.

[dencorso]

If we want a strict definition, services are processes which run with a service flag. They can be shut down without killing the OS, but that comes at the cost of significant loss of functionality for most of them. You're both right.

Now service tight interdependence and their being launched by services.exe or svchost.exe in most cases are characteristics of the NT-OS service model, and that is what people usually mean by "service based OS". The NT-OSes make extensive use of services, even when other solutions could have been used. But they're not truly service based, because they can be run with no services at all. But before attempting to do it, do get Superfast Shutdown, because you'll need it to either reboot or shutdown (unless you don't mind pulling the plug to shut down), after killing winlogon.

[Fredledingue]

For 2012, I'd like a very simple thing (maybe it's possible already): To suppress the Safe Mode message box.
When it restarts in Safe Mode it always shows a useless message box, before loading the desktop.
It's a loss of time. We all know when it's in Safe Mode!
__________________