Rick Chauvin

This particular post by itself has nothing to do with the Explorer Hang issue, but I want to clarify here at this point only because a few of my previous posts in this thread where I had mentioned about me getting excessive Send Error reports, and so now wanted to explain that I did finally resolve that issue last month but was by me simply restoring a partition image of C:\ from two months earlier where I knew it did not have that problem at all - and it still does not. I had then updated three of anonymous updates: Copy2gb.exe, Shell98.exe, and U891711.exe and of course it's still fine for that. I have not had the time/incentive to reinstall the few other updates besides those to isolate which of the other new updates were causing my Send Error problem in the first place.

I hope Anonymous still is considering releasing Shell32.dll v4.72.3812.640, very very please If you would please consider that if needed I would be very happy and qualified to be a beta tester before it's released even; fwiw a number of times so far in the last few months, even though rare, I have had it still uniquely hang with v4.72.3812.634 in place. I have been respectfully and even patiently excitingly awaiting to bring this to the next level with v4.72.3812.640 ..Thank you very much for considering it..

That's really great, thank you for U891711.exe ....which I'm haappy to say I already had installed it previously ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I hope Anonymous still is considering releasing Shell32.dll v4.72.3812.640, please

Understood, and if I was you I would put my websites logo on there too. The difference between mine and Gapes was the trailing background color and the SE font size, otherwise they are identical: Besides that though I see his explorer.exe also has a few more other icon changes and when placed creates some registry Interface changes for his options on his ditty. Anyway I like his start banner too, and I like yours and have seen it, and I also like mine. btw MGDx, when you pointed to option 6 and I ended up fooling with gapes explorer.exe, and when I read the 98SE2ME.chm you wrote about the options, I realized the time it must take you to do all these little projects let alone keep track of them since you have so many, anyway, I must say what you do is quite remarkable and I salute what you do with great respect; along with appreciation for everyone else here that does all these little projects too - - you have quite a network of capable friends working on different things here which makes for quite a great forum.

Seeing this thread and being curious, and so I just installed the latest Roots too - which btw is now v11,0,2195,0 ..and yes that did allow me now to get to the WU site again where before the roots install I could not, however, did any of you notice once you do go to WU what happens to those certificates you just installed? ..I always track Everything I do, and noticed the moment I went to WU just to get to the page (no scans or anything except to click to get the catalogue basket to show up) ..but just going to the WU site changes approximately 200 entries in the registry Roots Systems Certificates entries again.. ..iow it rewrote over changing many of the ones that the v11,0,2195,0 just did.. Now, I have no idea if it's a good thing or not, or if it is normal or not - I am only pointing out what it does; however certainly I Always track and I have never ever seen before that with W98SE just going to the WU site ever changed Certificates like that, until today just now. To be sure I just checked on another machine and can reproduce this everytime. For now I just reinstalled roots v11,0,2195,0 and it wrote it back to how it was since I never have to go to WU for W98SE again anyway.

I knew it was done in the SP and is where I had seen it when I had once tested the earlier SP's, but as compared to the SP I had wanted a different font & size for the words "Second Edition" and especially a different background color behind it which iirc the SP was changed to black, but I made mine as original dark blue.. ..it's just my preferences is all.

I like what I did to mine this way: I made the bmp, and if you like you can use it too: 157.bmp

Since Anonymous is a volunteer and willing to share his ability on his own time and dime has to be given a great deal of credit and admiration to say the least - and endless appreciation. I know we all here must feel the same way. I don't know erpdude8 personally but I certainly don't think he meant a wrong to cause any discontent at all, and was just micro focusing on a particular point is all - but let's keep the right focus in sight and especially the appreciation going in the 'right direction' here where it belongs considering all things in perspective. I know we all have and give full support for Anonymous to continue and would foster that possibility in every way. Certainly I do support him continuing with his new findings he spoke of and to release them to help the 'Explorer Hang' anomaly even further. Anonymous, I and we all give a great respect and admiration for what you do, and ask that you would please continue, please, since it is so well appreciated the effort that you give and your abilities and willingness to share them. Thank you

This morning when someone else mentioned it I had went to WU to check what might be up, but when I went to the WU site got right in and did the few steps needed to get the Windows Update Catalog basket to show up, etc, and then I could download whatever I wanted, and for W98SE shows these things available for me to add to basket if I wanted to download them now and install later: ~~~~~~~~~~~copy/paste~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Critical Updates and Service Packs (78) Additional Windows Downloads (1) Internet and Multimedia Updates (1) Multi-Language Features (73) Recommended Updates (15) Windows Tools (1) Advanced Security Updates (0) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I normally never let it scan my machine to have them tell me what I need though if that's the way you mean, and I didn't try it earlier today either. I always prefer to use the download basket and pick what I need, which isn't anything new from them anymore that's for sure since they dropped us and don't give anything new anyway. Rick

That is absolutely normal. I've probably got one of the leanest/fastest W98SE machines there is, and yes when it boots up the hour glass is there for maybe 4 seconds as things finish loading and then it disappears - and yes a seconds later it appears again for maybe 1 sec again, and then is gone for good.. This is within normal operation as necessary programs load. If it's taking to much more time than this then as the others have mentioned do some maintenance but only of the appropriate items.. The fact that the hourglass comes up for the 2nd time for a second though, is normal. Rick

Just some notes fwiw, is that within a few hour time period within the past two days while just using the internet for normal interaction of different websites, I've received 3 Send Error Reports prompts already. I cannot accurately tell if having had reverted back to the previous Roots version helped or not - although it seems it's less. FWIW even if a little help, here's each of the error prompts info I could copy just from the front header box only. AppName: iexplore.exe AppVer: 6.0.2800.1106 ModName: browseui.dll ModVer: 6.0.2800.1896 Offset: 00031a6a AppName: iexplore.exe AppVer: 6.0.2800.1106 ModName: ole32.dll ModVer: 4.71.2900.0 Offset: 000a6f0d AppName: iexplore.exe AppVer: 6.0.2800.1106 ModName: kernel32.dll ModVer: 4.10.0.2224 Offset: 0000b9a6 Before these particular entries above though, there have been other files that are listed as the trigger, even shell32 was listed as well. The Faultlog.txt didn't manage to get written to for these last three times, however other times previously it did. ~~~~~~~ Too see if it makes a difference I've decided to next reverse the msfn modified ie925454.exe IE Cumulative I mentioned. ...or... if instead it's more appropriate I can instead just shut this SendTo reporting OFF HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main "IEWatsonEnabled"=dword:00000000 Realize I don't give a hoot about DW and it's error reporting if it's not important or has valuable meaning. I never even realized the blessed thing was on, but lately it's been quite busy and so has been in my face to notice it and is the only reason why I brought it up. Anonymous, I didn't mean any harm insinuating it was because of any specific modified shell32 or kernel32 and I apologize for that since I'm not sure anymore, and it just appeared that way at the moments; actually I've found after I had rotated in/out all versions of shell32 and even kernel32 that all of the different versions whether more or less for each, but still can be listed as a cause in the prompts - but as well at other times many other files can be the only ones listed as the cause too..

Actually 4.72.3812.610 was the last version that fixed only 2-4 GB files bug.Beginning with 4.72.3812.620 onward the anonymous author added code to fix explorer/OS lockups. Yes but after that post you are quoting and as you can see by the very first post (#121) on this webpage, I did realize it was v4.72.3812.610 that I wanted to get for reference/archive/testing. Do you or anyone still have v4.72.3812.610? Thank you.

I agree with you, but for whatever reason SendErrorReports for me anyway, appears to happen much less with shell32.dll 4.72.3812.600 than with 472.3812.634 giving various iexplore.exe application failure errors; however...* It is true last week I did loose the History Listings contents when I swapped dlls back and forth, but.., having tried it a number of times since then I cannot reproduce it again so just let it go if it's not relative. What I can say is that I've noticed a sharp increase in the amount of SendErrorReports that are prompted lately which before I 'seldom' saw any therefore had no reason to even think about dw being on. No doubt there was a change that has happened for me to cause this and is what I've tried to pin down - the thing is as of yet I cannot tell you exactly what is causing it since when I did the last number of updates - naturally it was not on my mind to go right out and surf websites to see if I could get SendError prompts; and so that's the reason for the Unknown of When it started with this, and so at this point I can only go backwards and reverse what I'd done in the meantime - which are a few things, for instance to possibly complicate the issue is that I had also installed MSFN's latest W2K IE and OE Cumulatives reworked to install on W98SE: ~ ie925454.exe = W98SE - MS06-072, 925454, Cumulative for IE, 12/2006 ~ oe911567.exe = W98SE - MS06-076, 923694, Cumulative for OE, 12/2006 *Ahhh, then maybe that roots update could be it then since yes I did install that 10,0,2195,0 Root Certificate mentioned to do from msfn... ...okay I've just now reversed the install of 10,0,2195,0 back to v9,0,2195,0 easily - hopefully this is the issue causing it since you noticed the things you did; alternately hopefully it's not the ie925454.exe update I previously did - but if it was I could easily reverse that too. I wish that "error report contents" box with its mini dump info would let a copy work within the box, or a way to easily save it.. That's great, and fwiw I've absolutely seen the specific explorer hang with v5.5 as you've previously mentioned, although it was rare but I did see it; I've also absolutely seen the specific explorer hang even when the v5.5 dll's are used in v6 but here too it's not very often at all... Also fwiw, I have three times so far seen the specific explorer hang even using the new shell32.dll v4.72.3812.634 but here too comparatively it's not very often and so I'd call it 97% effective over the original. If you are contemplating a v4.72.3812.640 in the works with the few issues mentioned you've found and fixed, even if beta, please do let me test it! Hopefully with the roots reverted back to v9,0,2195,0 I will not see any more SendErrorReports - I may even disable the dw which produces it.

erpdude8, after going back and reading previous threads again (you're in most of them I see) I noticed anonymous mentions it to be 4.72.3812.610 and so that is the one I am after please - Does anyone have Shell32.dll v4.72.3812.610 please I would like to get for reference/testing and save - would you please link it here or PM if preferred. Thank you much. whatever420, thank you for the 4.72.3812.620 version, and yes I certainly did understand your explanation on your aftermarket edits, and the screenshot was a good visual explanation as well)

Thank you much whatever420, What are these .rc menu item mod's you have extra in the mod folder - I can see what they each are inside looking them over - what were the different things you were trying to do? Do you have the original exe as it was offered by MDGx - I would like to have that too.. MDGx, is shell32.dll v4.72.3812.620 the last version change anonymous made for the 2-4gb fix before he started adding explorer hang fixes? Thank you again, Rick

Trodas, this has been happening to me too, and I assumed it 'may' also be connected to this other issue I had reported before but no one had a handle on it at the time, or now evidently, but it may be something to do with RSS: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=609134

Lately I've been very often getting lots of Send Error Report prompts these days when browsing the web, and especially! when opening the History tab which opens the left window for it - and clicking any previous links of the day within that window is where moreso I get bitten with SendErrorReport prompts which aggravatingly forces me to make a play - all of which closes all browser windows of course loosing your research place, and sometimes locks everything up forcing a soft/sometimes/hard reboot...scandisk, etc.... Getting fed up with it still doing that, today I started going backwards undoing the last things I did since this started happening - but I couldn't solve it . . . until I had the thought... no way, it couldn't be the shell32.dll fix could it! ...no, please no I clamored because I want the shell32.dll fix to succeed ..but AFAICT at this moment anyway, yes it does seem to be somehow connected? When I put the original Shell32.dll back in place I can not reproduce Send Error Report prompts as readily and it's very seldom that it ever happens as usual or so it seems anyway, but with the new Shell32.dll (latest v4.72.3812.634) in place I can readily reproduce it as indicated. (I noticed one time that swapping the dll forward erases all current day History listings so that there tells you that it is connected internally in some way?) It is hard to pin down helpful info for this for MDGx or Anonymous, but each time it happens the dw.log is written to, but interestingly each time it happens it lists various different browser files as the cause. Since I do so much online research this is not something I can live with, and nOt wanting the file delete hang to pester me either so either I will revert to the v5.5 browse.dlls again (shudder) or just live with it.. ..not likely. --Rick oh ps, does anyone have a copy of the last shell32.dll version from anonymous that "only" has the 2-4 GB file fix in it and nothing! else - can you give a link for it please. (I knew I should of saved it but overwrote it with the new ones when they came out.

Can we get the SATA300 TX2 Plus Controller Card to support 98SE ? ...at least the for the ones which have the appropriate 865/875/915 chipsets? Don't tease me about still booting to W98SE since afterall MDGx needs testers for his stuff here. I really want to get this Promise SATA300 TX2 Plus Controller Card http://www.promise.com/product/product_det...;product_id=138 ..but I can't find driver support for W98SE darn it.. ..which surly has to exist somewhere? ..wishful thinking maybe. AFAICT though the Promise SATA150 TX2plus is the last that supports W98SE and has the same 2 SATA 3Gb/s Ports plus 1 Ultra ATA/133 Port ability that I would specifically want for my needs I currently run a Promise Ultra133 TX2 on 300 GB PATA HD's triple booting to W98SE/W2K/WXP. Going forward for a pair of new 500 GB SATA HD's I need to find drivers for the SATA300 TX2Plus CC linked above to be able to still run W98SE on! Now there are some of these common online driver webpages that list a 'combination driver' from Promise that supports the newer SATAII 150 TX series as well as the SATA300 TX2 Plus CC - and says for OS's that it does support 98, but me thinks it's just a misprint - here's just one of a few places that shows W98 supported: http://www.driverzone.com/device.php?id=60663 ...and that page download button drivers link brings me to this Promise website download: http://www.promise.com/support/download/do...;os=0&go=GO ..and click the first link which has a link to the driver file "SATA300/SATAII150 TX series Windows Driver" that the other websites says is for W98 - but the Promise website does not say that.. ..however downloading it and looking at the ulsata2.inf file in the i386 folder shows me that there are W98 listings (even though it's standard remark'd ; out for description sake) Look for these lines of reference in various places: ________________________________ ;[DriverFiles_9X] ----------------------------- ;; Win9x install sections ;; ;[ultra575PCI] ----------------------------- ;[WIN98.REG] ;HKR,,PortDriver,,98DriverName.mpd ________________________________ What concerns me though is the first 9x listing is blank underneath it - whereas W2K WXP has the sys driver assigned like this: [DriverFiles_XP] ulsata2.sys,,,0x20 ...and so since we know that W98SE drivers for promise CC's use the ultra.mpd, Pu66vsd.vxd, and Smartvsd.vxd for its driver setup, whereas 2K/XP just use the ulsata2.sys and the W98 drivers are not included anymore, however since we can see 9x listed in its install inf leads me to believe it was supported...? ...and so makes me wonder since we know that the chipsets 865/875 officially support 98SE/2K/XP and many of us in MSFN's own W98SE group run W98SE with those MB's chipsets, and those same chipsets are supported in 2K/XP using the SATA300 TX2 Plus CC's ..then maybe it would still support W98SE somehow? ..but maybe Promise didn't want to deal with saying it supported the few chipsets for w98 and left out the many? Wishful thinking no doubt. Any experienced ideas how to incorporate W98SE drivers into the SATA300 TX2 Plus Controller Card driver files to also support 98SE ?

> I really don't believe that I'm getting this message because the > installer is detecting a pre-existing installation of windows. I > think there's something else going on. The installer routine you're using prompts as it was designed to do when you don't have the Full version. If you have the crippled OEM, Updates, or Upgrade then they have limitations the Full version doesn't have and they will give you their error prompts if you are trying to do something in a way it was not designed to do. Many people have devised various ways to get around specific personal instances of what they were doing and it worked for them, ymmv in each case as it applies to you. Here are some important points to consider for standard fresh installs that will always work though, but what you do uniquely extra from that you can take it from there. Your OEM CD specifies you need to have a clean clear C:\ partition to install it to - and sometimes depending, if you have any you'll need to even set Hidden all other partitions - or you will get that error unless you have the Full version. (although if by rarity the true Full version ever prompts that particular error (I've never seen it) then here also to isolate whatever your other file specifics present which are causing a problem, you'll need to set hidden all your other partitions and/or install it on a clean clear C:\ partition. The way to fresh install an original OEM version and always better to use the Full version, is besides from the actual CD itself onto a clean clear FAT32 primary partition, is to better yet having had created only this folder on it already: C:\WINDOWS\Options\Cabs (normally done from the 9x floppy dos (or any of the other alternate ways)) Then (from 9x floppy dos or other alternate ways depending) ..copy just the CD's 'install' folder to this C:\WINDOWS\Options\Cabs folder you made, and now there from dos again type to navigate to that folder - and there type setup.exe to have it start. This is a common known proven way to do it so that going forward you have all the original install files already there so you would never be prompted to insert the CD again when in situations it wants to access its original file store. ..you see an install from the CD itself creates that same directory but just copies 'some' of its install files there and then runs the setup.exe from there anyway, and so the point is why not put that folder there in its entirety to begin with complete with all source files from the start, and have the advantage. > For some reason now I keep getting this SU0168 message in this > situation and it's driving me crazy. I offered to save you time, but maybe you just want to see it out for yourself. > Does anyone really know what the installer is looking for, or seeing, > when it claims that the system already has an installed operating > system? Yes, but I've sent you a PM to explain so as to stay clear of any... ...whatever. Rick

> setup already has built-in serial number which I figured out comes from file "msbatch.inf". That file is not present > on OEM version of win98se. That's correct, putting any valid serial in the [setup] ProductKey="xxxxxxxxxxx" ..portion of msbatch.inf file will auto insert the serial so you don't have to enter it in manually is all, and was the convenience sake purpose of that - but that is an after the fact tweak - and is not on any of MS's original install CD's. > I do a file compare and see that precopy2.cab is different between the two install CD's. Well I'm not surprised you noticed that one thing since you're a very intelligent perceptive minded person, but there can be more to it than that depending on what CD's one has. But first off here's the scoop on the different versions of W98SE W98SE Updates CD (updates W98FE to SE only in Windows) W98SE OEM CD (cannot upgrade/update; only clean installs; no help feature) W98SE Upgrade CD (requires authentication - but then is unlimited) W98SE Full CD (is the one I call Retail - it has no limitations) > Basically, I try to remove all remnants of the previous install attempt, which didn't get very far anyways. > I copy the contents of a win-98se OEM cd to the slave drive ..and that was your problem since the version you used is not the Full version ..and the one you did use is designed to install only under the situations listed or it will give you the prompt you're seeing if you try to install it by the method you tried - which can be done - but only with the Full version; iow, it's not that you didn't remove the previous install good enough in your particular test, it's that you are not using the Full version to begin with and so as you posted you'll get this: > "Your computer already has an operating system installed, which > cannot be upgraded by this version of setup. You need to > obtain the windows 98 Upgrade. Message SU0168." Since you now know that you don't have it, then you will need the Full CD in order for you to fresh install it from the C:\WINDOWS\Options\Cabs folder as you are wanting to do - that was the purpose of the Full CD, and naturally MS charged more money for it of course. Rick ..........ps, Out of curiosity years ago I once did an indepth analysis of each of the 4 CD's and realized to find a little known fact, is that if you have access to all the CD's and knew the right files to swap out, which actually one would only need to replace up to Six files 'depending on which of the first three' of the four CD's listed above that you have - and then you could make any of them into a Full Retail version. I'd post my specific findings but I'm sure for the legalism of the matter for MDGx amd this website I should respect not to do so, but one would still need to get the Full version of these six files anyway to effect change on any of the non-full versions. The combined file size total of them is less than 2 mb though. (Guy98 if you want send me a PM with a valid email)

There are Three issues here for FAT32 W98 that needs to be dealt with for large hard drive support which are you need 48-bit LBA Bios support, and then 48-bit LBA Windows Driver support, and then the Partition Size limit that Windows utilities limitation dictates. First on the list is that of course your Bios needs to have 48-bit LBA support to start with, secondly after that you need to have Windows drivers with 48-bit LBA support so that they both can utilize HD's total size over 137/128 GB ..and you can do that in a few ways: one is by using the unofficial updated esdi_506.pdr windows driver giving 48-bit LBA support; or use Mr Lowe's High Capacity Disk Patch program which is similar, or another is if you have an older supported Intel chipset to be able to install its IAA software then that will do it; or the best of all ways is to use a 48-bit LBA PCI Controller Card for its numerous advantages and benefits over the other ways - but no matter which of these ways you choose, the third issue is that you Still have W98's windows stock utilities limitations that dictate that the Hard Drive must be partitioned as such - which is W98 must not see any one partition throughout the hard drive that's over 128 GB. I wrote 137/128 that way above because you need to be aware there is Decimal GB and Binary GB's - and many people use the figure of under 137 GB but realize that's meant in Decimal GB - but since Windows displays in Binary then naturally it's much better said and certainly must be done as under 128 Binary GB because of it, and that it's stock scandisk/defrag utilities use its figures as well. ...iow, when you open your My Computer folder to see what your partition sizes show - it must not show any one partition over 128GB (or problems like what happened in your case, and/or with data placed there gets corrupted when scandisk auto/manually runs or when defrag is used) I also always suggest that the Primary OS FAT32 partitions to be made under 8 GB not only for the best 4k cluster size efficiency but it's so much easier and faster to defrag, and make backup partition images, and other common tasks too; you don't need anymore than 8 GB anyway for the OS FAT32 partition, and you would store all unnecessary non-os files on the larger Storage partition. You take all Non-OS (Logical) partitions and make all those larger according to your HD's size divvy up - but always all must be under 128 GB. I like to make them an even 121GB. The Promise (P) ATA ULTRA133 TX2 is one of the best CC on the market for this issue imo&experience, and I've used them for years with exceptional results. ...Here's some good reading in its manual for this particular CC. (pdf format) right click and save target on this link: http://www.promise.com/marketing/datasheet...133tx2DS_v3.pdf Rick

thanks for the roots update

Can we get the SATA300 TX2 Plus Controller Card to support 98SE ? ...at least the for the ones which have the appropriate 865/875/915 chipsets? I really want to get this Promise SATA300 TX2 Plus Controller Card http://www.promise.com/product/product_det...;product_id=138 ..but I can't find driver support for W98SE darn it.. ..which surly has to exist somewhere? ..wishful thinking maybe. AFAICT though the Promise SATA150 TX2plus is the last that supports W98SE and has the same 2 SATA 3Gb/s Ports plus 1 Ultra ATA/133 Port ability that I would specifically want for my needs I currently run a Promise Ultra133 TX2 on 300 GB PATA HD's triple booting to W98SE/W2K/WXP. Going forward for a pair of new 500 GB SATA HD's I need to find drivers for the SATA300 TX2Plus CC linked above to be able to still run W98SE on! Now there are some of these common online driver webpages that list a 'combination driver' from Promise that supports the newer SATAII 150 TX series as well as the SATA300 TX2 Plus CC - and says for OS's that it does support 98, but me thinks it's just a misprint - here's just one of a few places that shows W98 supported: http://www.driverzone.com/device.php?id=60663 ...and that page download button drivers link brings me to this Promise website download: http://www.promise.com/support/download/do...;os=0&go=GO ..and click the first link which has a link to the driver file "SATA300/SATAII150 TX series Windows Driver" that the other websites says is for W98 - but the Promise website does not say that.. ..however downloading it and looking at the ulsata2.inf file in the i386 folder shows me that there are W98 listings (even though it's standard remark'd ; out for description sake) Look for these lines of reference in various places: ________________________________ ;[DriverFiles_9X] ----------------------------- ;; Win9x install sections ;; ;[ultra575PCI] ----------------------------- ;[WIN98.REG] ;HKR,,PortDriver,,98DriverName.mpd ________________________________ What concerns me though is the first 9x listing is blank underneath it - whereas W2K WXP has the sys driver assigned like this: [DriverFiles_XP] ulsata2.sys,,,0x20 ...and so since we know that W98SE drivers for promise CC's use the ultra.mpd, Pu66vsd.vxd, and Smartvsd.vxd for its driver setup, whereas 2K/XP just use the ulsata2.sys and the W98 drivers are not included anymore, however since we can see 9x listed in its install inf leads me to believe it was supported...? ...and so makes me wonder since we know that the chipsets 865/875 officially support 98SE/2K/XP and many of us in MSFN's own W98SE group run W98SE with those MB's chipsets, and those same chipsets are supported in 2K/XP using the SATA300 TX2 Plus CC's ..then maybe it would still support W98SE somehow? ..but maybe Promise didn't want to deal with saying it supported the few chipsets for w98 and left out the many? Wishful thinking no doubt. Any experienced ideas how to incorporate W98SE drivers into the SATA300 TX2 Plus Controller Card driver files to also support 98SE ?

Anonymous, I was back then and am glad to be a part of the process in any way now. This explorer hang has been one of my pet projects to get fixed for a long time now.I was very appreciative to have recently found that you all were working on it here too. I understand your point about the other files, and certainly your point about being prohibitively time-consuming. It's natural for us to ponder though, since the only change needed to IE6 is swapping it's browseui.dll to v5 which quiets not only the Explorer hang, but also puts normal times back to the processing of deleting files - then could that portion of the v5 dll be patterned back to v6 accordingly.. ..afterall v6 internals came from the v5 in the first place. You don't have to answer that.. ..I was just pondering outloud. Anyway, thank you for the time you put into this and sharing your ability.. ..without question many thank you's to MDGx too.. ..and thank you's to everyone here, leaving no one out.

Technically I used that term Win9x and 9x out of true context you're right, but naturally my mindset was always talking Win98x - and even at that technically leaves out ME which I don't mean to. I know you all knew what I meant though, but I do stand corrected thank you. If the abbreviation W98x can be more appropriate then I will go back and edit my posts.