Installing Flash version 10 on Windows 98

According to this:

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/welcome/

I have Flash 10.0.12.36 and Shockwave 11.5r596 installed on this
win-98se system.

I also have KernelEx 0.3.6 installed on this system.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/

Occasionally when my 98 systems are booted up, I will get an Adobe
notice window saying that a new version of Flash is available (I have no
idea how that update process is started and I've looked for all the
auto-run settings but I have yet to figure out how the flash update
program is triggered or how it can put itself in the autorun section).
It was during one of those auto-update session that I agreed to perform
the update and that's how I got Flash 10.0.12.36 on this system. I'm
pretty sure 12.36 is the first for version 10. It dates to Oct 15 /
2008.

I'm also pretty sure that you need to be running KernelEx in order to
run Flash version 10. I have tried to install / run other versions of
flash 10 on other win-98 machines that don't have kernelEx and it
doesn't seem to work.

There might be some additional steps needed in addition to using
KernelEx:

http://www.msfn.org/board/lofiversio...p/t115186.html

At the very bottom of that page, you'll see this:

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

Flash 10 works already with KernelEx 0.3.4 and above, although they've
messed up installer in the release build. To install it, use registry
trick from a thread.

To fool Flash 10 installer (ActiveX one won't work) you need to change
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion]
"VersionNumber"="5.10.2600"
don't forget to change it back
------------------

It's very interesting that Tihiy says "To install it, use registry trick
from a thread" but he doesn't mention the thread or post a link to it.

I believe I know which MSFN post number he is referring to, but it
doesn't exist for some reason.

But those steps might only be needed when installing something higher
than Flash 10.0.12.36.

I'm following up on some addition details, and if I actually can track
them down, I'll post them here.

In the mean time, if you install KernelEx, and download flash version
10.0.12.26:

http://download.oldapps.com/Flash_Pl...10.0.12.36.exe

It just might install ok for you.

Many thanks for the detailed response! I want to see if flash 10 will
install here too but it will be a little bit. Need to make a backup and
make time to install and test the various software. Funny, I hand
KernelEX v?? installed and UN installed it about a month ago! Will try
version 0.3.6 you mention.

Noticed the automatic update notices and wondered the same. I think it
works like this; when we are on a web site utilizing flash there is a
two way conversation and head scratching going on between PC's. I'd
imagine in that conversation is a revealing of the flash and OS versions
then communication with Adobe to find out what version is the latest.
Even though I HATE that (phoning home) going on without my consent,
software companies do it and get away with it! Perhaps close monitoring
with a URL sniffer whilst on these pages will reveal a particular URL
which can be blocked in HOSTS which will block Adobe from phoning home.
I use an older version of Google Toolbar in IE and to prevent it from
autoupdating (yes, auto updating, not even providing a popup as Adobe,
simply 'upgrading' the toolbar software without ever telling you!) I
found the URL to block, put it in HOSTS and never had a problem again.

Once Adobe has determined there's a newer version available I think it
inserts a command for their upgrade notification popup in your registry
in HKLM\software\Microsoft\windows\currentversion\RUNONCE\ . Thus the
command is run one time, at startup, then disappears from the registry.
I'd bet if you looked through Adobes DLL's on your system you find that
popup embedded too. Never bothered to take the time to look for it
myself but I'd bet it's there.

Well, thanks again for the detailed. Can't wait to see if we can update
this W98 here to work with flash 10. Will check back here in case you
add information.

BTW, one last item you (and other W98 affectionatoes) may have an
interest in; found RAMDISK software which works wonderfully with W98 and
the 1.5GB and R. Lowes RAM Limitation Patch. Quite exciting as it works
seamlessly, behaves properly, demonstrates good performance and allows
me to direct all internet files from IE to it. Also directed cookies, FF
cache and the TMP environment variable to it. Of course internet
browsing is now even faster as download files are written to a ramdisk
instead of the HDD, cookies too. AND, they DISAPPEAR at shutdown. How
nice! If anyone is interested in doing the same let me know. Would have
to dig up the Software name and link. It's older shareware stuff (from
2001), has a time limiter on it allowing 100 starts of the ramdisk
before throwing convulsions. No price to register was given in the
documentation so I wrote the company last night asking for pricing
information. Hopefully they'll respond and the price will be reasonable.
RAMDISKS are nice!

Here is a link to the search results for Adobe flash Warnings, hacks
and vulnerabilities, make sure you understand the risks:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Adobe...ulnerabilities

Take particular note of the recommendations from Adobe, whom one would
think may know something about its own program/application.

You would have the Same Risk with 2000, NT, Xp sp3,W7 and other
version with Adobe flash. Just do a search on Google.

I actually did try to install flash using kernelex, never installed
correctly for firefox or I.E. (Note, I have a backup image of
98se, so that I can go back, before install stuff like kernelex and
Firefox 3.53 )

If you think windows xp sp3 is secure. There is already a way to
install windows media player 11 without the WGA installed. I wont
provided the link, you will have to look it up yourself.

Think about this,
Which system would you use if both were unsupported if you had to?
xpsp3 or Windows 98se?

I would choose 98se hands down.

The reason xp sp3 is easier to get infected than 98se. It has
unnecessary service that shouldn't connect to the net. Which is in
the Svchost.exe and can't be turned off. Here is a link. It
somewhere on this site.

I would have to qualify with a Yes and No. Were the AV applications [on
access protections and the like] completely 9X aware, then I would side
with 9X being safer [due to the limited usage of it], but they aren't,
not enough people using and supply information related to hacks and
vulnerabilities to those that need the information.
Throw in a non-standard system and there is a real potential that you
have increased the "vulnerability profile" considerably.

That's good, you're doing similar to what I had to did when addressing
the 9X hack sites and downloads... without an image it would have been
ludicrous to even attempt the tests. Even then, it cost me *another*
hard drive [30 gig this time]...

Already know where and what it does and entails. Several other mods as
well...

I did for the ensuing 3+ years after EOL as well, but it is now to
difficult to secure and there are not enough 9X aware protections for
the OS, IMO.

Oh, the XP saga has/had LOTS of issues, from UPnP, to a one way
firewall, to improper firewall settings, to improper defaults, to...
there are too many to even attempt to address, and technically, this is
the wrong group for the discussion anyway, but I would agree based upon
these factors. Yet even there, one must remember, a LARGE portion of the
issues relate to how the OS is used, e.g., user activities [like running
the administrator's account out on the Internet] and improper settings.

It's spelled "aficionados". Also, "devotees" or "buffs" would
have been better choices (look them up), not to mention easier
to spell correctly ;-)

Funny! Believe it or not I looked up the spelling because it looked
wrong. Dumb dictionaries couldn't provide the right spelling ... thnaks!

Well, in all fairness to the dictionaries (many of which /are/
less than perfect, which is why I have a bookshelf of them), you
made it difficult by starting with "affect"... A thesaurus would
have been more helpful... You can a get a GREAT Webster's Random
House Electronic Dictionary and Thesaurus, College Edition (from
1994, there was also a newer version but all it added was
useless bloat and eye candy - as usual). It's old, but Wordweb
is current, very good and MUCH more up to date. Plus their
anagram generator is a lot of fun!

You're welcome, but it's "thanks"...

I'm glad you use dictionaries, but a spell checker comes in
handy as well! ;-)

"Affectomatoes" would have been even better... But I thought it
was about time I corrected a spelling error... So boring here
(and elsewhere) these days...

Sheeze, NOBODY got it right!

Wordweb: sarcastic
1. Expressing or expressive of ridicule that wounds

That was, and is, not the intent! I believe John posted with an intent
similar to mine ... we're having a little fun. How easy it is for people
to get their exercise jumping to wrong conclusions!

You guys ought to lighten-up; perhaps you've been looking at the
computer screen too long!

Or to use an out-of-date dictionary. I meant the little fun - certainly
not that you intended to ridicule or wound.[color=blue]

It's too close a call which is better -- "affectionatoes" or
"affectomatoes". I can't decide!

I am SO tempted to get going on this... We'll see if I can
resist...

Well, leaving out all the usual disclaimers about being suicidal
etc., I was not taking this /seriously/ in the sense that you
mean... I just have a thing about spelling. Plus I never learned
how to have fun.

I doubt that anyone who uses those visits this group, not that
it matters.

BTW, went looking for the Webster's dictionary (1994 ed.) you mentioned
many posts back. Only found paperbacks. Did they ever make a software
edition? I have many software dictionaries (because my spelling is so
HORRIBLE, got by with D's in English in school)!

Among the dictionaries are (software editions):
Encarta World English Dictionary 2001
Merriam-Webster Reference Dictionary (v3.1 by Zane Publishing)
New Oxford English Dictionary (1997 v1)
Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1993 by WORDPERFECT [imagine!] a
real oldie but a goodie)
WordWeb Dictionary (been using it for many years)

You are far more polished and skilled (and a stickler) in English than
me, english was always a weakness but I actually enjoy dictionary usage
.... and always open to another good one! If you have any others in mind
hope you'll post them.

Never mind. I've made my decision: The original "affectionatoes" beats
yours due to someone watching's longer pinky toenail!

"Having" something fun is unfortunately not the same as being
able to HAVE fun (with /it/ or with something/someone else...)

I was talking software. It came on seven 1.44 floppies.

That's the one I have I think, except on my title page it says
college edition. Ver 1.5 from 1994. WordPerfect, yes.

If you want the two versions (plain and eye-candy - I noticed no
difference in content but then again I didn't look very hard -
the bloat and extra keystrokes were just too annoying) of
Webster's Random House that I have I can post them to a file
sharing site. I also have some DOS stuff but even I don't bother
with it - although in many cases I STRONGLY suspect it's better
than what they started coming out with once "multimedia" became
a household word...

Assuming you use 98 (this being a 98 group) there is FANTASTIC
free spell checker available

(If I ever have to go XP only, I don't know WHAT I will do for a
spell checker. I will NEVER install an office suite... I wonder
if the old AmiPro runs on XP? I should try it...)

Not to mention the natty pants! And the foot fetish! All I had
to offer was a fruit! (Yes, by now we all know it's NOT a
vegetable... I still haven't figured out why...)

Hey I really like this WordWeb one too, thanks
I had the simple American Heritage Dictionary v3.6p from 1994 along with
the simple MerriamWebster Collegiate Dictionary v3 from 2003, and now I
just installed this WordWeb too, thanks.