Last version of Adobe Shockwave for 98

What is the last version of Adobe Shockwave Flash that can be used with
Win98se with the latest version of Kernal-EX?

I'm running Firefox 8, and have Shockwave 10.xxxx installed, and
constantly got messages to update it. I finally disabled it entirely.
I'm not sure what purpose it serves, but it appears that I cant view
youtube videos now that it's disabled.

wrote:

What is the last version of Adobe Shockwave Flash that can be used
with Win98se with the latest version of Kernal-EX?

According to this:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/...sh-player.html

I have Flash Player Version 11.6.602.171.

The latest version being shown for windoze 7 and 8 is 11.6.602.180.

I'm running Firefox 8, and have Shockwave 10.xxxx installed, and
constantly got messages to update it. I finally disabled it
entirely.

You might be able to run flash version 10 (it's called flash, not
shockwave) on win-98 without kernelex.

I'm not sure what purpose it serves, but it appears that I cant
view youtube videos now that it's disabled.

Not sure where you've been lately, but pretty much all video content
streaming is done using flash. Microsoft is trying to compete with
something called Silverlite (or Silverlight?) but it's not very common
(and no version of silverlight runs on win-98 as far as I know).

What you are looking for is either msi or exe off-line install file for
Flash. The file will be install_flash_player_11_plugin.msi and
something like 17mb or FlashPlayerPlugin_11_6_602_168.exe (under 2 mb?)

You might have to modify a couple of registry files (windows/current
version) to make your system appear as if it's running windows 2000
(5.0) instead of Windows 98 (4.10.2222).

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion
VersionNumber = "5.0"
CurrentVersion = "5.0"
Version = "Windows NT"

Same info goes here (you might have to create this key):

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion

On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:23:22 -0400, 98 Guy wrote:

wrote:

What is the last version of Adobe Shockwave Flash that can be used
with Win98se with the latest version of Kernal-EX?

According to this:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/...sh-player.html

I have Flash Player Version 11.6.602.171.

The latest version being shown for windoze 7 and 8 is 11.6.602.180.

I'm running Firefox 8, and have Shockwave 10.xxxx installed, and
constantly got messages to update it. I finally disabled it
entirely.

You might be able to run flash version 10 (it's called flash, not
shockwave) on win-98 without kernelex.

I'm not sure what purpose it serves, but it appears that I cant
view youtube videos now that it's disabled.

Not sure where you've been lately, but pretty much all video content
streaming is done using flash. Microsoft is trying to compete with
something called Silverlite (or Silverlight?) but it's not very common
(and no version of silverlight runs on win-98 as far as I know).

What you are looking for is either msi or exe off-line install file for
Flash. The file will be install_flash_player_11_plugin.msi and
something like 17mb or FlashPlayerPlugin_11_6_602_168.exe (under 2 mb?)

You might have to modify a couple of registry files (windows/current
version) to make your system appear as if it's running windows 2000
(5.0) instead of Windows 98 (4.10.2222).

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion
VersionNumber = "5.0"
CurrentVersion = "5.0"
Version = "Windows NT"

Same info goes here (you might have to create this key):

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion

Thanks for the help.

Oddly enough, Firefox refers to it as "Shockwave". And that is psrt of
the confusion, because besides Adobe Flash, I have something called
"Shockwave" installed, along with another thing called "Director". I'm
not sure if they combined all of them into one program, or if I need all
of them still.....

I have flash 10.x installed. I upgraded to a newer version of 10.x and
that seemed to stop the nag screen. I didn't yet try to see if I can
run ver 11.x. I'm not sure if I want to even try, because upgrading ver
10.x solved the problem, and I've recently found that some of these (not
made for 98) installations dont work properly, even with Kernal-Ex. I
installed Firefox 8, and it worked fine at first, except for the
bookmarks not working. I was ok with this. Suddenly FF8 just started
to crash everytime I would close it, and when I would restart it, it
would say something about unable to open tabs from last crash or send a
crash report. (I have crash reports unchecked anyhow, so they are not
sent). After this message, FF would not load at all, not even in safe
mode. Everytime I had wanted to use it, I had to reinstall FF8. I
finally uninstalled it completely, and went back to FF3.x. There is no
sense fighting with a piece of software that just wont run properly, and
I really did not see any significant improvement anyhow.

ralphdorman wrote:

Oddly enough, Firefox refers to it as "Shockwave". And that is psrt of
the confusion, because besides Adobe Flash, I have something called
"Shockwave" installed, along with another thing called "Director". I'm
not sure if they combined all of them into one program, or if I need all
of them still.....

Flash used to be called Shockwave Flash, back in the Macromedia days. Flash
was considered sort of a weaker, less-powerful Shockwave.

--
....a walking copyright infringement waiting to happen...

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:07:52 +0000 (UTC), "Auric__"
wrote:

ralphdorman wrote:

Oddly enough, Firefox refers to it as "Shockwave". And that is psrt of
the confusion, because besides Adobe Flash, I have something called
"Shockwave" installed, along with another thing called "Director". I'm
not sure if they combined all of them into one program, or if I need all
of them still.....

Flash used to be called Shockwave Flash, back in the Macromedia days. Flash
was considered sort of a weaker, less-powerful Shockwave.

Like I said, I have Flash, Shockwave, and Director installed. Are you
saying I can remove Shockwave because it no longer does anything? What
about Director?

This is the one problem of running an older computer, with an operating
system that has installations and software going back to 1998. I have
removed software I no longer use, and upgraded others, but things like
Shockwave are pretty much invisible. Does it still work for anything?
I really dont know????? I dont suppose it hurts anything being there,
but I do like to eliminate stuff that is not needed to save drive space
and just get rid of clutter.

Actually, if you really want to get technical, I still have some stuff
on this computer going back to the 1980s. Some Dos programs (which I
still use), and several libraries of clipart and photos, as well as some
Windows apps made for Windows 3.x. (which I still use). This stuff just
gets moved from computer to computer over the years. Of course I'm not
complaining. I like the old stuff, and in most cases like it better
than this new bloated **** they make now. Not to mention that I still
use my computer to do stuff, unlike these kids now-a-days, who only use
facebook and nothing else. Heck, I recently asked one of them if they
ever leave facebook and go on the web, or send email, or do anything
else on their computer. The answer was "Email is outdated, there's
nothing on the web, and what else can you do on a computer?". When I
asked if they ever used the newsgroups, that reply was "what's that?".

One of their friends did admit to using the computer for something
besides Facebook. She said "I play music on it". WOW!!! I was
impressed!

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9". I think MS has a problem when they come out with their
next version. I wonder what they'll change the name to next time. The
latest versions were all numbers. That preceeded Vista (where did they
ever get that name?). And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from. I think they should have stuck with the
YEAR. Windows 95 (1995), windows 98 (1998), and Windows 2000 (2000).
And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

I think they should reintroduce Windows 98 as Windows 9, just fix a few
of the things it lacks, and I'd be happy!

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600, wrote:

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9".

Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

The latest versions were all numbers.

ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from.

Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.

who where wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600, wrote:

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9".

Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

The latest versions were all numbers.

ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from.

Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version, able
to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE) *and*
networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions) but, after its
release, Win2000 was found to not work well on standalones, so the
revised standalone version became WinME.

Daniel

" used improper usenet message composition style
by unnecessarily full-quoting:

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version,
able to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE)
*and* networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions)

Wrong on several counts.

First, you make some sort of distinction between networked and
non-networked operating systems, as if to imply that win98 was somehow
not suited for networked use (that it was somehow designed for
stand-alone use) - which couldn't be further from the truth.

Second, you imply that win-2k was a direct replacement for win-98. That
is also wrong. Anyone running win-98 was doing so as a non-system
administrator (in an organizational setting) or was running it in a
home/soho setting. They would continue to run win-98 in those settings
until their next computer purchase - which could have been a computer
with windows ME or Windows XP.

So-called power users, developers or servers would have already been
running windows NT4 either in an organizational setting or soho setting,
and those are the ones that would have switched over to Windows 2k.

Home users that were also "power users" or early adopters didn't switch
from win-9x/me to Win-2k for a variety of reasons, but predominantly
because early driver support was lagging on win-2k, particularly for
sound cards. Power users (in home settings) are more likely to be avid
game players.

Micro$oft's own sales documents specifically mention that win-2k was not
designed for home use (the support load that microsoft would have
experienced from home users trying to figure out how to use win-2k would
have been overwhelming). And the hardware requirements in terms of CPU,
ram and hard-drive size were higher for win-2k vs 9x/me, and in those
days that difference equated to significantly more expensive price tag.

So you might think that win-2K was somehow part of the upgrade or
migration path for win-9x/me - but for all the reasons mentioned above,
it wasn't.

Just look at your own experiences with people you know, and how many of
them went from win-98 to win-2k (in 2000 or 2001) vs win-xp (in 2002 and
beyond).

but, after its release, Win2000 was found to not work well on
standalones, so the revised standalone version became WinME.

Again, this distinction between OS functionality or OS performance and
the network "connected-ness" of the machine is bogus.

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:12:20 +1100, "
wrote:

who where wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:48 -0600, wrote:

The current version of Windows is "Windows 8". Well, I have Windows 9,
so I am ahead of the times. Actually, I have Windows 9.8.....
That's even better yet.

Considering Windows 95 and 98 and 98se have always been referred to as
"Windows 9".

Not quite. They are (collectively) Windows 4 and apart from that tag
were "always" referred to as Win9X. Big difference.

The latest versions were all numbers.

ALL Windows versions were numbers if you ever bothered to look under
the fancy packaging.

And then there was XP. Another name I never
understood where it came from.

Does it matter? They can stick whatever name on it they like to
distinguish it from any predecessor.

And even Windows ME, was millenium edition, for the year 2000. (That
was an overlap of the same year.... not too bright on their part
either).

ME was the dismal last Win4 version. Win2000 was the first
"mainstream" NT version. These were two separate OS streams, just as
NT 3.51/NT4 etc had existed for years alongside Win4.

As I understood it, Win2000 was supposed to be a combined version, able
to work on standalone computers (i.e. upgrade from Win98SE) *and*
networked computers (i.e. upgrade from NT versions) but, after its
release, Win2000 was found to not work well on standalones, so the
revised standalone version became WinME.

Daniel

Actually you got that wrong. WinME was the upgrade from Win98se, but it
never caught on because it had too many problems. Windows 2000 was the
beginning of XP. Actually it was dan near the same, except it didn't
come with all the bloat that XP has. I run both 98 and 2000 (dual boot).
Once and awhile I cant run an app on 98, so I boot to 2000. The thing I
never understood is why a lot of software written for XP wont run on
2000, when 2000 has the same core. Windows 2000 is the last version of
MS Windows that I'll ever run. Once they got into that verification
****, I stopped using their ****.

I have XP on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I got rid
ofmost of the bloat crap, but I still dislike it. I'd like to install a
larger harddrive in that laptop, but I cant, because although the XP is
licensed and legal, it did not come with an install CD. I refuse to buy
XP, and still have to perform their verification ****. And being a
laptop, I cant install a second harddrive like I can in my desktop. My
only option is to dump all my music and videos onto a USB drive and
carry that around with the computer, because that 40gig harddrive fills
up fast.