# How to Watch Youtube and View Flash Sites in Windows NT 4.0 (and possibly Windows 95)



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

I have discovered a way to successfully watch YouTube and view modern websites for those who are so inclined to do so.

I have not yet tried this on Windows 95, but I will post back here and let you know of the results!

The following steps in order:

1) Install your copy of NT 4.0.

2) Download and install NT 4.0 Service Pack 3, the minimum service pack required for Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2 (SP3 released May 15, 1997).

3) Download and install Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2 *Note, you will need to reboot after this, so save your work!*.

4) Download and install Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.20 (the last version officially supported by Mozilla under NT 4.0) (Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2 contains files that are required to install and run Firefox; ironic, isn't it?)

5) Now download Flash Player 8. *Do not install yet!*

6) Now modify your registry in the following way from *4.0* to *5.0*:


```
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion]
"CurrentVersion"="[b][COLOR="Red"]5.0[/COLOR][/b]"
```
_(This change will fool Flash Player into thinking it is installing on Windows 2000 (NT *5.0*) which is supposedly the minimum requirement for Flash 8, but I have determined it is not. Adobe only officially released Flash Player 7 as the final version for NT 4.0 but Flash 8 runs great!)_

7) Now install Flash Player 8. Run Firefox, go to YouTube, and walah, you should have no problems watching videos on YouTube. *Note, after installing Flash successfully, go back to your registry and change the value back to 4.0 from 5.0. If you don't you may experience problems installing and running programs that are specifically looking for NT 4.0, not 2000*.

I tried Flash 9 and 10 with the registry change but it does not appear to work. So, as long as YouTube supports Flash 8, this hack will work. At least, until someone figures out another hack.

Again, I have not yet tried this on Windows 95, but I will post back here and let you know of the results!

_Update1 02:08AM EST: This trick does not work with IE 5.5 and Flash 8 ActiveX, only Firefox and the Flash 8 plug-in. With IE 5.5 and Flash 8 ActiveX, you will receive a message on YouTube to upgrade your flash player._

_Update2 12:57PM EST: Service Pack 6 High-Encryption 128-Bit for NT 4.0 (November 30, 1999) and the Post-Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6a Security Rollup Package (SRP) (July 26, 2001) are highly recommended for internet connection reliability, and while using multiple tabs in Firefox._

_Update3 07:52PM EST: Unfortunately I am unable to test this on Windows 95, as it appears that my machine with 2.4GHz Pentium 4 can run NT 4.0 without a problem, but anything faster than 2.1GHz is too fast for Windows 95. See Microsoft's explanation here. A fix was never released for Windows 95 and 98 First Edition, and Microsoft had no plans of ever releasing one. *I may be able to swap my processor out with one of my other Pentium 4 processors slower than 2.2GHz later tonight. I'll keep you posted*_.

_Update4 01:28AM EST: Replacing the Pentium 4 2.4GHz CPU with a 1.7 Pentium 4 did the trick for the NDIS error. Unfortunately, Dell never made Windows 95 drivers for the GX260. And, the Windows 98 drivers didn't work. I would have to get ahold of a NIC that is Windows 95 compatible. And I would still be without sound and video drivers. And, there's no guarantee this would even work, considering that I think NT is a higher quality and far more capable system than 95. So, for now, this project is dead. At least until someone else with Windows 95 hardware decides to pick it up. Of course, it's unlikely Windows 95-era hardware would be fast enough to watch YouTube anyway, so it looks like NT 4.0 is the way to go. And it's a more stable system anyway._


----------



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

Update4 02:23PM 06/11/2010: I have tried this on Windows 95 with another system, even with Firefox 2.0, and it does not seem to work. So it officially only works with NT 4.0.


----------



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

*Correction Update 7/13/2010:*

Upon further experience, I've discovered the following:

*-->Internet Explorer is NOT required to installed Mozilla Firefox on Windows NT 4.0.*

*-->Also, no NT 4.0 service packs are required; can be run on a RTM NT 4.0 installation from July 31, 1996.*

The only files that are required to install and run Mozilla Firefox are the following two files:

1) Download and install Download details: Platform SDK Comctl32 Redistributables 5.80.2614.3600 (x86) (direct link) (50comupd.exe) (September 14, 1999)
*--> Select NO when it prompts to restart your computer.*

2) Download and install Microsoft Libraries Update (speu.exe) (1999)

Now, reboot the computer to reflect the changes, and then download and install Mozilla Firefox 1.x (final version 1.5.0.12) or 2.x (final version 2.0.0.20), depending on your preference.


----------



## Ed999 (Aug 19, 2008)

Your results for Windows 95 are very unexpected.

I have tried out Firefox 2.0.0.20 on Windows 98 (v2.0.0.20 is the last Windows 9x version of Firefox). It installed correctly, and accepted the subsequent installation of the Flash browser plug-in for Netscape, and Flash files then played in the Firefox browser.

So if Windows 95 accepts an installation of Firefox 2.0.0.20, I would expect Flash to run in Firefox if the Netscape version of the browser plugin is subsequently installed from http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/406/kb406791.html


----------



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

Thanks for letting me know.

For my test I used the Firefox plugin available at oldversion.com. You can also find this link in my signature.

I was totally unaware that the Netscape plugin is compatible with Firefox, so of course I never bothered to try that plugin.

I will try that today when I get a chance, and then post back here with my results.


----------



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

Ed999 said:


> Your results for Windows 95 are very unexpected.
> 
> I have tried out Firefox 2.0.0.20 on Windows 98 (v2.0.0.20 is the last Windows 9x version of Firefox). It installed correctly, and accepted the subsequent installation of the Flash browser plug-in for Netscape, and Flash files then played in the Firefox browser.
> 
> So if Windows 95 accepts an installation of Firefox 2.0.0.20, I would expect Flash to run in Firefox if the Netscape version of the browser plugin is subsequently installed from http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/406/kb406791.html


By the way, Firefox 3.x will run on Windows 98/ME if you install the FREE Kernel Ex program- I've tried it. And it's only 261kb. This program lets you emulate newer operating systems, allowing you to fool the program into thinking it is installing on Windows 2000 or higher.

However, Firefox 3.x will only run on Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0 if you have Active Desktop installed, which is included in  Internet Explorer 4.x (direct link). Internet Explorer 4.x is the only version that includes Active Desktop option that lets you make Windows 95 and NT 4.0 look like Windows 98 with the HTML shell (it also runs much slower!) So you must install Internet Explorer 4 with Active Desktop before installing a later version of Internet Explorer, such as version 5 or 6. Without Active Desktop Firefox will complain of a missing file related to shell32.dll.


----------



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

Ed999 said:


> Your results for Windows 95 are very unexpected.
> 
> I have tried out Firefox 2.0.0.20 on Windows 98 (v2.0.0.20 is the last Windows 9x version of Firefox). It installed correctly, and accepted the subsequent installation of the Flash browser plug-in for Netscape, and Flash files then played in the Firefox browser.
> 
> So if Windows 95 accepts an installation of Firefox 2.0.0.20, I would expect Flash to run in Firefox if the Netscape version of the browser plugin is subsequently installed from http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/406/kb406791.html


I have been unsuccessful getting the Flash 9 plugin to install on Windows 95.

Until someone discovers (or IF) someone discovers a way to install Flash 9 on Windows 95, it is likely impossible to replicate your results. *Even tweaking the Windows 95 registry*


```
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion/Version
"Windows 98"
```
 to read version as "Windows 98" and


```
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows/CurrentVersion
"4.10.2222"
```
 to read as "4.10.2222"

doesn't seem to work with the Internet Explorer and Firefox versions of the Flash plugin.

While you were able to get Flash 9 and Firefox 2.x to run on Windows 98, it is critical to note that both of these programs run natively on Windows 98 and so no tweaks are necessary to make them work. With Windows 95, only the Firefox 2.x tweak works.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Just want to say great work
This thread should make several people happy


----------



## SDFOX 7 (Apr 29, 2007)

aka Brett said:


> Just want to say great work
> This thread should make several people happy


Thanks. I personally dual-boot DOS 6.22/Windows 3.11 Windows for Workgroups and Windows 95 on my Gateway Solo (the original) from early 1996. This laptop was ordered with the dual-boot option as most business users at the time still used Windows 3.x.

*As of January 1997, cited in this cnet.com article, as of that time, 60 million people still used Windows 3.1 on the web, or 40% of all people on the web (second to last paragraph).*

While I would never hope to run YouTube on it considering it only has 40MB RAM, I personally believe that the changes since Windows 95 have simply been evolutionary; as opposed to the release of Windows 95 which was revolutionary. I am quite satisfied with my 14-year old laptop that still has its original hard disk drive and holds a full charge on the original battery. And most people don't bother to write new viruses for MS-DOS based operating systems like Windows 3.x and Windows 95 anymore.

Most people I know are happy with XP, which even in itself is not much different in layout compared to Windows 95. Certainly Windows 7 will come preinstalled on new computers, but with that exception, I think Microsoft is going to have a hard time convincing people to upgrade to versions past XP, considering it's been around for 9 years. I know corporations still running Windows NT 4.0 and now-unsupported (as of July 13) Windows 2000. Put it behind a firewall and you are FINE!


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Some excellent points:up:


----------



## Ed999 (Aug 19, 2008)

The Kernel Extender (KernelEx) works in Windows 98/ME by supplying unicode translations, so that program function calls which require unicode can be run (i.e. functions which Windows versions prior to Windows 2000/XP don't recognise). This is similar to what the unicows.dll file does, but in a more sophisticated way.

I've tried out KernelEx in Windows ME. It works okay, but can be inconvenient. In practice, although it allows one or two specific WinXP programs to run, it also prevents many existing Win9x programs from running properly (or at all): and these have to be manually added to a list in the Windows registry of files that the KernelEx functions shall not be applied to.

If you have a lot of Win9x programs, as I do, it can be a real headache to get all of them to run properly once the Kernel Extender is installed. I would therefore not recommend its use unless there was a very strong need for it: it will seriously hamper normal use of your computer.

I did find that Firefox 3 could be used with the Extender installed. But the Extender was such a nuisance, when using Win9x programs, that I did uninstall it. Firefox 2 has very few disadvantages, compared to Firefox 3.

The advantages of using the Extender were outweighed by the snags, in my case.


----------



## DocStrange (Apr 30, 2010)

Wow, that's a really cool exploitation of software. Don't have a computer this old to test it, but I love any attempt to get current software running on old computers/the internet running on old computers/etc because I used Windows 2000 up until a couple weeks ago mostly out of stubbornness and thought that I would eventually have to do stuff like this if my monetary situation continued so I couldn't replace my dying PC (its now only mostly dead, and once I transfer my stuff off of it to my new computer, i'll use it for parts or something).

Oh, um anyway my original intent with this post was: Opera Browser still supports Windows 9x OS's, right? Did you try this with Opera?


----------



## Ed999 (Aug 19, 2008)

The "similarity" of Windows 9x and WinXP derives solely from the fact that both are 32-bit versions of Windows. So yes, in a limited sense the changes since 16-bit Windows was abandoned (the final version of which was the original release of Windows 95) have been evolutionary.

But the attempt to introduce an (incompatible) 64-bit version of Windows has now thrown out the concept of evolution.

Many business users flat out refused to touch Vista, and stuck with WinXP, because of all the design faults in Vista. I felt the same about Windows XP, and stuck with Windows 98/ME.

However, the latest 64-bit versions are capable of running all 32-bit versions of Windows, and all 16-bit versions too, in a "virtual machine" (i.e. in a DOS-box, in effect). So we are beginning to see a growth in the user-base of Windows 98, as people start to install it in Windows Vista & 7 boxes.

Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 is a free download from Microsoft: a stand-alone application, that allows any earlier version of Windows to be run in a "virtual machine" under Vista & 7.


----------

