dencorso

Done! In any case, just a word of caution: WildBill's patches intended for IE6SP1 should work OK. All his other patches may cause problems to Win 9x/ME and should be regarded as Win 2k only, in principle. This is in line with what we'd been doing before, while the official patches still were issued by MS. Any special cases must be explicitly dealt with on a case by case basis.

JorgeA: MDGx told me recently that WildBill's installer works also for 9x/ME as it is, without any changes. I didn't test it myself, though... I installed his files by hand when I performed my latest update, so confirmation is in order. But I'm pretty sure MDGx must be right about it. Changing subjects a little: I'd much like to merge this thread with the newly renamed older thread by Dave-H I just pointed you to, some posts above... Would you agree to it?

I've renamed the thread. Let's keep it as our central thread for discussing IE6SP1 unofficial updates and related issues.

@JorgeA: Read the last few post in the royally misnamed thread Latest MS IE6 Security Update Breaks Windows 98?, and you'll see that WildBill's IE6SP1 updates do work with 9x/ME. MDGx keeps his unofficial updates page up-to-date, too, so you can peruse the latest updates here, or use this direct download link I2360131 to get the most recent unnoficial update for 9x/ME, at the moment. @all: BTW, the name of the thread Latest MS IE6 Security Update Breaks Windows 98? made sense when it was originally posted but, since then, it became the place to discuss all successive new updates that followed the original problematic one, so I think renaming the thread is in order, but I'd like to have suggestions as to how should it be renamed, please.

On Google probably : "Universal Extractor 1.6.2" but in what is it different? Last version provided on the legitime site is 1.6.1 It seems gora withdrew it. It was an unofficial update of 1.6.0, so it's parallel to 1.6.1. I do update mine by hand, too, usually, so that I've decided to keep my tweaked 1.6.2... Had all but forgotten about this. PM gora if you want more info about it, though.

It's kind of complicated... 1.6.2 is unofficial... Member gora maintains it. It's sort of a fork. Search for his posts here at MSFN.

I guess he means he wasn't able to download it neither with Internet Explorer 6.0 nor with Mozilla FIrefox 3.6.13 (but, of course, that's just my guess). HTH

BTW, give a good look at the good old Franziskus's Site, which is preserved, at least in part, by the Internet Archive. Enjoy!

Nope. Just tried it, and the UE (v. 1.6.2) cannot do it either... Sorry!

Have you tried requesting them directly from MS? Even when the KB article is no more, if you know the KBxxxxxx number, just fill in this form (thanks to MDGx), accept the licence, and you'll be surprized to find out that MS still forwards them. This applies to hotfixes, of course, I don't think it'll work for updates that formerly were available through MS update. Then again, searches on the Wayback Machine can yield many good surprises.

Here's a new version! I found out that in about 2% of my test files it failed to find actually present version info, due to the presence of a duplicate string (probably a quirk of the linker used to create those .vxds)... that's now fixed, so please do download the new version, which is in post #1, replacing the original release. The new version also prints the filename, which is useful when using it inside FOR loops.

Santa Esmeralda - Don't let me be misunderstood (The background music of the showdown at the japanese garden, in Kill Bill v.1, part 5.)

The fact that one cannot get the version info for any Linear Executable (a.k.a.: LE, which extensions may be .386, .VXD or .PDR) because, since LEs are not executable on the NT-family OSes, the system doesn't provide the usual Properties- -> Version tab for them, is a minor annoyance for those of us who multiboot Win 9x/ME with Win XP (or other NT-family OSes). I've just thrown together a crude, but effective, DOS application that solves this issue by getting the required info without recourse to the Windows API, and can be downloaded from this post. Bear in mind that the MS VS_VERSION_INFO structure has *four* version strings: a File Version and a Product Version as hexadecimal numbers, and a File Version and a Product Version as text strings, and that not necessarily do they contain the same info, so my little app lists all four of them. HTH. And thanks to LoneCrusader for providing the inspiration to finally get around to do it! vxdver051.7z

Merry X-mas to everybody!

@Comos: Do you have NSW2003 or 2005? If so, can you run NDD32 without getting a BSOD? SCANDSKW and DEFRAG should work OK with a 320 GB HDD... do they?

Hi, duffy98: Multibooter is more stringent (or, perhaps, cautious) with his requirements than I am. I do use Seagates (it remains my favorite brand), despite the recent problems that put a big dent on their image... You can read (much) more on the issues, by visiting our Harware Hangout Storage Media subforum. In any case, the problems seem to be mostly, if not all, related to the 7200.11 HDD series. External USB Seagates usually are not of that type, being usually part of the 5900 (3.5") or 5400 (2.5") series. I presently have a FreeAgent Go SE 500 GB (with a single 465 GiB primary FAT-32 LBA, i. e., all the HDD in one partition) and a Seagate Expansion 1500 GB (with a 460 GiB primary FAT-32 LBA partition and two logical FAT-32 LBA partitions, one 460 GiB and the other 474 GiB, both inside an extended LBA partition). They work well in Win 9x/ME and in DOS, in so far as copying to, reading from, moving and deleting goes. But to defrag them (and this I rarely do, they are backup drives, I don't keep copying and deleting things around in them) and to check their consistency are tasks that cannot be done in Win 9x/ME, and are best performed using Win XP, which is my alternate boot. I also have an older IOMEGA MDHD500-U 500 GB, also an USB 2.0 external disk, which is divided in two 232 GiB FAT-32 LBA partitions (one primary and the other logical, inside an extended LBA partition, as per the MS standard procedures), and this one I can fully manage in Win 98SE, whithout ever needing to reboot into XP. So, in fact, it depends on exactly what one wants to do. FAT-32 LBA partitions just under 1TB, spanning a whole HDD also do work with 9x/ME, whithin the same limitations as my 400+ GiB partitions. You only need partitions of not more than 320 GB, preferably about 250 GB, if you want to manage them fully in Win 9x/ME exclusively. BTW, thanks for the info about the Verbatim app. I have downloaded and saved it. Just for the record, there's one more very useful utility which does the same, but is a command-line app, also for XP+, which is Ridgecrop's FAT32FORMAT. That's the one I use routinely, while on XP, to create my FAT-32 partitions.

I second BlouBul's advice.

Neither .RU nor .SU domains were banned in the last 6 months. Whatever happened was beyond our control. I'm glad you're back, however. You rock!

The size of the primary partition can be 250 GB or more, up to about 320 GB. As I said, the problem with partition sizes is related to apps, not the OS. Now, for a 1 TB drive, there is one more, much more serious problem, which is *not* related to partition sizes, but to the size of the whole disk, no matter how you partition it: 48-bit LBA support! So, now: 1) If your machine has BIOS support for 48-bit LBA, DOS should be fine. 2) For Win 9x/ME, if the disk is PATA (aka IDE) you need either LLXX's or RLoew's ESDI_506.PDR patch, unless your chipset is Intel, for which the Intel Application Accelerator gets you covered. 3) For Win 9x/ME, if the disk is SATA you need either VIA RAID driver, if your machine has a VIA chipset, or the manufacturer's driver, for the rare other chipsets that support SATA on Win 9x/ME 4) Else, for Win 9x/ME, you need RLoew's SATA patch, for SATA. 5) For USB in Win 9x/ME you'll need NUSB33 plus MDGx's USB20DRV and some tweaking in addition. That's about it. To verify whether you do have BIOS 48-bit LBA support, the best test, once the HDD is already hooked to the motherboard, is a little DOS program provided by RLoew for free, inside the demo version of his ESDI_506.PDR patch. More details can be found in my > 137 GB thread, linked from the right part of my signature.

@Prozactive: Please try once more... this time use: DEVICE=ASPIEHCI.SYS /int /all /d1 and if it finds nothing again, do try: DEVICE=ASPIEHCI.SYS /int /all /d2

MS 10-073 may be blorked, in any case, even if I'm one ot the rare users who actually had an issue with it. Read this thread, please. In any case, since the issue was solved in the next release of win32k.sys, which is in MS 10-098, I suggest you skip MS 10-073 entirely and move on to MS 10-098. However, even that one may not provide adequate security, from your preliminary analysis, which is worrisome...

Don't ever let hardware/software combinations/behaviour baffle you in this matter. Those drivers do work here and don't work there. It just means they're actually blorked, and of this fact I'm pretty sure. Thanks for pointing me to the right previous thread. I'm getting forgetful... (either too much work or the sign of aging... or both!)... In any case, do read this interesting page on even more drivers, just for the sake of completeness.

If you want every app to work, partition it in one primary and 3 logical partitions inside one extended partition. Each partition will be about 250 GB. If you don't mind being unable to use defrag and scandskw (nor norton system works alternatives), for instance, because you can do that in XP, then you may use just 2 partitions, one primary and one logical partition inside one extended partition. Each partition will be just under 500 GB. I do prefer using more partitions smaller than 320 GB for all my fixed disks, but use partitons of about 500 GB for the removable ones. DOS and Win 9x/ME will cope well with either, the problem are the maintenance apps, not the OS.

No. A patched ESDI_506.PDR for PATA and RLoew's patch for SATA are needed regardless (unless you have a VIA RAID controller, for which there is a SATA driver). Why not keep your present drive and add another 500 GB drive? 2 HDDs are better than 1!

Are you sure your hardware actually *has* USB 2.0 aka EHCI capabilities, to begin with? If you cannot get ASPIEHCI.SYS to detect any devices, all options involvig it are just empty theory, in your case. Now. do create a boot diskette. Let it have only IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM, HIMEM.SYS, DEVLOAD and DEVLOD, and the USB driver files inside. Remove even DRVSPACE.BIN and MSDOS.SYS. Create a single-line CONFIG.SYS, containing DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS. Reboot from this diskette. When you get the A:\ prompt, use DEVLOAD to load ASPIEHCI.SYS /int /all and let's see what happens: If nothing gets detected, you're limited to USBASPI as the aspi stack. You may have described your relevant hardware previously... if so do point me to where you did it, if not, do describe it. I mean motherboard exact model, and any PCI add on-card, whatever provides the USB hardware we're interested in. Please.