Microsoft Visual Studio 2008 was released late last year.
According to http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb531344.aspx, Windows 9x is no longer a supported target platform:

The Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, and Windows NT platforms are no longer supported. These operating systems have been removed from the list of targeted platforms.

The typical message upon running a VS2008 compiled application that uses 0x0500 in the WINVER macro is:
(For more information on WINVER macro see: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383745.aspx)

Error Starting Program
The [full path of executable] file
expects a newer version of Windows.
Upgrade your Windows version.

Following this is:

[full path of executable]

A device attached to the system is not functioning.

This second information box would appear without the first if WINVER macro was still 0x0400 in a re-compiled source.
Either way, it no gonna run...

One person has determined that the Win32 API call GetSystemWindowsDirectoryW in KERNEL32.DLL was being referred to even with a simple application. See http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost....93&SiteID=1

Maybe this is where a KernelEx solution could be useful.

This spells the end of new software for Windows 9x since most software developer for the Windows platform code in Microsoft C++ under Microsoft Visual Studio.
Windows APIs are taylored for C++ calling conventions and data types.
I personally code entirely using Microsoft Macro Assembler (MASM) which supports high level syntax and C++ conventions.
Contrary to popular belief, MASM is not just for writing modules to plug into C++.
It can be used to write an entire PE EXE, DLL, and so on. See here for more information: http://www.masm32.com
MASM version 8.00 that comes with Visual Studio 2005 still supports Windows 9x.

Has anyone looked into this problem?

I did get around to making a patcher for compiled code that works for me ExeVersion
it does have some current limitations - eg, only release mode without function level linking. but that's just fine for what I need :-)

@takeos, thanks for that information. I was just trying to understand these various strategies to restoring backwards compatibility to apps that have no valid reason for failing to execute under Win9x. Both you and steelbytes are clearly on the good guys team, standing against these unnecessary winds of change.



Price sounds reasonable to me and I wish you much success. Speaking only for myself, I have yet to get Visual Studio 2008 but have almost everything prior, and will likely not use anything beyond VS6 personally because of all the time spent tweaking the libraries, options, editors and tools. Should that change I will no doubt grab your add-in.



Fully agree. This is certifiable planned obsolescence. I hope you are a MSDN member and figure out a way to publicize within the community. I find that the coders there, even Microsoft employees have much more sense than the suits who are making these stupid decisions.

I also hope that you can get Mark at System Internals to at least consider trying it. We can certainly survive on Win9x with older versions of AutoRuns (the startup areas are well-known), but Process Explorer is a definite loss. IMHO, he should compile that one for both platforms. It might help if other interested Win9x users would Contact Mark Russinovich with their suggestions.

Oh, you may want to look at a very important sticky thread here Last Versions of Software for Windows 98SE, + Current Software Still Supported. You might view this is as a potential goldmine of clients, well at least those that use Visual Studio. Maybe even the FireFox problem might be of interest to you.

To avoid hijacking this thread further, I'll eventually start a new one here that completely inventories the various System Internal utilities that still work in Win9x and those that have been recently euthanized by Visual Studio 2008. That would be a good place to chronicle any successes with steelbytes patcher against the compiled files.

Hi, all! If anybody need it for some reasons (i don't know for why, i made it just for fun) then i have repacked distributive of "Visual C++ 2008 Redistributable Package" (SP0) for 9x only with deinstalling ability - http://ifolder.ru/5057911 (requires KernelEx already installed!)

And i have also three unofficial packs for Visual C++ 7.x Runtimes made in accordance to vcredist.exe (VC++6.0RP)

1. http://ifolder.ru/13373894 Unofficial Visual C++ 7.0 (2002) SP1 Redistribution Pack for Windows 95-Vista
2. http://ifolder.ru/13373908 Unofficial Visual C++ 7.1 (2003) SP1 Redistribution Pack for Windows 95-Vista
3. http://ifolder.ru/13373471 Unofficial Visual C++ 7.x (200x) SP1 Redistribution Pack for Windows 95-Vista (7.0 + 7.1 in-one)

Note: installation totally quiet, without any dialogs (like in vcredist.exe) and begins right after start

Files for Visual C++ 7.x packs were taken from original releases of Visual Studio .NET 2002-2003 and from official updates for it in Microsoft Download Center (KB924642, KB927696, KB932298, KB932304).

All packs are working and tested on all specified OS's (95-Vista) but i don't give any warranties for it, use at your own risk.

Thanks for attention and sorry for my bad english.

This post has been edited by Advanced User: Nov 17 2009, 07:38 PM

Hello Advanced User ...

Just wondering if you have a non-EXE solution (ZIP/RAR/7Z)? Alternatively, are they possibly INNO setups (which are easily extracted manually) or perhaps you inserted a: "/SWITCH" of some kind to manually extract?

I hate to run EXE setups when I know exactly where to put the files myself.

EDIT: ... dude, your English is great. Much much better than my Russian. Speaking of which, I cannot figure out how to download from those pages! Can you explain?

This post has been edited by CharlotteTheHarlot: Sep 4 2008, 02:33 AM

Not a problem because all files packed in cab installer and it can easily unpacked by WinRAR, but all usefulness of this packs just concluded in installing feature, so if you don't like to use setups then you don't need this packs.

There are two variants of downloading. With viewing the advertisment and without it. Look the instruction screens for both that cases: 1, 2.

RetroOS: From the link you provided about kernel32.dll,


NOTE: Per the previous sentence, I just copied it here, I wasn't involved in the testing. It was the person who posted
this comment.


On a similar issue for kernel32.dll errors being generated when I try to install googletoolbar v4.0.1602.1060 IE beta
on a Win 2k Pro SP4 system. I get this error which prevents it being installed.



And also this one.


Of course I'm trying to reinstall it which I can't due to these errors.



So, is my problem above due to Visual Studio 2008 not supporting Win 2K anymore? If so, then
the Google Toolbar people must being using VS 2008 although they say the toolbar can be installed
on a win 2K machine.

This post has been edited by mikesw: Sep 4 2008, 08:30 AM

God ****. Show me who wrote that, i'll burn them with fire.

http://forums.msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/vcg...4-f1a40e8a3bb3/

Go to user 'mcb' dated Aug 25,2008. It currently is the last post here.

Let the flames start burning.

I think he meant with www.legacyextender.com software

This post has been edited by mikesw: Sep 4 2008, 09:46 AM

I believe the traffic is now restricted to Russian-only domains.
Could you please use a non-restrictive host, such as uploaded.to, rapidshare.com or similar?

Dаmn, I have only now found out that Rapidshare has Collector's Zone service with downloads control ability. Then forget for instructions which i gave above, here are new rapidshare links: 2008 - 7.0 - 7.1 - 7.x

This post has been edited by Advanced User: Aug 2 2009, 02:53 PM

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.

yes

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).

This post has been edited by Advanced User: Nov 17 2009, 05:53 PM

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).

This post has been edited by Advanced User: Nov 17 2009, 05:54 PM

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