win9x patch "KernelEx" makes WINXP APPS work on win9x o.s.

BUDDY · External Since: Sep 25, 2009 Posts: 2

This win9x o.s. patch named "KernelEx" claims to allow software designed for
w2k-xp to work on win9x o.s.

here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE FORGE.
KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow running
Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft
Windows Millennium operating systems.

I' tried installing several apps after aplying this patch,to no avail they
wont install ! I' searched the web for support for this patch with no luck
either ,any clues how to make make win2k-xp apps work on win9x using this
patch ?

Jeff Richards · External Since: Mar 14, 2004 Posts: 1333

Have you contacted the developer?

Have you tried installing any other applications that other users have
indicated success with? What applications have you tried and what happened
when you tried the install? It's possible that the problem is the
installer, not the application, in which case you have to find out how to
fool the installer about the version of the OS you are running - a very
different task than simply providing a compatibility layer.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"BUDDY" <NOTHANKS.TakeThisOut@NOTHANKS.COM> wrote in message
news:%23nFXWqkPKHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> This win9x o.s. patch named "KernelEx" claims to allow software designed
> for
> w2k-xp to work on win9x o.s.
>
> here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE FORGE.
> KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow
> running
> Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft
> Windows Millennium operating systems.
>
> I' tried installing several apps after aplying this patch,to no avail they
> wont install ! I' searched the web for support for this patch with no luck
> either ,any clues how to make make win2k-xp apps work on win9x using this
> patch ?
>
>

BUDDY · External Since: Sep 25, 2009 Posts: 2

support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple comments but no
other support can be found.

right now I'm having trouble installing FIREFOX 3* I' get too the
install screen then the MOZILLA quites ?

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards RemoveThis @msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:uy20G2kPKHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Have you contacted the developer?
>
> Have you tried installing any other applications that other users have
> indicated success with? What applications have you tried and what
happened
> when you tried the install? It's possible that the problem is the
> installer, not the application, in which case you have to find out how to
> fool the installer about the version of the OS you are running - a very
> different task than simply providing a compatibility layer.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "BUDDY" <NOTHANKS RemoveThis @NOTHANKS.COM> wrote in message
> news:%23nFXWqkPKHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> > This win9x o.s. patch named "KernelEx" claims to allow software designed
> > for
> > w2k-xp to work on win9x o.s.
> >
> > here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE FORGE.
> > KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow
> > running
> > Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft
> > Windows Millennium operating systems.
> >
> > I' tried installing several apps after aplying this patch,to no avail
they
> > wont install ! I' searched the web for support for this patch with no
luck
> > either ,any clues how to make make win2k-xp apps work on win9x using
this
> > patch ?
> >
> >
>
>

98 Guy · External Since: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 443

BUDDY wrote:

> support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple
> comments but no other support can be found.

The most active place to get support questions answered for KernelEx is
in the win-9x/me forum at MSFN.org.

If I remember correctly, the original author(s) are not very keen or
receptive at taking questions along the lines of "why doesn't kernelEx
work with xyz software?", but others that are experienced users might
give you tips, suggestions or tell you why xyz won't work on win-98 in
spite of kernelex.

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

This message is not archived

Don Phillipson · External Since: Jan 11, 2009 Posts: 14

"BUDDY" <NOTHANKS.DeleteThis@NOTHANKS.COM> wrote in message
news:e7EyX7lPKHA.2092@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> > > here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE
FORGE.
> > > KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow
> > > running
> > > Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and
Microsoft
> > > Windows Millennium operating systems.

> support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple comments but no
> other support can be found.
>
> right now I'm having trouble installing FIREFOX 3* I' get too the
> install screen then the MOZILLA quites ?

It is obviously very ambitious to try to enable WinXP-only
apps to run under Win98: and even if this succeeds for
some apps some of the time, It seems extravagant to
hope it will work for all apps we care to try. When Firefox
3 was issued its programmers said it would not run on
Win98. Because of their experience upgrading Firefox 2,
you might think they would have made version 3 run on
Win98 if this were practical.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

square/circle · External Since: Sep 27, 2009 Posts: 9

Just curious, and trying to follow thread.
Why is Gregs reply/post coming up as 'Error'?

-----------------

Error!
newsgroup server responded:no such article number in group

Perhaps the article has expired

<7i6mjtF308tmgU1 DeleteThis @mid.individual.net> (852040)
"click here to remove all expired articles".

------------

S/C

MEB · External Since: Sep 22, 2009 Posts: 8

square/circle wrote:
> Just curious, and trying to follow thread.
> Why is Gregs reply/post coming up as 'Error'?
>
>
> -----------------
>
> Error!
> newsgroup server responded:no such article number in group
>
> Perhaps the article has expired
>
> <7i6mjtF308tmgU1.DeleteThis@mid.individual.net> (852040)
> "click here to remove all expired articles".
>
> ------------
>
> S/C

Without going into NNTP transference in detail:

The message is marked as a do not archive message, comes as part of the
negotiated transfer of the message among the services that support it.
There are other inclusions which may be used.
You can see this reflected upon the Google groups' copy of the
applicable discussion headings and those messages you are referring to.
"Google will remove the messages in X days."
Google's method will place the message and start the count down to removal.
Looking at the source of those messages, you will find:
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
X-No-Archive: yes
Other services/servers will automatically remove the message almost
immediately, or different newsreaders may pop-up the message you refer to.
Microsoft apparently handles this with its normal and routine clean-out
of the groups.
Thunderbird recognizes the message header request instantly.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-No-Archive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_News_Transfer_Protocol

At times you may also see something similar, as a missing message, when
something like a forged header is used, makes it through *to* the
original NNTP host service yet is then cleared/removed upon processing
for use upon the actual host/service, in its Usenet offering. During the
short transitional period the message may be picked up by other sub
services [receiving their messages from that specific service, such as
an individual ISP offering], now carrying a seemingly proper
header/message, or which do not check for what a "guidelines"
header/message is supposed to check for. OR that the server HAS tagged
the message for removal.
Thunderbird will show, temporarily, the message available for download,
yet no message will be downloaded, depending upon when you pull the
messages.
This *false header* issue was supposedly addressed several years ago,
so it should not occur [DNS reverse resolution checks, and other
checks], though there may be services/servers that actually use this as
an anonymizing method, or individuals still attempting/using the method
or others, having found a service which allows this activity.

Since Microsoft has changed these public forums, relatively recently,
to reflect normal newsgroup/Usenet, we may be seeing more of these
activities. You can see the changes reflected in the Web based entry
point to this group which now carries most of the normal Usenet
offerings, including those your own service may not be offering having
further filtered the group.
Microsoft appears to be applying the old methods previously used here
to its more specialized technical forums, and communities which offer
public/private NNTP services/access, and has apparently opened this once
public/private filtered offering, to normal full Usenet style.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

thanatoid · External Since: Aug 21, 2006 Posts: 355

"BUDDY" <NOTHANKS.RemoveThis@NOTHANKS.COM> wrote in
news:#nFXWqkPKHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> This win9x o.s. patch named "KernelEx" claims to allow
> software designed for w2k-xp to work on win9x o.s.
>
> here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on
> SOURCE FORGE. KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility
> layer with an aim to allow running Windows 2000/XP-only
> applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft Windows
> Millennium operating systems.
>
> I' tried installing several apps after aplying this
> patch,to no avail they wont install ! I' searched the web
> for support for this patch with no luck either ,any clues
> how to make make win2k-xp apps work on win9x using this
> patch ?

Why don't you read the developer's page before you ask ignorant
questions?
Not ALL applications are written mainly for morons.
Some are written mainly for gamers.

--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:27:05 -0400, Greg <invalid.DeleteThis@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:56:54 -0400, 98 Guy <98.DeleteThis@Guy.com> wrote:
>
>>BUDDY wrote:
>>
>>> support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple
>>> comments but no other support can be found.
>>
>>The most active place to get support questions answered for KernelEx is
>>in the win-9x/me forum at MSFN.org.
>>
>>If I remember correctly, the original author(s) are not very keen or
>>receptive at taking questions along the lines of "why doesn't kernelEx
>>work with xyz software?", but others that are experienced users might
>>give you tips, suggestions or tell you why xyz won't work on win-98 in
>>spite of kernelex.
>
>He says it only support a few application not all xp applications.
>
>Even the ones is supposed to support didn't work for me. Flash 10.
>Was able to install it, but didn't run and Firefox or IE didn't see
>the flash 10 plugins. (Even after I remove the old flash and old
>shockwave).
>
>On Firefox download the zip version, then try it. You have to hunt
>to find the firefox zip version. It still on the Mozilla site.
>
>Greg
>
Re-posted for square/circle

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:36:20 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
<e925 RemoveThis @SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:

>"BUDDY" <NOTHANKS RemoveThis @NOTHANKS.COM> wrote in message
>news:e7EyX7lPKHA.2092@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> > > here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE
>FORGE.
>> > > KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow
>> > > running
>> > > Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and
>Microsoft
>> > > Windows Millennium operating systems.
>
>> support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple comments but no
>> other support can be found.
>>
>> right now I'm having trouble installing FIREFOX 3* I' get too the
>> install screen then the MOZILLA quites ?
>
>It is obviously very ambitious to try to enable WinXP-only
>apps to run under Win98: and even if this succeeds for
>some apps some of the time, It seems extravagant to
>hope it will work for all apps we care to try. When Firefox
>3 was issued its programmers said it would not run on
>Win98. Because of their experience upgrading Firefox 2,
>you might think they would have made version 3 run on
>Win98 if this were practical.

Firefox 3 could of ran on Windows 98se. The Gecko engine requires a
component of xp (I think it in Windows 2000 as well but I am not
sure). That claimed it was as cause a larger file download to
update the system files for Firefox 3 to work. However, if K-Meleon
develops something to work on Windows 9x, than firefox 3 and above
might be able to use that.

To bad Microsoft didn't release the WFP operating system to the
general public. One problem with that, it required a domain, so
they would have to add support for dial-up and other network
connections. It mainly for large businesses with old computer

Greg

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:12:57 -0400, Greg <invalid.RemoveThis@invalid.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:36:20 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
><e925.RemoveThis@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>>"BUDDY" <NOTHANKS.RemoveThis@NOTHANKS.COM> wrote in message
>>news:e7EyX7lPKHA.2092@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> > > here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE
>>FORGE.
>>> > > KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow
>>> > > running
>>> > > Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and
>>Microsoft
>>> > > Windows Millennium operating systems.
>>
>>> support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple comments but no
>>> other support can be found.
>>>
>>> right now I'm having trouble installing FIREFOX 3* I' get too the
>>> install screen then the MOZILLA quites ?
>>
>>It is obviously very ambitious to try to enable WinXP-only
>>apps to run under Win98: and even if this succeeds for
>>some apps some of the time, It seems extravagant to
>>hope it will work for all apps we care to try. When Firefox
>>3 was issued its programmers said it would not run on
>>Win98. Because of their experience upgrading Firefox 2,
>>you might think they would have made version 3 run on
>>Win98 if this were practical.
>
>
>Firefox 3 could of ran on Windows 98se. The Gecko engine requires a
>component of xp (I think it in Windows 2000 as well but I am not
>sure). That claimed it was as cause a larger file download to
>update the system files for Firefox 3 to work. However, if K-Meleon
>develops something to work on Windows 9x, than firefox 3 and above
>might be able to use that.
>
>Greg

I got to a correction. Firefox developers got rid of the zip files
for win32 including for developers. I just found that out. I looked
all over for the zip files. No luck.

I am going to try to see if I can unzip the firefox execute file.

Greg

Bill in Co. · External Since: Apr 24, 2005 Posts: 570

I tried that KernelEx patch before on a few apps, and it never did squat. I
bet it only works on a small handful of apps.

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:11:25 -0700, "BUDDY" <NOTHANKS DeleteThis @NOTHANKS.COM>
wrote:

>
>support info at SOURCE FORGE, is scarce I' found a couple comments but no
>other support can be found.
>
>right now I'm having trouble installing FIREFOX 3* I' get too the
> install screen then the MOZILLA quites ?

Find a program called Universal Extractor 1.5 v
Install that program.

Download Firefox 3.53

Right click of on the firefox setup files, UniExtract.exe to subdir.

In the subdir, you will find setup.exe, right click properties,
make sure compatibility tab is set to windows xp sp2.

Click on the setup.exe and install. It will update the extensions
and everything else.

Good luck.

Greg

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:46:25 -0700, "BUDDY" <NOTHANKS.DeleteThis@NOTHANKS.COM>
wrote:

>This win9x o.s. patch named "KernelEx" claims to allow software designed for
>w2k-xp to work on win9x o.s.
>
>here's the developers statement about this win9x patch on SOURCE FORGE.
>KernelEx is an Open Source compatibility layer with an aim to allow running
>Windows 2000/XP-only applications on Microsoft Windows 98 and Microsoft
>Windows Millennium operating systems.
>
>I' tried installing several apps after aplying this patch,to no avail they
>wont install ! I' searched the web for support for this patch with no luck
>either ,any clues how to make make win2k-xp apps work on win9x using this
>patch ?
>

Try the unzip method, I mentioned to Buddy. Using you application
in place of Firefox.

Sometime right clicking on a file, choosing properties and choose
the compatibility tab and chose windows xp sp2 will work.

Greg

dadiOH · External Since: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 11

Bill in Co. wrote:
> I tried that KernelEx patch before on a few apps, and it never did
> squat. I bet it only works on a small handful of apps.

One it did work for was World of Warcraft. It also introduced an irritating
error (not in WoW); what the error was, I do not recall but it wasn't a big
deal, merely ittitating.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:44:26 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I tried that KernelEx patch before on a few apps, and it never did squat. I
>bet it only works on a small handful of apps.
>

They have a new version or at least the version I got is
KernelEx-4.0-Final2.exe

It makes a compatibly tab for each win32 application execute file.

On firefox 3,
I ran into a couple of problems.

Once you install lite firefox, it will work better. (Note close
firefox manual, the use ctrl+alt+del to close the firefox, then
reopen it. (You may have to do this for each xpi or theme you
install). For some reason it leaves a firefox in memory, One bug
your will have this | on some spots on the menu. I don't know if I
would trust it with secure sites. I really don't know how Kernel
makes firefox3 and other apps work.

I did got both firefox 2 and firefox 3 installed at the same time.
It was a pain but it worked.

Greg

Jeff Richards · External Since: Mar 14, 2004 Posts: 1333

Running a browser using the compatibility layer sounds like a dangerous
arrangement to me. All the security assumptions that are built into a www
browser designed for XP and above will be non-functional when running under
W98 with a compatibility layer. The layer works by emulating the XP
functions that the application expects to find available in the system. This
includes a host of file and registry security protocols that the
compatibility layer will emulate by pretending to implement, but actually
ignoring. You are opening up XP-style security holes while you are running
98-style protection software.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Greg" <invalid RemoveThis @invalid.net> wrote in message
news:7i9htbF303h5iU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:44:26 -0600, "Bill in Co."
> snip <
>
> They have a new version or at least the version I got is
> KernelEx-4.0-Final2.exe
>
> It makes a compatibly tab for each win32 application execute file.
>
> On firefox 3,
> I ran into a couple of problems.
>
> Once you install lite firefox, it will work better. (Note close
> firefox manual, the use ctrl+alt+del to close the firefox, then
> reopen it. (You may have to do this for each xpi or theme you
> install). For some reason it leaves a firefox in memory, One bug
> your will have this | on some spots on the menu. I don't know if I
> would trust it with secure sites. I really don't know how Kernel
> makes firefox3 and other apps work.
>
> I did got both firefox 2 and firefox 3 installed at the same time.
> It was a pain but it worked.

Greg · External Since: Sep 07, 2009 Posts: 18

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:40:04 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
<JRichards.RemoveThis@msn.com.au> wrote:

>Running a browser using the compatibility layer sounds like a dangerous
>arrangement to me. All the security assumptions that are built into a www
>browser designed for XP and above will be non-functional when running under
>W98 with a compatibility layer. The layer works by emulating the XP
>functions that the application expects to find available in the system. This
>includes a host of file and registry security protocols that the
>compatibility layer will emulate by pretending to implement, but actually
>ignoring. You are opening up XP-style security holes while you are running
>98-style protection software.

That what I have been wanting to know. A curious question though.
Opera 10.00 said the minimum requirement was a higher version than
windows 98se but could still be installed on older system without some
features. I am trying Opera 10.00 without kernelex installed.
(Note, I have a way to restore my system back before I installed
kernelex). So is Opera doing something different than kernelex does?

So is it safer to use firefox 2.0.0.20 without kernelex installed or
with it disabled or Use Opera 10.00?

Just use Kernelex for games or other program that may require windows
xp.

Greg

Jeff Richards · External Since: Mar 14, 2004 Posts: 1333

"Greg" <invalid RemoveThis @invalid.net> wrote in message
news:7iaofaF30mjt7U1@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:40:04 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
> <JRichards RemoveThis @msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Running a browser using the compatibility layer sounds like a dangerous
>>arrangement to me. All the security assumptions that are built into a www
>>browser designed for XP and above will be non-functional when running
>>under
>>W98 with a compatibility layer. The layer works by emulating the XP
>>functions that the application expects to find available in the system.
>>This
>>includes a host of file and registry security protocols that the
>>compatibility layer will emulate by pretending to implement, but actually
>>ignoring. You are opening up XP-style security holes while you are running
>>98-style protection software.
>
>
> That what I have been wanting to know. A curious question though.
> Opera 10.00 said the minimum requirement was a higher version than
> windows 98se but could still be installed on older system without some
> features. I am trying Opera 10.00 without kernelex installed.
> (Note, I have a way to restore my system back before I installed
> kernelex). So is Opera doing something different than kernelex does?

Yes - very different. It is quite practical for a program to detect the OS
it is running on and modify features and select the code that executes based
on what it finds out, and I would be pretty sure that's what Opera is doing.
In that case, there is no special security issue.

> So is it safer to use firefox 2.0.0.20 without kernelex installed or
> with it disabled or Use Opera 10.00?

My assumption is that running with kernelex creates security issues. I
have no idea which of the two browsers is the more secure - perhaps you
could ask in a security group

> Just use Kernelex for games or other program that may require windows
> xp.

I think it was primarily designed for games.

> Greg

--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)