If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
On Jan 25, 9:59*am, Robert Macy wrote:
On Jan 24, 9:35*am, 98 Guy wrote: Robert Macy wrote: And by the way, is there a reason why you're so insistent to NOT try Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead of sticking to IE6? guess time to use Firefox, as the 'extra' browser. Why is IE6 your "first" browser? People using XP and higher have the "luxury" or ability to use more recent versions of IE (like IE8) if they like IE. *People using win-9x/me don't have the ability to use more recent versions of IE - they (we) are stuck with IE6. And like I've said for several years now, IE6 is a horrible browser even when compared to the 4-year-old version of Firefox (2.0.0.20). I still want to know why you're so fixated on using IE6 as your default or main web-browser. *You must surely see how poorly it renders many web pages. When I selected octave's shortcut and checked disable, indeed octave opens and operates. *BUT! all the paths, and libraries aren't found now. So, does that mean SEQUENCE is important, or will octave always lose stuff now? KernelEx will -NOT- affect how or where an application program keeps it's files and settings or the ability of a program to find it's own files. If you remember the instructions I gave you in a previous post - about making a change in the registry that identifies which version of Windows you have, and for the purpose of installing Flash to set that information to make it seem that your system is running some version of NT (specifically, Windows XP). If you made those changes during the course of installing Flash, you should then set that information back to what it was - to indicate that your system is running Windows 98. *If you don't, any new software you install will think you are running NT/XP and will *probably* store user and program data files in locations more consistent with NT/XP. If I go back and uninstall KernelEX and then reinstall octave and then reinstall KernelEx; it should work correctly. *right? Don't un-install kernelEx. If you made the registry changes I mentioned in a previous post, then now you must un-do them. What you *SHOULD* do is un-install Octave, and then do this: *Find the Octave installation file (the one you launch to start the octave installation process) and right-click on the file and select properties and change it's KernelEx setting to "disable KernelEx extensions". *That way, it should install as if it's really on a win-98 system. What KernelEx *might* do - as a side effect - is to give a program the false impression that you're running XP. *This can happen both during the initial installation of the program and later during normal usage of the program. *Your Octave program, during installation, might think that it's running on an XP system during installation. *So you might have to set the KernelEx properties of the installation file to "disable KernelEx extentions". But, this brings up interesting problems, suppose for some reason I must start again: Install KernelEx Install program that NEEDS KernelEx Need to install program 'pre'kernelex and program will not operate properly if installed with KernelEx installed? what happens if KernelEx is uninstalled out form under, say the flash player? Does that cause a problem? Once you install KernelEx, you should not un-install it. For any pre-existing programs that don't work properly after KernelEx is installed, you DON'T un-install those programs - instead you change their kernelEx settings to "disable kernelEx extensions". For any new programs you install later, if they don't install and run properly the reason could be that: (a) they are intended to be run on XP or higher and even kernelEx can't help them run on a win-98 system, or (b) they must have their installation program set to "disable kernelEx extentions", or (c) they are intended to be run on XP and higher, and KernelEx *can* make it possible for them to run on a win-98 system, but the installation process for them requires you to follow some specific instructions (eg - Java and Flash) because the normal or default installation method will not work. Or, Is it that everytime I want to reinstall a Win98 version of something I need to remove EVERYTHING KernelEx needs and then remove KernelEX and then reinstall everything back in exact sequence? No. *Definately not. I guess the important question is: Do you know if installing a Win98 program the program is badly affected by having KernelEx already installed? I have quite a bit of software on my win-98 systems (Office 2000, Coreldraw, etc) and the installation of KernelEx did not affect those programs. I've been running KernelEx for about 3 years not, and have never needed to un-install it, and I have installed many new programs since installing KernelEx. Again Opera is my MAIN browser Only fall back to IE6 when Opera fails, which is more often than I'd like. Bt, those are once in awhile websites. I 'think' I found the problems: octave did not work at all because I did not know to right click, select properties, and disable KernelEx. Next, in the rush and crush to uninstall octave and reinstall octave I then bypassed a slow section that was not quite done - containing PATH and History etc *When octave installs, it says it's done when it is NOT! there are a couple of DOS screens that pop up and need to finish, too. That is why octave 'almost worked' after disabling KernelEx. Since I had not done a complete anything with kernelex. I had only installed KernelEx, by itself, nothing else [that needed it] after that; I uninstalled KernelEx. Reinstalled octave, taking my time, and checking that it completely installed, yes. It runs FINE. I now reinstalled KernelEx and am in the process of setting all 30 exe files of octave to disable KernelEX.for them.I am pretty confident everything for octave will be back to normal. Will let you know. If I use Opera to go that website to check Java version, it says zip, nada, nyet! *But, IE6 at the same website says Java 1.5.11 Which means I don't know how to set up Opera yet, although I use it almost 100% of the time. *One of my main gripes with Opera is that setup is NOT intuitive, but USING Opera is incredibly intuitive, which doesn't make sense. Anyway the culmination is, octave after being properly/completely installed works fine, just have to disable KernelEx. Don't know where else to post this update, but to reply to myself. I got 3 weeks of Walgreen's weekly ads BEFORE they require latest Java that is NOT compatible with Win98! Absolutely crazy, lazy !@#$#!@# sofltware people! All I need are the images, like they used to do in .jpg to view off-line at leisure. But NO, instead of getting an image, taken off to java update page and nothing! Contacting the website managers through the supplied 800 number [now that is a nice feature] yielded only arote answer "You need the latest Java" and not any mention of alternative, or workarounds, nothing. Just don't care. Guess they're paid by corporate, got their money, and all the people running Win7 are not complaining. Trying to hand money to a store chain that does not want my business, eh? Ok, I'll keep my money, I can use it if they don't want it. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Try 15 year old hardware that I built myself from JDR.com. I haven't been able to afford another one since. One thing you can try, if you get the chance: Mini ITX. The boards are small, the connectors are standard, and because most of the video and audio is built in, it's MUCH easier to get reliable operation out of them. That is not very good advice. Judging by the comments I read in various product reviews made by customers, mini-itx boards have a higher rate of DOE (dead on arrival) and early failure (due to high density parts placement, overheating, etc) than standard-sized ATX boards. It's foolhardy to recommend an ITX board to someone that wants to run win-98, expecially to someone on a budget. it's MUCH easier to get reliable operation out of them. Totally false. Take a regular-sized ATX desktop or tower case and put a regular-sized ATX motherboard in it, and from a cooling pov you've got something that is far more reliable / trouble-free than a mini-ITX solution. ITX boards are at least 50% more expensive than ATX boards with equivalent processing power. And they take more putzing with to assemble. Enclosures (cases, chasis, etc) are also more expensive. The only role I see mini-ITX playing is in the home-theater / set-top box situation, where you want really small size. But expect to pay $120 to $180 (plus cpu) for a mini-itx board with decent multimedia performance. The MII12000 board will easily run W98 SE, That board is 8 years old. Why would anyone want to struggle with an 8-year-old motherboard at this point? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
98 Guy wrote in :
Lostgallifreyan wrote: Try 15 year old hardware that I built myself from JDR.com. I haven't been able to afford another one since. One thing you can try, if you get the chance: Mini ITX. The boards are small, the connectors are standard, and because most of the video and audio is built in, it's MUCH easier to get reliable operation out of them. That is not very good advice. Judging by the comments I read in various product reviews made by customers, mini-itx boards have a higher rate of DOE (dead on arrival) and early failure (due to high density parts placement, overheating, etc) than standard-sized ATX boards. It's foolhardy to recommend an ITX board to someone that wants to run win-98, expecially to someone on a budget. it's MUCH easier to get reliable operation out of them. Totally false. Take a regular-sized ATX desktop or tower case and put a regular-sized ATX motherboard in it, and from a cooling pov you've got something that is far more reliable / trouble-free than a mini-ITX solution. ITX boards are at least 50% more expensive than ATX boards with equivalent processing power. And they take more putzing with to assemble. Enclosures (cases, chasis, etc) are also more expensive. The only role I see mini-ITX playing is in the home-theater / set-top box situation, where you want really small size. But expect to pay $120 to $180 (plus cpu) for a mini-itx board with decent multimedia performance. The MII12000 board will easily run W98 SE, That board is 8 years old. Why would anyone want to struggle with an 8-year-old motherboard at this point? They work for me. And it makes sense to suggest a board that is small, cheap, complete, and contemporary with the OS someone wants to run on it. You DID know that ITX boards fit into an ATX case, right? If not, I strobgly suggest that people listen to someone who HAS had plenty of experience using them, instead of you. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
98 Guy wrote in :
The only role I see mini-ITX playing is in the home-theater / set-top box situation, where you want really small size. But expect to pay $120 to $180 (plus cpu) for a mini-itx board with decent multimedia performance. No. Don't. Unless you want to buy from some shyster who over-inflates the price. I did mention that, in some detail. Perhaps you missed it. I know you think I talk too much, but actually, it is you who reads too little. Put some effort into it. Mini ITX (or any small board with standard connectors made for industry) is a good spend if you look around, because the support is far better than for consumer boards. Also, I was specifically answering a guy who is likely not after top end multimedia. Or did you igonre his context (AGAIN) as well as mine? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
Robert Macy used improper usenet message composition style by
unnecessarily full-quoting: I got 3 weeks of Walgreen's weekly ads BEFORE they require latest Java that is NOT compatible with Win98! Did you actually see a message mentioning java? Contacting the website managers through the supplied 800 number [now that is a nice feature] yielded only arote answer "You need the latest Java" and not any mention of alternative, or workarounds, nothing. Just don't care. The problem is not java. Actually, I don't think that site uses java. They do use javascript (practically all sites do). The problem is your browser. Using Opera 11.01, I can bring up the local flyer, which is an Adobe Flash file. Using Firefox 2.0.0.20, I can't. I'll putz with this a little more, but this seems to be the direct link for the flash file: http://walgreens.shoplocal.com/walgr.../walgreens.swf The file is about 700 kb in size. Even using Opera 11.01, I can't seem to get past entering a zipcode. I don't have a stand-alone flash player (one that works on win-98 anyways). Maybe someone here can see if they can render that flash file in win-98 using some method or program... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
Lostgallifreyan wrote:
The MII12000 board will easily run W98 SE, That board is 8 years old. Why would anyone want to struggle with an 8-year-old motherboard at this point? They work for me. And what exactly do you do with them that you couldn't do with a P2 or P3 motherboard? And it makes sense to suggest a board that is small, cheap, complete, and contemporary with the OS someone wants to run on it. Let's unpack that sentence one point at a time. The OP is making no claim that he needs a micro-sized motherboard. I have my doubts about cheap. I have my doubts about that board being available at retail at this point, or otherwise easy to procure. "Complete" is a red herring. Adding a video card is trivial to an ATX motherboard. Many of them have on-board video anyways - making them just as complete. Contemporary hardware is something we're trying to do better. It's an odd point to say that somehow running win-98 on 8-year-old contemporary hardware is a benefit. You DID know that ITX boards fit into an ATX case, right? Even if so, it's a small advantage. Your 8-year-old board will still suck when it comes to processing power and usability for the OP, and I bet he'll still have mmx problems that was the motiviation for starting this thread in the first place. The OP can go on kijiji or ebay and find lots of old P4 motherboards for $10 to $25 within 25 miles of his location. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How to gain access to websites that require latest Java installed
98 Guy wrote in :
The OP is making no claim that he needs a micro-sized motherboard. I have my doubts about cheap. I have my doubts about that board being available at retail at this point, or otherwise easy to procure. "Complete" is a red herring. Adding a video card is trivial to an ATX motherboard. Many of them have on-board video anyways - making them just as complete. Have all the doubts you want, denial is easy. I have a few of those Via boards, because they came up so dirt cheap I could afford to snag them as they floated by. I've done machines with large ATX and fast CPU's and add-on AGP boards that would make many gamers blush, but for small cheap boards with few hassles, and low power consumption, that 'just work', a mini ITX is very hard to beat. This is for general purpose work, including CAD/CAM and electonics modelling, it's not just a 'set top box'. You really didn't know they fitted an ATX case either, you said 'IF' as if I could somehow still be wrong to fit your devout wish for it to be so. Lee can do what he likes, but he spoke of limited contexts that were not that dissimilar to mine, and my BEST solution was in using mini-ITX boards. I really don't care what you think, when you don't know as much about these boards as I do, from direct personal experience over at least 5 years. I don't doubt that there are other viable answers, but unlike you, I chose to speak from what I DID know, not from what I did not. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Point to the Best Page | Ian H | General | 20 | January 10th 07 10:34 PM |
Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) | Dahmane | Internet | 1 | November 30th 04 02:19 PM |
keeps going back to home page | mike | Internet | 1 | September 15th 04 01:24 PM |
Strange File in Windows registry that come back | Jone | Internet | 1 | September 5th 04 10:22 AM |
strange vid problem, strange error | heynow | General | 2 | July 2nd 04 02:37 PM |