[loblo]

Drugwash, on 02 March 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

For building the individual HTML pages that make up the documentation, I'd use Komposer (got two separate versions here, they do work albeit with some minor issues). I think v0.8b3 should work fine in regard to FTP upload, while v0.7.10 has issues with that. Not sure, but it might require KernelEx in order to run.

Dunno of other similar tools that'd work under 9x and I did search everywhere, at the time.

For simple but good free WYSIWYG Html editor, check out Blocknote: http://blocknote.net/

This post has been edited by loblo: 12 March 2013 - 04:52 PM

[Drugwash]

Thank you very much, I've installed it and will test as soon as HTML comes my way. Personally I'm reasonably pleased with Komposer, but it's always good to be aware of alternatives. More and more often I wonder if search engines really perform any search at all or they just suggest things based on whoever pays more for promoting their own stuff. Well, that's more of a rhetorical question.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Thanks loblo, but I chose to stick with the microsoft version. Its lite, it decompiles, it has way better compression. Here is a test of what I did. Its simple and all I need to do is add the artwork to it. Thanks guys, its a rough draft

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 13 March 2013 - 07:39 PM

[Dave-H]

Looking good!
One minor cosmetic thing is that the red text on dark grey used for the headings is a bit unclear to my eyes.
Also, I personally think that it would be better if the changelog list showed the most recent changes at the top rather than at the bottom.
Great job!
Cheers, Dave.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Dave-H, on 13 March 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

Looking good!
One minor cosmetic thing is that the red text on dark grey used for the headings is a bit unclear to my eyes.
Also, I personally think that it would be better if the changelog list showed the most recent changes at the top rather than at the bottom.
Great job!
Cheers, Dave.

Thanks, I uploaded a TEST2 version. Unless you know of a tool to reverse the changelog, it'll have to wait. Thanks for your feedback. Please check for typos. Thanks

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 13 March 2013 - 07:39 PM

[Dave-H]

Well here's a revised order version of the changelog, done with good old-fashioned copy and pasting!
Glad to make some small contribution, I'm afraid my technical knowledge isn't great enough to do more.
Whether people think it's better this way around or not, you'll have to ask for feedback on.
Cheers, Dave.
 changelog.txt (29.87K)
Number of downloads: 17

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Well, I got it done The .CHM file has everything listed. The only thing I didn't add was the the images for icons, bitmaps, start menu, and boot logos. If anyone want to give it a shot, let me know. I had trouble trying to do it, but I only been playing with the app a few days. I'm a rookie at this If you guys think I should add anymore or if I missed something, post your feedback. I might touch it up for the final release of the SP.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 14 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I got the images injected in the chm file. @ loblo, I gave the tool another shot, and it did me some justice. Thanks again. Here is a screenshot of what I've done. Its far from perfect Some of the images have borders on the side of them.

Attached File(s)

•  SHOT2.JPG (50.9K)
  Number of downloads: 24
•  SHOT1.JPG (84.53K)
  Number of downloads: 24

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 14 March 2013 - 05:37 PM

[TmEE]

This looks very naiss !

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 20 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Many users have been reporting system crashes with SP3.19 and kernelEx. We all know that SP is pretty stable but KernelEx is not playing well with it.

I need to point out something here. I'm not trying to start or restart an argument, and not trying to offend anyone, so please don't take this wrong. Just something to think about.

Myself and others have pointed out before that there is a possibility that the various added files in the SP that come from later versions of Windows may not work well under 98SE under all conditions. There may be various hidden bugs and/or other dependencies or "inter"dependencies on components of those later systems that are not present or behave differently under 98SE.

Mixing these later versions of files into 98SE, while at the same time running an "overlay" that is supposed to emulate those later versions of Windows may simply be causing these hidden issues to surface, when they might not surface otherwise.

The 9x and NT codebases are significantly different. Files not written specifically for 98SE may exhibit strange behavior under certain conditions. I'm NOT trying to say "DONT' USE THOSE FILES," we should be thankful for any later file that can be used in the right situation under 9x. However, one must keep in mind that they were not designed or tested for use under 9x.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 20 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Many users have been reporting system crashes with SP3.19 and kernelEx. We all know that SP is pretty stable but KernelEx is not playing well with it.

I need to point out something here. I'm not trying to start or restart an argument, and not trying to offend anyone, so please don't take this wrong. Just something to think about.

Myself and others have pointed out before that there is a possibility that the various added files in the SP that come from later versions of Windows may not work well under 98SE under all conditions. There may be various hidden bugs and/or other dependencies or "inter"dependencies on components of those later systems that are not present or behave differently under 98SE.

Mixing these later versions of files into 98SE, while at the same time running an "overlay" that is supposed to emulate those later versions of Windows may simply be causing these hidden issues to surface, when they might not surface otherwise.

The 9x and NT codebases are significantly different. Files not written specifically for 98SE may exhibit strange behavior under certain conditions. I'm NOT trying to say "DONT' USE THOSE FILES," we should be thankful for any later file that can be used in the right situation under 9x. However, one must keep in mind that they were not designed or tested for use under 9x.

Its not about a file being new. Its about the file being compatible and working properly. Its about using the newer functions that are not implemented in the original 98 files. We haven't had any issues with SP since I fixed the USB bug. So, with that said, its not the files in the SP thats causing problems. I have had users test on hardware that I don't have. And for the record, no one is reporting system crashes with SP3.19, they are reporting crashes after installing KernelEX. Like I said a while back, even the old version of KEX breaks some of my paid software. The 600+ users that downloaded the SP last week is not having issues due to newer files. So please STOP stressing the isssue about Newer files, because if they didn't work, they wouldn't be in there. Remember the keyword, UNOFFICIAL. Since I have worked on the SP, speed and stability was my goal. SP3.19 offers that and some. Don't knock it, til you try it. Nobody has reported their paid or free software broken due to SP, no one has reported system slow downs due to SP. If people don't want their System enhanced, then they don't have to use it. It is not forced on anyone. 3.19 is as solid as a brick wall, if you don't believe me, ask the 600+ users and they will tell you the same.

P.S.

The SP uses original Microsoft files, some are patched and most are not. There are no bogus stubs or files with partial implementations. We all know what happens when you mix too many unofficial packages, especially when some contains bugs. My system is super fast and super stable without KernelEx. So if push come to shove, I'll past on it like I have over the years.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 20 March 2013 - 05:54 PM

[LoneCrusader]

Look, I really do not want to argue. You and I do not see eye to eye, and I can accept that. But stop acting as if I am attacking you or "knocking" your project. I am simply pointing out a POTENTIAL issue.

It IS about a file being new. The fact that it is "new" means that it comes from a NT version of Windows, which is NOT 100% compatible with Windows 9x. The fact that a file is from Microsoft is irrelevant, becuase Microsoft is only interested in supporting Windows NT.

If the file can be used under 9x to gain new functionality, that's great, and no one is complaining about that.

The problem is that this "new" file WAS NOT DESIGNED for Windows 9x. It MAY work properly uner ALL conditions, it MAY work properly under SOME conditions, and it MAY NOT WORK AT ALL.

There is no way to know whether a "new" file works under SOME or ALL conditions without extensive testing beyond the capability of any one individual.

It is POSSIBLE that the files in the SP can cause issues. I did not say they ARE, I said they MAY.

Hardware is irrelevant in this particular situation.


I have no doubt that KernelEx also has issues. I know it does, because I had problems when I tried to use it before as well. This issue MAY be only related to KernelEx, but it MAY be exacerbated by the newer files, and it MAY not.

The point is that the newer files introduce another unknown "variable" to the equation.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

The problem is that this "new" file WAS NOT DESIGNED for Windows 9x. It MAY work properly uner ALL conditions, it MAY work properly under SOME conditions, and it MAY NOT WORK AT ALL.

The latest browsers wasn't designed for Win98, but I don't here you lecturing the Opera and Firefox users. This is why we don't see eye to eye. You always complaining about the NT files etc... They work on my system and hundreds maybe even thousands of others. Just cause you want to live in the 98 days, doesn't mean others do. Get in tune dude. The pack is UNOFFICIAL AND FREE. WTF is you crying about. You DON'T have to use it. Us geeks are not living by the Microsoft standards. Now spin the @#$% off, before I run you over.

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 20 March 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

The problem is that this "new" file WAS NOT DESIGNED for Windows 9x. It MAY work properly uner ALL conditions, it MAY work properly under SOME conditions, and it MAY NOT WORK AT ALL.

The latest browsers wasn't designed for Win98, but I don't here you lecturing the Opera and Firefox users. This is why we don't see eye to eye. You always complaining about the NT files etc... They work on my system and hundreds maybe even thousands of others. Just cause you want to live in the 98 days, doesn't mean others do. Get in tune dude. The pack is UNOFFICIAL AND FREE. WTF is you crying about. You DON'T have to use it. Us geeks are not living by the Microsoft standards. Now spin the @#$% off, before I run you over.

The latest browsers wont run under 98 without KernelEx because they are DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS NT.

The fact they are DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS NT is the reason we NEED KernelEx.

We NEED KernelEx because NT is NOT 100% COMPATIBLE with Windows 9x.

.. HENCE ... FILES FROM WINDOWS NT ARE NOT 100% COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS 9X!

How hard is this concept to grasp?


You either can't handle this concept, or purposely refuse to understand it. All you can do is take unwarranted personal offense and behave as if no one knows anything but you...

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

.. HENCE ... FILES FROM WINDOWS NT ARE NOT 100% COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS 9X!

How hard is this concept to grasp?

Wrong, look what MDGx did with WMP 10 from WinXP. Some files are compatible and some are NOT. What is it you didn''t grasp. The files inside SP are compatible and the ones that are not, are not included. So think before you open your trap. This is why SP is built with NT files that DO NOT rely on KernelEx. Now don't you look and feel stupid as usual?

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 20 March 2013 - 06:59 PM

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 20 March 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Wrong, look what MDGx did with WMP 10 from WinXP. Some files are compatible and some are NOT. What is it you didn''t grasp. The files inside SP are compatible and the ones that are not, are not included. So think before you open your trap. This is why SP is built with NT files that DO NOT rely on KernelEx. Now don't you look and feel stupid as usual?

No, I'm not wrong. I said some NT files may work under certain conditions and not work under others. Some may work perfectly. Some may not.

If an NT file works some or most of the time, that's great. You act as if I'm against using any NT files. I'm not, and I said so above. The point is:

There is NO WAY TO BE 100% SURE an NT file works under ALL conditions. There are too many variables.

An NT file may work fine for X program, but not for Y program. An NT file may work fine for programs A, B, C, D, and E, but not for program F. It is physically impossible to test all programs that depend on a given file. Such things require extensive testing beyond what one person can do. I know this, I'm a "project author" too.

I hope that every single NT file you have in your SP works under ALL conditions. But there is no way to be certain of that.


Now, you may not have seen any problems. There may not be problems. All the files you have added may work fine until another variable is added to the equation.

What variable? Lets take KernelEx for example.

KernelEx was designed to run on a standard Windows 98/ME installation. It expects certain conditions to exist. If those conditions have been changed by the addition of another Unofficial file, then KernelEx may not work properly.

Is this your fault? NO.
Is it the KernelEx developer's fault? NO.

It is simply a side-effect of mixing two unofficial packages.


And as usual you revert to personal attacks. Which means you are unable to debate the real issue.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

.. HENCE ... FILES FROM WINDOWS NT ARE NOT 100% COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS 9X!

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

No, I'm not wrong. I said some NT files may work under certain conditions and not work under others. Some may work perfectly. Some may not.

Once again, you are looking to start a fight that you know you can't win. Contradicting yourself make you look even more.....................................

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 20 March 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

.. HENCE ... FILES FROM WINDOWS NT ARE NOT 100% COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOWS 9X!

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

No, I'm not wrong. I said some NT files may work under certain conditions and not work under others. Some may work perfectly. Some may not.

Once again, you are looking to start a fight that you know you can't win. Contradicting yourself make you look even more.....................................

Sigh...

Hardly a contradiction.

Some files may work under certain conditions = not 100% compatible.

100% compatible = all files work under all conditions....

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 20 March 2013 - 08:55 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 20 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Some files may work under certain conditions = not 100% compatible.

100% compatible = all files work under all conditions....

Dude, you really have a disability or learning comprehension.
You have original Win98 files that don't always work, so we hack, patched, tweak or whatever you want to call it. Get your head out your a** man. I'll give it a couple more weeks and when we are at a few thousand downloads, we'll see how many users report system crashes or hardware issues due to SP or the NT files inside it. Remember everyone will be using different hardware and software. So we will see what SP can really do.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 21 March 2013 - 08:46 AM

[Leyok]

I'm really confused, this might be the reason why Xeno did leave KernelEx.
You told me that U98SESP3 doesn't rely on KernelEx, then this is reciprocal for KernelEx, but you keep saying to me to remove PDH and PSAPI auxiliary because it makes U98SESP3 incompatible.
If one auxiliary DLL is incompatible, then open the registry editor and delete one of the data in "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\KernelEx\KnownDLLs"

And I totally agree with LoneCrusader.
A service pack is designed to assemble all the lastest working OS upgrade/DLLs (in this case Win9x), and not to mix up with other's OS upgrade/DLLs.
But you won because the unicows.dll version U98SESP3 uses is 1.1.3790.0 (07/12/2004).

Don't be rude anyway, seems like you think we are attacking your project. We don't say that this SP is bad at all.
All we want you to understand is that the Win9x DLL files should not mix up with the NT ones anyway.

This post has been edited by Leyok: 21 March 2013 - 11:51 AM