dencorso

Sure. I did that, too, already. But while you're at it, do also do update mshtml.dll once more. WildBill just correct a bug in it. KB2360131-v2, which contains it, is in the same place the original one was.

While I was considering it possibly might be done, you went ahead and did it! Great Thanks a lot! You do rock, Tihiy!

KB2360131? Wasn't it KB2183461? @WildBill: Thanks for the release. You rock!

I'm not convinced, erpdude8! jaclaz is right (of course!): And his own finding: States literally, in p. 9: While, again, the description for intsec.dll is just "High strength upgrade"! So I maintain my request: @jds: Can you please provide the exact size and CRC-32, MD-5 and SHA-1 hashes of the bona-fide secur32.dll v. 4.10.2226 - 128 bit? Tools to do it, if you don't alteady have them, are here (just FCIV.EXE and CRC.EXE are enough):

Sure it does: KB323455 (and KB323466, to which it points, too). B)

@jds: Can you provide the exact size and CRC-32, MD-5 and SHA-1 hashes of the bona-fide secur32.dll v. 4.10.2226 - 128 bit? This would be a great reference for future use, for such a hard-to-get file, and also permit us to determine whether it truly is the unchanged instsec.dll. I just looked into that file and it says "High strength upgrade" in the description and SECURITY in the internal name and SECURITY.DLL in the original file name, so I'm not at all convinced it is used unmodified.

@WildBill: The reason you didn't have KB896156 in your system is that it's a Hotfix (so one has to request it to get it), not a Security Update (which would be offered through Win Update and/or MS Update). Changing subjects, I might be able to help you, once you release the Tool, but you'd have to instruct me about your methods: I'm a programmer myself, I understand reasonably the PE exe format and I'm no stranger to creating patched files, but I saw some pretty complex segment reordering and expanding in your patches, the mechanics of which are not totally clear to me. I'm totally at home hexediting and reasonably confortable with IDA, although I sure have lots more to learn. And I'm very short of time, right now, but that's gonna change soon (I hope). Let's talk via PM about it. @Dave-H: I use MSHTMLED.DLL v. 6.0.2800.1502 (the qfe branch file), from the same KB896156. Like MDGx, I do prefer the qfe branch files, because they include all mainstream fixes (the cumulative updates in the gdr branch) and all the less well tested fixes, too. It's more probable a qfe file will give problems than its gdr counterpart, and when I suspect such is the case, then I fall back to the gdr file and check whether that's the case or not. However, I've never been able to find any confirmed instance of problems due to my using qfe files: in the rare cases where I had problems with the qfe file, the gdr file also gave me the same problems, so I ended falling back to the previous version of the file. One such case was that IE update that gave rise to this thread. And whatever the reason it gave problems, it was fixed some later versions on, as we all know.

Well, two floppies would fit into a single 2.88 MB diskette image. So you could image the 1st floppy with WinImage, then expand the image size to 2.88MB within WinImage, then inject the contents of the 2nd floppy into the image, save it as, say, SysCommBootDisk.IMA and use it as the standalone bootable floppy image for the creation of the CD/DVD, which would contain the installers. With some adjustments to the autoexec.bat and config.sys to add drivers for the CD/DVD, it should work, and be perhaps simpler than what Multibooter described, in that System Commander would be fully contained and launched directly from the el-Torito emulated floppy. Of course, if I were you, I'd use shsucdx, instead of mscdex... but I think this still is a matter where we agree to disagree.

+1... IE8 on XPSP3 and IE6SP1 on 98SE.

@WildBill: It's a known fact that all official MS cumulative security updates to IE6SP1 (except a couple of rather old ones) work OK in Win 9x/ME So I suggested testing your unofficial KB2360131 in the proper thread named (somewhat misleading) Latest MS IE6 Security Update Breaks Windows 98?, and bingo! Your update was tested and found to work, too! So, in fact, for the IE6 updates, you now have a somewhat wider user base. However, while testing the update, Dave-H found out the puzzling fact that the modded mshtmled.dll v. 6.0.2800.1107 file you included in the unofficial update seems to be, in fact, based in the original IE6SP1's v. 6.0.2800.1106, instead of being based in the much newer v. 6.0.2800.1501 or, preferably, the 6.0.2800.1502 (the qfe branch file), both from KB896156... Have you perhaps missed it? Well, in any case, this post is not only to discuss this point, but also to invite you to join us in discussing those updates in the above mentioned thread. Keep on the great work, you do rock! As an afterthought, I'd very much appreciate if you could port your mods also to the qfe branch of MSHTML.DLL (i.e.: v. 6.0.2800.1650, thus creating v. 6.0.2800.1652) since it appears to me, on closer inspection, that your modded file is derived from v. 6.0.2800.1649 (i. e.: the gdr branch) of MSHTML.DLL. Some users, like myself, do always prefer qfe branch files (except, of course, when the gdr works but the qfe doesn't, although it never happened to me). Browseui.dll and Shdocvw.dll from both branches are identical, so, for those two, no extra effort is required.

That's wonderful news! Thanks for the lightnig fast reaction to my post! You rock! So we're back it the game, great! And I'm sure WildBill will be happy, too, since this widens his updates user basis. I'm sure WildBill will be happy to solve this puzzle. I'll invite him over.

Is anybody feeling adventurous enough to try WildBill's unofficial KB2360131 files on Win9x/ME? If they work, and I bet they will, it's the way to keep more up-to-date... I intend to do so myself, but I won't be able to do so right away.

No. The last IE to work with 9x/ME is IE6SP1, which you already have installed on your system.

True enough, Jake! Of course.

98g is for the "Gold" edition = Win 98 FE, while 98s is for Win 98 SE. I've just checked and redownloaded the dsclient.exe, and also Q266772, Q267879 and Q267972... these latter 3 documents lead one to the same 267972USA8.EXE hotfix, containing the same Export Version of secur32.dll, v, 2228, which is also contained in the dsclient. So that leads nowhere. For the what it's worth, if the 128-bit exists, it ought to be marked "US and Canada Only", not "Non-Export" or whatever. By now, i think erpdude8 is right: the 128-bit version is a myth (moreover, if it weren't, probably Gape would have got a copy of it and included it in the uSP, and that never happened). @triger49: in what regards Win 9x/ME files, curb your marvel, because, by now, almost anything already is tough to track, and it'll get worse...

Mostly, yes. And it'll work for installation. But, after installation is over, one can set those parameters differently: MaxPhysPage=48000 (= 1152 MiB ) is about the highest one can go with Win 9x, while, for Win ME, the highest one can go up to is MaxPhysPage=7CB00 (= 1995 MiB ), but in either case one should increase the MaxPhysPage value by steps, until one gets the "not enough memory" error again, and then lower it a little... And experience has shown that MaxFileCache=393216 (= 384MiB) is good enough for most users, there's no need to set it to 524288 (= 512MiB).

I do like this theme! I do like it a whole lot more than the previous light blue / orange one, that's for sure! I was surprised, nevertheless, by the sudden change... but I do welcome it! Thanks xper, I loved the change! (In any case, I've set this post to hidden because I wanted just to express my approval without fuelling up the thread).

Here you go: KB982132 MS10-076 t2embed.dll v. 5.1.2600.6031 KB972270 MS10-001 t2embed.dll v. 5.1.2600.5888 KB961371 MS09-029 t2embed.dll v. 5.1.2600.5830 KB936929 WinXPSP3 t2embed.dll v. 5.1.2600.5512

I've tried both, and, in my experience, the system is more stable with RLoew's patch.

This mentions Client: Windows XP or above & Server: Windows Server 2003 & higher. Yeah. But the binary has not changed since 2006, and it used to say "works on all versions of Windows", so that's just the usual MS talk to steer you away from 9x/ME... And if you run it, it says: "Sync 2.2: Disk Flusher for Windows 9x/Me/NT/2K/XP"

Your description reminds me of the issue described in KB284969. Are you stopping (using the Safely Remove Hardware, in the system tray) the removable media before actually disconnecting it? If not, do try it. In any case, explicitly flushing the removable drives before removal should help if the case is the one described in KB284969... and Mark Russinovich's Sync does exactly that, so here's another thing to try. If all that proves not to be enough, then you should apply these two updates to your system: KB273017 and KB290831 (in this order).

OK. Here's my shortlist of possible problem candidates: ACbHlpr Adobe Reader / Acrobat Reader CDR4VSD Roxio CDRALVSD Roxio CSHOOK Norton Clean Sweep ELBYCDIO CloneCD IPVNMON Visual IP InSight ? NAVENG NAV NAVEX15 NAV RT ? SAVRT NAV SAVRTPEL NAV SYMRDVXD NAV SymTDI NAV Check them to confirm they are bona fide. If they are and they were there before the problems began, then we can move on. They may have .386, .vxd, .pdr, .mpd or .sys as the extension. Check out first the two I marked with a question mark. Look at the properties tab, to find out the manufaturer (or the product) they come from. I think maybe the problem lies elsewhere, but do check them, just in case.

Right! And this one is closed, too!

Thanks for the heads up! It's fixed now! I was another victim of the dreaded "revenge of cut & paste": the right thread is #100299, while the wrong one is #10029...

@JorgeA and BlouBul: I'm unusually busy this week, too, somewhat to my surprise (but I'm not complaining, far from it...). However, I began talking about imaging with AnnieMS in this other thread, and so I'm inviting you all over to that thread, so that we can discuss imaging in just one single place. As soon as you're both confortable with imaging, then we can move back here and finish this troubleshooting. Would that be OK for you?