KernelEx? (with full info of what did not work)

[robert baer]

Robert Baer wrote:
> teebo wrote:
>>>>> it is running on and it appears that your application uses
>>>>> something that
>>>>> you haven't patched. You need to trace the execution of the installer
>>>>> for that app and find out what it is testing,
>>>>
>>>> What program shall one run to do the trace?
>>> * Good question; best i can do is use DOS DEBUG for now..
>>
>> I don't think dos debug whould do, shouldn't it be something more
>> Windowsy?
>>
>>>>>> Still..the ASUS M2N-MX SE Plus CD bitches saying it dislikes WIN_4.11
>>>>>> as an OS; cannot find that string *anywhere*.
>>
>>> I am trying to use the (not-so-nice) ASUS installer.
>>
>> I'm still not sure what application you want to run...
>> But as long as you are not trying to install motherboard-drivers
>> that is made for another os than win98/se/me, wich of course will
>> never work - being more a part of the os than a application,
>> I hope you find the call to the missing API etc your application need
>>
>> How do you get a GeForce6100/nForce430 chipset working with win98
>> in the first place?
> I used VBE Miniport by Anapa Corp; the SVGA driver which gives 800x600
> 16 colors; the best that i could do (better than a kick in the head).
Sorry; make that read 256 colors...

[robert baer]

teebo wrote:
>>> How do you get a GeForce6100/nForce430 chipset working with win98
>>> in the first place?
>
>> I used VBE Miniport by Anapa Corp; the SVGA driver which gives
>> 800x600 16 colors
>
> oh, even without graphic drivers for you graphic card
> you don't have to stay with only 16 colors
> If you don't find a driver or the tweaked NVidia 82.69 drivers
> don't work for you, it should be possible to use 24bit color
> with Bearwindows universal VESA-drivers. There is no 3D-support
> and it say something about need to update bios for full
> resolution with nvidia graphic cards(?) but it should at least
> give you truecolor.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/bearwindows/vbe9x.htm
> or http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/vbe9x.htm
> or http://www.navozhdeniye.narod.ru/vbe9x.htm
>
> (I assume the geocities site will dissapear when yahoo
> is closing geocities later this year)
Confusing as all heck.
First goo-gull hit:
"Universal VESA/VBE Video Display Driver (for Windows 9x x86 Architecture)"
Second hit:
"BEARWINDOWS Vault - This page is containing Microsoft(r) Windows

[robert baer]

teebo wrote:
>>> How do you get a GeForce6100/nForce430 chipset working with win98
>>> in the first place?
>
>> I used VBE Miniport by Anapa Corp; the SVGA driver which gives
>> 800x600 16 colors
>
> oh, even without graphic drivers for you graphic card
> you don't have to stay with only 16 colors
> If you don't find a driver or the tweaked NVidia 82.69 drivers
> don't work for you, it should be possible to use 24bit color
> with Bearwindows universal VESA-drivers. There is no 3D-support
> and it say something about need to update bios for full
> resolution with nvidia graphic cards(?) but it should at least
> give you truecolor.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/bearwindows/vbe9x.htm
> or http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/vbe9x.htm
> or http://www.navozhdeniye.narod.ru/vbe9x.htm
>
> (I assume the geocities site will dissapear when yahoo
> is closing geocities later this year)
I already have 081021.zip and am using it (as indicated).

[robert baer]

teebo wrote:
>>> How do you get a GeForce6100/nForce430 chipset working with win98
>>> in the first place?
>
>> I used VBE Miniport by Anapa Corp; the SVGA driver which gives
>> 800x600 16 colors
>
> oh, even without graphic drivers for you graphic card
> you don't have to stay with only 16 colors
> If you don't find a driver or the tweaked NVidia 82.69 drivers
> don't work for you, it should be possible to use 24bit color
> with Bearwindows universal VESA-drivers. There is no 3D-support
> and it say something about need to update bios for full
> resolution with nvidia graphic cards(?) but it should at least
> give you truecolor.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/bearwindows/vbe9x.htm
> or http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/vbe9x.htm
> or http://www.navozhdeniye.narod.ru/vbe9x.htm
>
> (I assume the geocities site will dissapear when yahoo
> is closing geocities later this year)
The available list for the Anapa is:
VBE miniport
VBE miniport - Standard Graphics Adaptor (VGA)
VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor
VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (VGA)
VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (XGA)
VBE miniport - SVGA
VBE miniport - VGA
It is the SVGA option i use now.
So, what do you recommend?

[teebo]

> The available list for the Anapa is:
> VBE miniport <---choose this one

> VBE miniport - Standard Graphics Adaptor (VGA) ???
> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor ??? <-- or this?
> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (VGA) ???
> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (XGA) 1024x768
> VBE miniport - SVGA 800x600
> VBE miniport - VGA 640x480
> It is the SVGA option i use now.
> So, what do you recommend?

I haven't used it myself, but what I understand of it
you should use the first one that only say VBE miniport.
I don't understand the other ones, since talking VESA
there should only be one (except for possibly
VGA and SVGA that are there if you temporarly want
to communicate the old standard-ways before vesa)?

On the other hand, he mentioned at the pages something
about if one doesn't work - try the next, so perhaps
they are there for cards that need special treatment.

hmm... if you look in the vbemp.inf file there is these lines:

%AnaPa.DeviceDesc% = Driver.Install, NOPNP
%AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc1% = Driver.Install, PCI\CC_0300
%AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc2% = Driver.Install, PCI\CC_0301
%AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc3% = Driver.Install, PCI\CC_0380
%AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc4% = Driver.Install, *PNP0900
%AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc5% = Driver.Install, *PNP0917
%AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc6% = Driver.Install, NOPNP

so it seems to be if the card is plug-and-play or not?

AnaPa.DeviceDesc = "VBE Miniport" <-----not PnP?
AnaPa.DeviceDesc1 = " - Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA)"
AnaPa.DeviceDesc2 = " - Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (XGA)"
AnaPa.DeviceDesc3 = " - Standard PCI Graphics Adapter"
AnaPa.DeviceDesc4 = " - Standard Graphics Adapter (VGA)"
AnaPa.DeviceDesc5 = " - VGA"
AnaPa.DeviceDesc6 = " - SVGA"


Somehow I get a feeling that you should not have got that
list at all during install, windows should have selected
the correct one automaticly (and don't select "show list"
but keep it at "search after")

[teebo]

> It is the SVGA option i use now.

hmmm... in the screenshot
http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/w98-1.png
they seems to have selected this:

VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (VGA)

and that seems to work fine in 1024x768 truecolor
so hehe... don't ask me, I will probably guess wrong
If neither of them work when you try them and not the
old 'manual' version with nvidia either, then you better
ask the programmer. check the 'Driver troubleshooting'
section at the webpage too then

[robert baer]

MEB wrote:
> Try using Dependency Walker [2.0 or higher] and use the "profile" option
> while attempting the installation from within Dependency Walker. Check the
> help supplied with the program for more information..
> For profiling to work, the module you open in Dependency Walker has to be an
> executable file.
> Otherwise, you can click on [open] the various files within the target
> [what you want to check] and it will attempt to resolve the dependencies
> using the present system files.
>
> *IF* these are drivers related to the motherboard [or other devices] and
> designed for 2000/XP/VISTA, you will not get them to work with 9X by using
> the mod.
> These are designed for HAL and other aspects of the NT environment.
>
> The kernel mods are designed to allow some *applications* to work in the 9X
> environment.
>
Dependency Walker is awesome!
Now all i have to do is find the time to impliment a "special" patch
that i have in mind that should fix a lot of problems.

[robert baer]

teebo wrote:
>> The available list for the Anapa is:
>> VBE miniport <---choose this one
>
>> VBE miniport - Standard Graphics Adaptor (VGA) ???
>> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor ??? <-- or this?
>> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (VGA) ???
>> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (XGA) 1024x768
>> VBE miniport - SVGA 800x600
>> VBE miniport - VGA 640x480
>> It is the SVGA option i use now.
>> So, what do you recommend?
>
> I haven't used it myself, but what I understand of it
> you should use the first one that only say VBE miniport.
> I don't understand the other ones, since talking VESA
> there should only be one (except for possibly
> VGA and SVGA that are there if you temporarly want
> to communicate the old standard-ways before vesa)?
>
> On the other hand, he mentioned at the pages something
> about if one doesn't work - try the next, so perhaps
> they are there for cards that need special treatment.
>
> hmm... if you look in the vbemp.inf file there is these lines:
>
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc% = Driver.Install, NOPNP
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc1% = Driver.Install, PCI\CC_0300
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc2% = Driver.Install, PCI\CC_0301
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc3% = Driver.Install, PCI\CC_0380
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc4% = Driver.Install, *PNP0900
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc5% = Driver.Install, *PNP0917
> %AnaPa.DeviceDesc%%AnaPa.DeviceDesc6% = Driver.Install, NOPNP
>
> so it seems to be if the card is plug-and-play or not?
>
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc = "VBE Miniport" <-----not PnP?
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc1 = " - Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA)"
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc2 = " - Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (XGA)"
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc3 = " - Standard PCI Graphics Adapter"
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc4 = " - Standard Graphics Adapter (VGA)"
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc5 = " - VGA"
> AnaPa.DeviceDesc6 = " - SVGA"
>
>
> Somehow I get a feeling that you should not have got that
> list at all during install, windows should have selected
> the correct one automaticly (and don't select "show list"
> but keep it at "search after")
1) The BAERstuff was exactly what i had (Anapa).
2) Oh yes, WinDoz did select what it "thought" was the correct one -
the VGA driver with only 16 colors. So i had to go into the list and
select the SVGA driver.
3) Video card is supposedly PnP but since two "motherboard resources"
etc are not satisfied, it is a wonder the card works at all.
Will try the "plain" (not PnP) driver.

[robert baer]

teebo wrote:
>> It is the SVGA option i use now.
>
> hmmm... in the screenshot
> http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/w98-1.png
> they seems to have selected this:
>
> VBE miniport - Standard PCI Graphics Adaptor (VGA)
>
> and that seems to work fine in 1024x768 truecolor
> so hehe... don't ask me, I will probably guess wrong
> If neither of them work when you try them and not the
> old 'manual' version with nvidia either, then you better
> ask the programmer. check the 'Driver troubleshooting'
> section at the webpage too then
I tried the "plain" (no PnP) driver and picked hires 16 bit (did not
have guts for hivid 24 bit) and.... it works!
Thanks!

[meb]

On 06/18/2009 04:51 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>> Try using Dependency Walker [2.0 or higher] and use the "profile" option
>> while attempting the installation from within Dependency Walker. Check
>> the
>> help supplied with the program for more information..
>> For profiling to work, the module you open in Dependency Walker has to
>> be an
>> executable file.
>> Otherwise, you can click on [open] the various files within the target
>> [what you want to check] and it will attempt to resolve the dependencies
>> using the present system files.
>>
>> *IF* these are drivers related to the motherboard [or other devices] and
>> designed for 2000/XP/VISTA, you will not get them to work with 9X by
>> using
>> the mod.
>> These are designed for HAL and other aspects of the NT environment.
>>
>> The kernel mods are designed to allow some *applications* to work in
>> the 9X
>> environment.
>>
> Dependency Walker is awesome!
> Now all i have to do is find the time to impliment a "special" patch
> that i have in mind that should fix a lot of problems.

Good, glad you picked up on it, thought you were going to ignore the
recommendation..

Wonderful graphic debug style program for the 9X [32bit] environment,
I used it during many years of testing and code manipulation... simple
and quick, yet elegant and informative, and requires no real coding
experience so anyone can become a tester, though it is certainly useful
even to coders/programmers... great for bug reports/files and other aspects.

Keep us informed, we are always interested in efforts to support 9X.
I think the prior issues in the group pertaining to 9X modifications
ended, for the most part, with the end of support/end of life and
certainly as its now three years later, so if you know of other reliable
coders/programmers working on keeping it viable or fixing issues or
creating programs/applications, invite them to the forum. You can see
the number of interested parties [e.g., MVPs and long term posters, and
resultant mirrored materials].
Moreover, I seriously doubt there can be much argument to be leveraged
for NOT posting suggestions, modifications [links], and/with testing and
results, within the forum, even by the MVPs; perhaps they might even
help with their cumulative knowledge.

In fact that might spark others to also work on/within the now stable
9X coding environment.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

[meb]

On 06/18/2009 01:08 PM, MEB wrote:
> On 06/18/2009 04:51 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>> Try using Dependency Walker [2.0 or higher] and use the "profile" option
>>> while attempting the installation from within Dependency Walker. Check
>>> the
>>> help supplied with the program for more information..
>>> For profiling to work, the module you open in Dependency Walker has to
>>> be an
>>> executable file.
>>> Otherwise, you can click on [open] the various files within the target
>>> [what you want to check] and it will attempt to resolve the dependencies
>>> using the present system files.
>>>
>>> *IF* these are drivers related to the motherboard [or other devices] and
>>> designed for 2000/XP/VISTA, you will not get them to work with 9X by
>>> using
>>> the mod.
>>> These are designed for HAL and other aspects of the NT environment.
>>>
>>> The kernel mods are designed to allow some *applications* to work in
>>> the 9X
>>> environment.
>>>
>> Dependency Walker is awesome!
>> Now all i have to do is find the time to impliment a "special" patch
>> that i have in mind that should fix a lot of problems.
>
> Good, glad you picked up on it, thought you were going to ignore the
> recommendation..
>
> Wonderful graphic debug style program for the 9X [32bit] environment, I
> used it during many years of testing and code manipulation... simple and
> quick, yet elegant and informative, and requires no real coding
> experience so anyone can become a tester, though it is certainly useful
> even to coders/programmers... great for bug reports/files and other
> aspects.
>
> Keep us informed, we are always interested in efforts to support 9X.
> I think the prior issues in the group pertaining to 9X modifications
> ended, for the most part, with the end of support/end of life and
> certainly as its now three years later, so if you know of other reliable
> coders/programmers working on keeping it viable or fixing issues or
> creating programs/applications, invite them to the forum. You can see
> the number of interested parties [e.g., MVPs and long term posters, and
> resultant mirrored materials].
> Moreover, I seriously doubt there can be much argument to be leveraged
> for NOT posting suggestions, modifications [links], and/with testing and
> results, within the forum, even by the MVPs; perhaps they might even
> help with their cumulative knowledge.
>
> In fact that might spark others to also work on/within the now stable 9X
> coding environment.
>

Oh forgot something...

You started off this discussion with listing modifications you
manually made to the 9X registry and files.
The issues you are creating by doing so, are that any further
installations will likely fail due to these modifications and/or you
make kill presently installed applications and/or their requirements.
If special modifications are to be attempted, the idea is to either
place required files in the same form as XP/2000 such as in the system32
folder [which leaves the standard 9X environment intact] and either
referencing the special modifications *within the modification
installation* and/or creating a newly created *call file* [similar to
the old *.ini files of prior environments], and/or adding the needed
files [such as DLLs] into the folder from which the modifications is to
work/run and coding thereto.

Registry modifications can be or should be handled by falsified [fake]
registry entries mimicking the target environment, if at all possible,
by either clearing those calls [if really unnecessary, e.g., tested as
such] *OR* via the previously referenced *call file*, *unless*
absolutely required and producing no errors to the 9X environment; to
avoid the endless failed calls to other aspects from the purported
target environment [such as HAL, NT services, and files]. *OR* by
changing the returned critical failures into non-visual and
*non-critical* "errors" rather than code "killers".
Example: the errors found in 9X after the installation of I.E.6, and
how they are handled [e.g., apphelp.dll [non-existent in 9X],
shell32.dll [bad calls], userenv.dll [non-existent in 9X], ole32.dll
[bad calls], etc..]

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

[robert baer]

MEB wrote:
> On 06/18/2009 04:51 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>> Try using Dependency Walker [2.0 or higher] and use the "profile" option
>>> while attempting the installation from within Dependency Walker. Check
>>> the
>>> help supplied with the program for more information..
>>> For profiling to work, the module you open in Dependency Walker has to
>>> be an
>>> executable file.
>>> Otherwise, you can click on [open] the various files within the target
>>> [what you want to check] and it will attempt to resolve the dependencies
>>> using the present system files.
>>>
>>> *IF* these are drivers related to the motherboard [or other devices] and
>>> designed for 2000/XP/VISTA, you will not get them to work with 9X by
>>> using
>>> the mod.
>>> These are designed for HAL and other aspects of the NT environment.
>>>
>>> The kernel mods are designed to allow some *applications* to work in
>>> the 9X
>>> environment.
>>>
>> Dependency Walker is awesome!
>> Now all i have to do is find the time to impliment a "special" patch
>> that i have in mind that should fix a lot of problems.
>
> Good, glad you picked up on it, thought you were going to ignore the
> recommendation..
>
> Wonderful graphic debug style program for the 9X [32bit] environment, I
> used it during many years of testing and code manipulation... simple and
> quick, yet elegant and informative, and requires no real coding
> experience so anyone can become a tester, though it is certainly useful
> even to coders/programmers... great for bug reports/files and other
> aspects.
>
> Keep us informed, we are always interested in efforts to support 9X.
> I think the prior issues in the group pertaining to 9X modifications
> ended, for the most part, with the end of support/end of life and
> certainly as its now three years later, so if you know of other reliable
> coders/programmers working on keeping it viable or fixing issues or
> creating programs/applications, invite them to the forum. You can see
> the number of interested parties [e.g., MVPs and long term posters, and
> resultant mirrored materials].
> Moreover, I seriously doubt there can be much argument to be leveraged
> for NOT posting suggestions, modifications [links], and/with testing and
> results, within the forum, even by the MVPs; perhaps they might even
> help with their cumulative knowledge.
>
> In fact that might spark others to also work on/within the now stable
> 9X coding environment.
>
OK; here is my stupid idea based on the fact that the Walker trotted
all over kernel32.dll stomping it to uselessness for the ASUS install
program:
The stupid idea is to steal the same-named DLL from Win2K and plop it
in place of the one in Win98SE\system.

[robert baer]

MEB wrote:
> On 06/18/2009 01:08 PM, MEB wrote:
>> On 06/18/2009 04:51 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>> Try using Dependency Walker [2.0 or higher] and use the "profile"
>>>> option
>>>> while attempting the installation from within Dependency Walker. Check
>>>> the
>>>> help supplied with the program for more information..
>>>> For profiling to work, the module you open in Dependency Walker has to
>>>> be an
>>>> executable file.
>>>> Otherwise, you can click on [open] the various files within the target
>>>> [what you want to check] and it will attempt to resolve the
>>>> dependencies
>>>> using the present system files.
>>>>
>>>> *IF* these are drivers related to the motherboard [or other devices]
>>>> and
>>>> designed for 2000/XP/VISTA, you will not get them to work with 9X by
>>>> using
>>>> the mod.
>>>> These are designed for HAL and other aspects of the NT environment.
>>>>
>>>> The kernel mods are designed to allow some *applications* to work in
>>>> the 9X
>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>> Dependency Walker is awesome!
>>> Now all i have to do is find the time to impliment a "special" patch
>>> that i have in mind that should fix a lot of problems.
>>
>> Good, glad you picked up on it, thought you were going to ignore the
>> recommendation..
>>
>> Wonderful graphic debug style program for the 9X [32bit] environment, I
>> used it during many years of testing and code manipulation... simple and
>> quick, yet elegant and informative, and requires no real coding
>> experience so anyone can become a tester, though it is certainly useful
>> even to coders/programmers... great for bug reports/files and other
>> aspects.
>>
>> Keep us informed, we are always interested in efforts to support 9X.
>> I think the prior issues in the group pertaining to 9X modifications
>> ended, for the most part, with the end of support/end of life and
>> certainly as its now three years later, so if you know of other reliable
>> coders/programmers working on keeping it viable or fixing issues or
>> creating programs/applications, invite them to the forum. You can see
>> the number of interested parties [e.g., MVPs and long term posters, and
>> resultant mirrored materials].
>> Moreover, I seriously doubt there can be much argument to be leveraged
>> for NOT posting suggestions, modifications [links], and/with testing and
>> results, within the forum, even by the MVPs; perhaps they might even
>> help with their cumulative knowledge.
>>
>> In fact that might spark others to also work on/within the now stable 9X
>> coding environment.
>>
>
> Oh forgot something...
>
> You started off this discussion with listing modifications you manually
> made to the 9X registry and files.
> The issues you are creating by doing so, are that any further
> installations will likely fail due to these modifications and/or you
> make kill presently installed applications and/or their requirements.
> If special modifications are to be attempted, the idea is to either
> place required files in the same form as XP/2000 such as in the system32
> folder [which leaves the standard 9X environment intact] and either
> referencing the special modifications *within the modification
> installation* and/or creating a newly created *call file* [similar to
> the old *.ini files of prior environments], and/or adding the needed
> files [such as DLLs] into the folder from which the modifications is to
> work/run and coding thereto.
>
> Registry modifications can be or should be handled by falsified [fake]
> registry entries mimicking the target environment, if at all possible,
> by either clearing those calls [if really unnecessary, e.g., tested as
> such] *OR* via the previously referenced *call file*, *unless*
> absolutely required and producing no errors to the 9X environment; to
> avoid the endless failed calls to other aspects from the purported
> target environment [such as HAL, NT services, and files]. *OR* by
> changing the returned critical failures into non-visual and
> *non-critical* "errors" rather than code "killers".
> Example: the errors found in 9X after the installation of I.E.6, and
> how they are handled [e.g., apphelp.dll [non-existent in 9X],
> shell32.dll [bad calls], userenv.dll [non-existent in 9X], ole32.dll
> [bad calls], etc..]
>
I did not see any difference in operation of the few programs i
normally run - but the registry is now back to original.
I am first going to see if my "replacement patch" of that DLL does
any good.
Color me ignorant and stupid..what is a "call file" and "fake"
entries in the registry are the ones i put in, yes?
Certainly two entries - one for Win98 and one for WinXP in many cases
may create havoc (if it could be done - which i doubt) as the name would
be the same but values be different.
And as far as testing if a given registry change is benign - wouldn't
that mean that many programs would have to be tested?
Like installation testing and useage testing of (say) a USB scanner
to be nasty?
Talking typers? Text readers? CorelDraw? Zip? whatelse??

[robert baer]

MEB wrote:
> On 06/18/2009 01:08 PM, MEB wrote:
>> On 06/18/2009 04:51 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>> Try using Dependency Walker [2.0 or higher] and use the "profile"
>>>> option
>>>> while attempting the installation from within Dependency Walker. Check
>>>> the
>>>> help supplied with the program for more information..
>>>> For profiling to work, the module you open in Dependency Walker has to
>>>> be an
>>>> executable file.
>>>> Otherwise, you can click on [open] the various files within the target
>>>> [what you want to check] and it will attempt to resolve the
>>>> dependencies
>>>> using the present system files.
>>>>
>>>> *IF* these are drivers related to the motherboard [or other devices]
>>>> and
>>>> designed for 2000/XP/VISTA, you will not get them to work with 9X by
>>>> using
>>>> the mod.
>>>> These are designed for HAL and other aspects of the NT environment.
>>>>
>>>> The kernel mods are designed to allow some *applications* to work in
>>>> the 9X
>>>> environment.
>>>>
>>> Dependency Walker is awesome!
>>> Now all i have to do is find the time to impliment a "special" patch
>>> that i have in mind that should fix a lot of problems.
>>
>> Good, glad you picked up on it, thought you were going to ignore the
>> recommendation..
>>
>> Wonderful graphic debug style program for the 9X [32bit] environment, I
>> used it during many years of testing and code manipulation... simple and
>> quick, yet elegant and informative, and requires no real coding
>> experience so anyone can become a tester, though it is certainly useful
>> even to coders/programmers... great for bug reports/files and other
>> aspects.
>>
>> Keep us informed, we are always interested in efforts to support 9X.
>> I think the prior issues in the group pertaining to 9X modifications
>> ended, for the most part, with the end of support/end of life and
>> certainly as its now three years later, so if you know of other reliable
>> coders/programmers working on keeping it viable or fixing issues or
>> creating programs/applications, invite them to the forum. You can see
>> the number of interested parties [e.g., MVPs and long term posters, and
>> resultant mirrored materials].
>> Moreover, I seriously doubt there can be much argument to be leveraged
>> for NOT posting suggestions, modifications [links], and/with testing and
>> results, within the forum, even by the MVPs; perhaps they might even
>> help with their cumulative knowledge.
>>
>> In fact that might spark others to also work on/within the now stable 9X
>> coding environment.
>>
>
> Oh forgot something...
>
> You started off this discussion with listing modifications you manually
> made to the 9X registry and files.
> The issues you are creating by doing so, are that any further
> installations will likely fail due to these modifications and/or you
> make kill presently installed applications and/or their requirements.
> If special modifications are to be attempted, the idea is to either
> place required files in the same form as XP/2000 such as in the system32
> folder [which leaves the standard 9X environment intact] and either
> referencing the special modifications *within the modification
> installation* and/or creating a newly created *call file* [similar to
> the old *.ini files of prior environments], and/or adding the needed
> files [such as DLLs] into the folder from which the modifications is to
> work/run and coding thereto.
>
> Registry modifications can be or should be handled by falsified [fake]
> registry entries mimicking the target environment, if at all possible,
> by either clearing those calls [if really unnecessary, e.g., tested as
> such] *OR* via the previously referenced *call file*, *unless*
> absolutely required and producing no errors to the 9X environment; to
> avoid the endless failed calls to other aspects from the purported
> target environment [such as HAL, NT services, and files]. *OR* by
> changing the returned critical failures into non-visual and
> *non-critical* "errors" rather than code "killers".
> Example: the errors found in 9X after the installation of I.E.6, and
> how they are handled [e.g., apphelp.dll [non-existent in 9X],
> shell32.dll [bad calls], userenv.dll [non-existent in 9X], ole32.dll
> [bad calls], etc..]
>
Replacing Win98Se version of Kernel32.dll with the one found in Win2K
is a disaster.
Sometime during the loading of Win98SE, it complains about the DLL in
no uncertain terms in a few different ways and halts.
Being a dummy concerning behind-the scenes OS stuff, i have come to
the conclusion that patches to the OS cannot allow one to load
"advanced" drivers (ie: drivers made for newer OSes).