Kernel-Ex dont run Firefox properly

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:47:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , pedro
writes:

Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
stalling scripts etc etc.

I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
Win7U.

What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
serial/parallel ports.

To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)

It's about the mobos. Yes I can add boards to a desktop to provide
these ports, but the apps can't defeat HAL.

As for the legacy apps, they may well still work (though you _might_
have to learn a few wrinkles) under XP; try them. If you still have the
install discs (or can download the installers), try those first -
failing that, try copying over the relevant folders, though that's less
likely to be trouble-free (as it would indeed be under 98).

Have tried them under XP. Some work (when the ports are there) and
some go tits up.

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 08:07:51 -0500, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

pedro wrote:

As I could never get Kernelex to play nice

What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU, and how
much RAM?

P3/666/512M

Is it some special install of win-98 like Lite?

No, vanilla 98SE.

KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out and get
it by default.

It was the best part of two years back when I tried it. When I d/l
something I tend to create a folder for it within a folder called
"sources" so that later reinstalls aren't an issue. Right now in the
E:\00\sources\KernelEx folder I find:

KernelEx-4.5-Final.exe
unicows.exe
useragentswitcher.xml

Have you done a full defrag / scandisk / surface scan on your hard
drive? You might have some file-system errors or bad sectors that are
the underlying problem.

Routinely do that about monthly with no dramas.

pedro wrote:

What are the hardware specs of your win-98 system? What CPU,
and how much RAM?

P3/666/512M

There are going to be some multimedia instructions (MMX) that I think
your CPU doesn't have, which will make stuff like flash not work
properly or efficiently.

You'd be better to find some P4 i845 system that someone has thrown out
and use that as a win-98 system.

See - this is the problem with the people that complain that win-98
wasn't stable or has this or that problem. They all have this pathetic
old hardware.

There is no excuse for anyone that wants to run win-98 to be doing so on
a system with a P4 CPU. People have been throwing those systems in the
garbage for the past 5 years, so I don't know why there are people that
cling to P2 and P3 systems.

KernelEx requires unicode, but the KernelEx install will go out
and get it by default.

It was the best part of two years back when I tried it. When I d/l
something I tend to create a folder for it within a folder called
"sources" so that later reinstalls aren't an issue. Right now in the
E:\00\sources\KernelEx folder I find:

KernelEx-4.5-Final.exe
unicows.exe
useragentswitcher.xml

There should be a unicows.dll somewhere. Should be a copy in either
c:\windows or c:\windows\system (or both places).

I have 8 different unicows.dll files scattered in various places. The
ones I have in c:\windows is version 1.1.3790.0.

After installation, KernelEx will want you to re-boot, and right after
that reboot it should put up a message saying KernelEx installed and
working.

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:36:45 -0500, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

See - this is the problem with the people that complain that win-98
wasn't stable or has this or that problem. They all have this pathetic
old hardware.

Never complained about stability. From that angle it was mint. This
box IS old but kept using it because it was so stabele. Only passage
of time (i.e. things like HTML5, and scripts effing up FF operations)
have made a move necessary IMO.

"pedro" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:36:45 -0500, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

See - this is the problem with the people that complain that win-98
wasn't stable or has this or that problem. They all have this pathetic
old hardware.

Never complained about stability. From that angle it was mint. This
box IS old but kept using it because it was so stabele. Only passage
of time (i.e. things like HTML5, and scripts effing up FF operations)
have made a move necessary IMO.

I use my Windows 98 SE ie-sp1
as a Web server for 10 years @

www.hot-text.ath.cx

Go Opera 10
No need to up date for HTML5

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:16:16 -0600, "Hot-Text"
:81 wrote:

Go Opera 10
No need to up date for HTML5

Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.

pedro wrote:

Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.

I'm able to run Opera 12.02 with KernelEx, and I use it as a last resort
when FF 2.0.0.23 (Bon Ami) or Pale Moon 3.6.32 aren't good enough.

I'm constantly playing with a lot of google ajax and apis host-file
entries, so sometimes it's probably my own meddling that is resulting in
website dysfunction.

I really don't know why you can't get Kex running on your ancient PC.

You still haven't explained why you're so stuck on saying with a P3
system with 512mb ram (and probably a pathetic video card). Even if you
want to move away from win-98 to something like XP, you would be hard
pressed to run XP on such an old system.

Bottom line: I wouldn't want to run win-98 on any system that would run
XP poorly.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 22:20:46 -0500, 98 Guy "98"@Guy. com wrote:

pedro wrote:

Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.

I'm able to run Opera 12.02 with KernelEx, and I use it as a last resort
when FF 2.0.0.23 (Bon Ami) or Pale Moon 3.6.32 aren't good enough.

I'm constantly playing with a lot of google ajax and apis host-file
entries, so sometimes it's probably my own meddling that is resulting in
website dysfunction.

I really don't know why you can't get Kex running on your ancient PC.

You still haven't explained why you're so stuck on saying with a P3
system with 512mb ram (and probably a pathetic video card). Even if you
want to move away from win-98 to something like XP, you would be hard
pressed to run XP on such an old system.

I've hung onto it for a number of reasons. Mainly inertia. It works
flawlessly for most things I have on it, a lot of which is legacy
stuff and much of that requires ISA slots.

Even after "migration" to Win7 on the other box, this one will still
be needed to support some of those tasks.

Current video card is a Sapphire Radeon 9200SE Atlantis (128MB)
(fanless, quiet).

Bottom line: I wouldn't want to run win-98 on any system that would run
XP poorly.

I don't see what more grunt alone would address for me in 98SE.

"pedro" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:16:16 -0600, "Hot-Text"
:81 wrote:

Go Opera 10
No need to up date for HTML5

Have opera 10.63 here, for occasional use when FF fouls up a site.
Its rendering of sites is generally worse than FF2.

As I say Windows 98 SE is a Web Server

NT, 2000, XP Suck as Web server

Win 7 like 98 a dam good Web server

98 Work good on Virtual PC Machine too

I am making a USB-Key
on it a
Virtual Windows 98 SE
WWW Server.
that run on Win 7

pedro wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:47:01 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , pedro
writes:

Right now I'm in the throes of moving on from 98SE, sadly. It's been
good to me for a v.long time. As I could never get Kernelex to play
nice, the spread of HTML5 has given FF2.0.0.20 a torrid time with
stalling scripts etc etc.

I have an XP lappie that I use occasionally and also use SWMBO's Win7
lappie at odd times, so I at least have passing familiarity with those
OS's. Meanwhile my son has just set up my alternate desktop box with
Win7U.

What will be the biggest PITA of leaving 98 as my "daily drive" is the
legacy apps that I need occasionally, and the loss of REAL
serial/parallel ports.

To be fair, the loss of the ports isn't XP's fault; XP works fine with
real serial/parallel ports. (As, I think, does 7.)

It's about the mobos. Yes I can add boards to a desktop to provide
these ports, but the apps can't defeat HAL.

There are tons of now almost worthless PCs around with ~2/GHz CPUs and 1GB
RAM (actually that's probably a bit conservative). They'll run a basic XP
install fine if you don't clog it up, and most should have at least a
parallel port (Office PCs kept the parallel port on for a while in
particular). Check the mobo manuals too, there might be a com1 header
sitting unused.

If you want to spend your cash, there are industrial motherboards that
have ISA, Parallel, Serial etc. along with all the modern essentuals.

As for the legacy apps, they may well still work (though you _might_
have to learn a few wrinkles) under XP; try them. If you still have the
install discs (or can download the installers), try those first -
failing that, try copying over the relevant folders, though that's less
likely to be trouble-free (as it would indeed be under 98).

Have tried them under XP. Some work (when the ports are there) and
some go tits up.

You could always do a dual boot. Perhaps even try the HDD from your old
machine in the new one and see what 98 does. Or just make an image of
the old disk.

--
__ __
#_ |\| | _#