I have an older laptop that I still use on occasion that only has Windows ME. It doesn't really have enough memory to even bother updating to XP. Anyway I had been steadily updating it with the beta versions of 3.98 without a problem, but I just tried using 3.98.2 from rarewares.org and I get an error message from lame that I need a later version of Windows. I think that probably is just be because of the compiler or compiler settings that were used. Is there an alternate older Windows compile still available somewhere. Was it intentional, that Lame lost Win ME (and I'm sure Win 98(SE)) compatibility?

Thank,

Bob

AFAIR, this compile is built with VC2008, so it needs the appropiate runtimes. See this topic:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....c=66288&hl=

Yet, i don't know if it supports Win Me or not. Win98 is definitely not supported by this compiler, so it may apply to Me aswell. It sure can be compiled with the older VC2005, and I even got mingw to build it (but it is slower. 17x the current release, vs. 13x with mingw in my laptop).

Btw, most machines that had Win Me installed should be able to run Win2000 (Mostly,because Win 2000 appeared in 1999 and Win Me in 2000). You may be able to get a copy of that, and install SP4. Of course, that's in the case you'd want the hassle to try it (as you may have problems finding drivers for your laptop)

It is not an error message from LAME, it is coming from C runtime library (likely to be Microsoft's C runtime library). Microsoft does not support Win98 anymore, programs using VC9 runtime libraries are not able to run on Win98. Actually LAME itself doesn't use any specific feature not available on Win98. You might take a look here.

Thank you, the 3.98.2 compile of lame found at the link you posted works in Windows ME! I figured it was the version of compiler or compiler options that was causing the incompatibility. I searched around without finding an alternate compile that listed Win ME support. Once again Hydrogenaudio forums to the rescue.

Thanks,

Bob

There is a compile here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/lame3.98.2-vc6.zip that works with win9x and Me and all the later versions.

If there's any demand for this, I'll post it at Rarewares.

Thanks for the second Windows ME friendly compile. Just a note of possible interest. The 2 compiles are of greatly different sizes. your lame exe and dll are about half the size of the other set I downloaded. Perhaps a different compiler or compiler options. Secondly, they produce different size mp3 files. There was a 7kb mp3 file size difference with the song I encoded for testing. Both versions show version 3.98.2 while encoding, but produce different size files. Anyone know why?

Again, thanks for the ME compatible version... lol, am I the last ME user???

If memory serves me, the 'bakerweb' compiles are produced using the Intel4.5 compiler, although I could be wrong. In any event, my compile, referred to above, was using VC6 and Intel9.1. The differing file sizes are normal when different compilers are used but, so far as I'm aware, no one has ever been able to discern any audible difference in these situations.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean18

Unsupported OS is unsupported.

I did a little testing on my XP desktop machine so I could compare the 3 versions of 3.98.2 that I now have, using the -V2 setting, to compare speed and file sizes.

The released version on rarewares is (as expected) the fastest on my pentium 4 2.5ghz machine. It also produced the largest mp3 files, usually 8-10kb larger than the build at lame.bakerweb.biz.

The build at: http://lame.bakerweb.biz/ produced the smallest mp3 files, but was the slowest encoding. It ran about 10-15% slower than the other versions.

Finally the release here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jfe1205/lame3.98.2-vc6.zip produced files that were a couple of kb smaller than the rarewares.org build but still 6 or 8kb larger than the bakerweb build. Its speed actually surprised me because it was only a few percentage points slower than the rarewares build. That may differ depending on your cpu etc, but for a pentium 4 setup. there was little difference.

So for my Win ME laptop, I have to decide if I want the build that is 10-15% faster or the one that produces the smallest mp3 files. The laptop is only a 500mhz machine, so I'll probably opt for the faster encoder, but for those more concerned with file size, the build at lame.bakerweb.biz might be for you.

Bob

We're talking about a one-digit-kilobyte filesize difference, which adds up to ~150 kilobytes per album. Even back in 2000 that was negligible.

Actually, if you consider the cluster sizes on storage media, I bet often the 2 files would end up taking up nearly the same amount of space most drives. Definately wiser to chose the faster encoder.

Bob