Png Paul

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Robert Baer, Jan 29, 2014.

  1. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    If i remember right, you indicated there is a group working on
    Win2000 - to improve and extend it (i think).
    How would i go about supporting that?
    Thanks.
    Robert Baer, Jan 29, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Baer

    Paul Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    > If i remember right, you indicated there is a group working on Win2000
    > - to improve and extend it (i think).
    > How would i go about supporting that?
    > Thanks.


    I saw something for kernelex for Win2K.

    http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex-for-win2000/page-3

    References to Kernelex have been removed from Wikipedia (by morons).

    The purpose, would be to add API elements, so more
    modern versions of programs could be added.

    To give an example, when support for Win2K ended, game
    developers started including DirectX materials from
    Microsoft, which caused installation problems (on purpose).
    It was Microsoft's way of causing Win2K users to have
    to upgrade to WinXP. In one case, I followed a simple
    patch with a hex editor, and the game ran just fine after
    the "check for WinXP" was bypasses. That's the kind of
    evil that Microsoft gets up to. I can understand the
    addition of new functionality, that requires new architectural
    features. But Win2K and WinXP are close enough in terms of
    design, that should not be happening. But if the folks
    at Microsoft "install a wedge" in their latest software,
    new stuff starts mysteriously failing.

    And that's what I'd hope would be included in a KernelEx.
    Is any API stuff added on purpose to break things. So I wouldn't
    have to patch a game, or work around some artificial check
    that's been added, just to break stuff. The Win2K software
    is already multithreaded and multitasking, so it's just
    as capable as WinXP for the purpose of running programs.

    KernelEx won't fix everything. The author of it, has to be
    content fixing a limited set of subsystems. In a way, it's
    almost as ambitious a problem as creating WINE for Windows.
    And it took a long long time, for that to be viable. The
    person working on KernelEx will have to be content with
    smaller victories, or end up making a full time (non-paying)
    job of it.

    It's like patching cracks in plaster - you never stop.

    Paul
    Paul, Jan 29, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Paul wrote:
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    >> If i remember right, you indicated there is a group working on Win2000
    >> - to improve and extend it (i think).
    >> How would i go about supporting that?
    >> Thanks.

    >
    > I saw something for kernelex for Win2K.
    >
    > http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex-for-win2000/page-3
    >
    > References to Kernelex have been removed from Wikipedia (by morons).
    >
    > The purpose, would be to add API elements, so more
    > modern versions of programs could be added.
    >
    > To give an example, when support for Win2K ended, game
    > developers started including DirectX materials from
    > Microsoft, which caused installation problems (on purpose).
    > It was Microsoft's way of causing Win2K users to have
    > to upgrade to WinXP. In one case, I followed a simple
    > patch with a hex editor, and the game ran just fine after
    > the "check for WinXP" was bypasses. That's the kind of
    > evil that Microsoft gets up to. I can understand the
    > addition of new functionality, that requires new architectural
    > features. But Win2K and WinXP are close enough in terms of
    > design, that should not be happening. But if the folks
    > at Microsoft "install a wedge" in their latest software,
    > new stuff starts mysteriously failing.
    >
    > And that's what I'd hope would be included in a KernelEx.
    > Is any API stuff added on purpose to break things. So I wouldn't
    > have to patch a game, or work around some artificial check
    > that's been added, just to break stuff. The Win2K software
    > is already multithreaded and multitasking, so it's just
    > as capable as WinXP for the purpose of running programs.
    >
    > KernelEx won't fix everything. The author of it, has to be
    > content fixing a limited set of subsystems. In a way, it's
    > almost as ambitious a problem as creating WINE for Windows.
    > And it took a long long time, for that to be viable. The
    > person working on KernelEx will have to be content with
    > smaller victories, or end up making a full time (non-paying)
    > job of it.
    >
    > It's like patching cracks in plaster - you never stop.
    >
    > Paul

    Thank you very much!
    Robert Baer, Jan 29, 2014
    #3
  4. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    > Paul wrote:
    >> Robert Baer wrote:
    >>> If i remember right, you indicated there is a group working on Win2000
    >>> - to improve and extend it (i think).
    >>> How would i go about supporting that?
    >>> Thanks.

    >>
    >> I saw something for kernelex for Win2K.
    >>
    >> http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex-for-win2000/page-3
    >>
    >> References to Kernelex have been removed from Wikipedia (by morons).
    >>
    >> The purpose, would be to add API elements, so more
    >> modern versions of programs could be added.
    >>
    >> To give an example, when support for Win2K ended, game
    >> developers started including DirectX materials from
    >> Microsoft, which caused installation problems (on purpose).
    >> It was Microsoft's way of causing Win2K users to have
    >> to upgrade to WinXP. In one case, I followed a simple
    >> patch with a hex editor, and the game ran just fine after
    >> the "check for WinXP" was bypasses. That's the kind of
    >> evil that Microsoft gets up to. I can understand the
    >> addition of new functionality, that requires new architectural
    >> features. But Win2K and WinXP are close enough in terms of
    >> design, that should not be happening. But if the folks
    >> at Microsoft "install a wedge" in their latest software,
    >> new stuff starts mysteriously failing.
    >>
    >> And that's what I'd hope would be included in a KernelEx.
    >> Is any API stuff added on purpose to break things. So I wouldn't
    >> have to patch a game, or work around some artificial check
    >> that's been added, just to break stuff. The Win2K software
    >> is already multithreaded and multitasking, so it's just
    >> as capable as WinXP for the purpose of running programs.
    >>
    >> KernelEx won't fix everything. The author of it, has to be
    >> content fixing a limited set of subsystems. In a way, it's
    >> almost as ambitious a problem as creating WINE for Windows.
    >> And it took a long long time, for that to be viable. The
    >> person working on KernelEx will have to be content with
    >> smaller victories, or end up making a full time (non-paying)
    >> job of it.
    >>
    >> It's like patching cracks in plaster - you never stop.
    >>
    >> Paul

    > Thank you very much!
    >

    Well, i FINALLY got on the msfn forum; problems were i had been on it
    ages ago and i did not remember the password and it took a rather long
    time to answer back (but with a new one).
    In ant event, it seems that kernelex is a "patch" that allows
    Win2k/WinXP programs to work in Win9x.
    So i gotta noodle around and maybe ask a few dumb questions about
    extending Win2K.
    Robert Baer, Jan 30, 2014
    #4
  5. Robert Baer

    Paul Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    >> Paul wrote:
    >>> Robert Baer wrote:
    >>>> If i remember right, you indicated there is a group working on Win2000
    >>>> - to improve and extend it (i think).
    >>>> How would i go about supporting that?
    >>>> Thanks.
    >>>
    >>> I saw something for kernelex for Win2K.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/149233-kernelex-for-win2000/page-3
    >>>
    >>> References to Kernelex have been removed from Wikipedia (by morons).
    >>>
    >>> The purpose, would be to add API elements, so more
    >>> modern versions of programs could be added.
    >>>
    >>> To give an example, when support for Win2K ended, game
    >>> developers started including DirectX materials from
    >>> Microsoft, which caused installation problems (on purpose).
    >>> It was Microsoft's way of causing Win2K users to have
    >>> to upgrade to WinXP. In one case, I followed a simple
    >>> patch with a hex editor, and the game ran just fine after
    >>> the "check for WinXP" was bypasses. That's the kind of
    >>> evil that Microsoft gets up to. I can understand the
    >>> addition of new functionality, that requires new architectural
    >>> features. But Win2K and WinXP are close enough in terms of
    >>> design, that should not be happening. But if the folks
    >>> at Microsoft "install a wedge" in their latest software,
    >>> new stuff starts mysteriously failing.
    >>>
    >>> And that's what I'd hope would be included in a KernelEx.
    >>> Is any API stuff added on purpose to break things. So I wouldn't
    >>> have to patch a game, or work around some artificial check
    >>> that's been added, just to break stuff. The Win2K software
    >>> is already multithreaded and multitasking, so it's just
    >>> as capable as WinXP for the purpose of running programs.
    >>>
    >>> KernelEx won't fix everything. The author of it, has to be
    >>> content fixing a limited set of subsystems. In a way, it's
    >>> almost as ambitious a problem as creating WINE for Windows.
    >>> And it took a long long time, for that to be viable. The
    >>> person working on KernelEx will have to be content with
    >>> smaller victories, or end up making a full time (non-paying)
    >>> job of it.
    >>>
    >>> It's like patching cracks in plaster - you never stop.
    >>>
    >>> Paul

    >> Thank you very much!
    >>

    > Well, i FINALLY got on the msfn forum; problems were i had been on it
    > ages ago and i did not remember the password and it took a rather long
    > time to answer back (but with a new one).
    > In ant event, it seems that kernelex is a "patch" that allows
    > Win2k/WinXP programs to work in Win9x.
    > So i gotta noodle around and maybe ask a few dumb questions about
    > extending Win2K.
    >


    Yes, Kernelex is mainly for Windows 98. But I understood they
    were doing something for Win2K.

    Paul
    Paul, Jan 30, 2014
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. goonmunster
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,027
    Moz Champion
    Feb 12, 2005
  2. goonmunster
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    484
    goonmunster
    Feb 11, 2005
  3. Rili

    IrfanView versus XnView for PNG files

    Rili, Oct 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    846
  4. H

    Why jpg and not png?

    H, May 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    1,374
    David J Taylor
    May 7, 2004
  5. Ernie Werbel

    PNG in IE 5.0

    Ernie Werbel, Jul 23, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    336
    Ernie Werbel
    Jul 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page