Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country


Everything posted by Arminius

  1. The odd thing is that I don't have a C:\WINDOWS\UserData folder on my 98SE installation. The closest thing I have to it is C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\UserData I think the reason is that I don't use 98SE online anymore therefore I didn't bother upgrading IE past version 5.5 SP2. I seem to recall that IE 6.0 and IE 6.0SP1 did things a little differently and I had a C:\WINDOWS\UserData folder back when I was using them. Probably the easiest way to delete the index.dat file is to create a WININIT.INI file with the following entry: [Rename] NUL=C:\WINDOWS\USERDATA\INDEX.DAT WININIT.INI will delete index.dat when you reboot. Windows will create a new index.dat file but the old one and all the data it contains will be gone.
  2. piikea: If speed improvement is what you want then you really need to upgrade the CPU. Socket 423 P4's were made up to 2GHz. A second hand one should not be that expensive. It will certainly give you more of a speed boost than the RAM upgrade did. If you recall when it was first released, the 1.4GHz P4 with RDRAM benchedmarked slower than the P3 1.3GHz Tualatin with SDRAM. I remember when I upgraded my old P3 550MHz from 128MB RAM to 256MB and eventually to 384MB. When I went from 128MB to 256MB there was less swap file activity and it was easier on the hard drive, and I could open larger files, but the additional 128MB bringing it to 384MB was barely noticable. Overall I would say the extra RAM gave an increase in "performance" but not "speed". I did not see the speed gains I had imagined until I replaced the P3 550MHz Katmai with a P3 850Mhz Coppermine. I recently got for a computer for free with a 2.66GHz P4. 98SE runs really fast on it with only 256MB of RAM, certainly a lot faster than a 1GHz P3 with 512MB of RAM. When Win98 was first released a lot of computers we sold with only 64MB of RAM. An additional 64MB would increase performance and make it run "faster" but only because 64MB really wasn't enough RAM for Win98 to run very well in the first place. Adding RAM can improve speed but only to a point.
  3. It won't run, plus almost all of it's MS-DOS tools won't work(As they are tied to MS-DOS 8.00). I suppose ME's DOS tools would also have to be replaced by those from 98SE or perhaps an ME beta. Even so there is no guarantee they would work then either. I am going to have to give this whole idea more thought. I have a few ME betas to play with though perhaps they are too ME-like, not early enough in the transition of 98SE to ME. I'll install them first to see how they are put together before I put too much time into trying to replace DOS 8.0 with 7.1. Thank you sp193. Your comments have been very valuable.
  4. Yeah, I remember there was a patch that would allow ME users to boot into DOS. From a practical point of view there is no need to go further than that. However I had been giving some thought to whether replacing DOS 8.0 with 7.1 (along with the correct files from 98SE) would restore the "Restart in MS-DOS mode" option to the Windows shutdown dialog box. I believe there are some files missing from the root directory in WinMe, Config.sys and Autoexe.bat. I recall reading that even if those files were copied to the root directory manually WinMe would delete them at some point. I have a hunch they are deleted by ME's Wininit.exe. A few months ago I had installed ME without System Restore, PC Health, WMP, Movie Maker, using the customized Setuppp.inf file that is available. Installing some of the updates was problematic but could be done. The OS was more responsive than the standard install. Everything was running well and then the hard drive failed. I can't blame ME for that. I have also been thinking about sourcing files from the beta versions of ME to see if they could be used to make ME more 98SE-like in it's behaviour. The worst thing that could happen is that they won't work. It is too bad MS rushed ME to market. Despite it's bad reputation I think it could be quite a good operating system on the right hardware.
  5. I have been looking through the old posts in the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME forum and there are some questions I can't find answers to. I am wondering if any current or former WinMe users out there have used some of the hacks/mods on MDGx's site? http://www.mdgx.com/me1.htm In particular I am wondering if anyone noticed much in the way of performance or stability improvements by removing System Restore and PcHealth. I figure not having them running in the background all the time should at least speed things up somewhat. The next thing I am wondering about is will WinMe still run if the DOS 8 is replaced with the DOS 7.1 from Win98SE? I suspect that may have been tried before but I don't remember exactly. Third. What is the name of the file that is responsible for the shutdown dialog box in it in Win98SE and ME? I used 98FE from 1999 to 2004, and 98SE from 2004 to the present. I know about 98SE2ME and I know that most people think ME sucks. Nevertheless if anyone has any specific information they would like to share I would appreciate it. Thought I might take ME for a test drive on a spare computer and tinker with it.
  6. WinRAR also insists on extracing every file in the chain. For me the easiest way I have found to extract the contents of CAB files is to use Winzip. Winzip extracts only the contents of the CAB file I am trying to open. If the head end of a file starts in one CAB but continues on into the next CAB Winzip will extract that file as well. If the next CAB in the chain is not present in the same folder Winzip will ask for it. Winzip ignores files that have their head end in the previous CAB but have their tail end in the CAB I am extracting. I still use Winzip 8.1 and I know Winzip 9.0 works the same way. I haven't tried any of the later versions, I think they dropped support for Win9x. (I have been reading through a lot of old posts so bear with me.)
  7. Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Tried out MiTeK EXE Explorer to see if I could reveal the PE timestamps but got Kernel32 page fault errors when I tried to start the program. Hard to know why Microsoft released their files the way they did with older file versions being released with newer OS's and not applying updated versions across the board. I suspect some of it might have been "if it ain't broken don't fix it" or simply the knowledge the they were releasing some stable tried and true files in the hope it would be easier to track down bugs in some of the other updated files being shipped with the OS. I don't have all the service packs for NT4 but SP3 contains yet another "version" of IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.4 weighing in at 96,528 bytes, SP5 has IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.190 at 96,016 bytes, and the version from SP6a 4.0.1381.326 regarded as the last release in the 4.0.1381.xxx line also weighing in at 96,016 bytes. Now it is easier for me to see a clear order of progression from .4 to .6 to .190 to .326. At the end of the day it looks as though they all work in 9x but MS was fussier about IPROP.DLL being upgraded in the NT line than it was in the 9x line. Sometimes MS appears to be sloppy about version numbers. A case in point, L3CODECP.ACM that was distributed with Media Player 10 says it is version 3,3,2,44 in the properties box but the internal version number reads Go figure. ---------------------------------------- On another subject: I was trying to find an unmodded copy of EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 which is said to have come from the IE4SHL95.CAB that shipped with IE4.01 SP2. I have two copies of the official Win 98 SP1 on different magazine discs and and the IE4SHL95.CAB with that release of IE4.01 SP2 contains EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1700. I have also found IE4.01 SP2 on a few servers on the net and their IE4SHL95 cabs also contain 4.72.3612.1700. If anyone knows where I can find the intact IE4SHL95.CAB file with 4.72.3612.1710 please point me to it. Thanks,
  8. I'm not sure.These are the ones I have [using getver.exe = http://lbrisar.htmlplanet.com/e_cmd32.html#getver]: IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.326 stamp 11-18-1999 96016 Bytes = from WinNT4 SP6a IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.4 stamp 6-8-2000 110592 Bytes = from WinME CD-ROM [identical with the 1 from Win98 SE CD-ROM] IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.6 stamp 8-20-1997 96016 Bytes = from DCOM98 If 326 is considered greater than 4 [as in 004] or than 6 [as in 006], you're right, 326 is newest. [?] But if 6 [as in 600] is considered greater than 326, the 1 from official DCOM98 is newest. [?] So which way is the right way? Does anybody have any ideas how this actually works? Thanks in advance. I have been looking into the IPROP.DLL situation in part because I recently installed DCOM98 onto a 98SE computer and was confused about the best version to keep. I extracted fresh copies of IPROP.DLL from 98FE, 98SE, and ME cab files. While all three copies of IPROP.DLL are all the same size and have the same version number 4.0.1381.4 they are NOT identical. I compared them using a hex editor and all three files have numerous differences in their hex values. Looks like a couple of hundred differences between IPROP.DLL from 98SE and ME, fewer when comparing the ones from 98SE to 98FE. I next wanted to look at IPROP.DLL from Win95 ORS2.0 but to my surprise was not found in the Win95 cab files. I then checked an ORS2.5 CD and again IPROP.DLL was not found in the Win95 cab files. However I did find IPROP.DLL inside the IE4_S2.CAB and the version number was 4.0.1381.6 size=96,016 bytes. The same version number and size as the one from DCOM98.EXE. However once again the two files had numerous hex differences and were not identical. Then I compared IPROP.DLL from DCOM95 and DCOM98 it turns out they are absolutely identical. I checked the IE3.01 installer on the Win95 ORS2.0 CD and there was no IPROP.DLL inside. It looks as though the inclusion of IPROP.DLL in IE4 was because it was one of the files installed during the OSR2.0 to OSR2.5 upgrade that occured when IE4 was installed. I am leaning toward IPROP.DLL from ME being the correct version to use with 98SE2ME instead of the version from the official DCOM98.EXE or the WinNT4 SP6a version that is included in the UNofficial DCOM98 update despite the apparently higher version numbers. The ME and 98SE versions of IPROP.DLL are not identical and the ME version was released later. Curious footnote on IPROP.DLL in DCOM98, IPROP.DLL is not included in the file list in the release notes (relnt98.txt) inside the DCOM98.EXE installer. One can only wonder why?
  9. I wanted to see if it was really necessary to mod two of the strings or whether one was enough. The first one occurs at hex offset: 00080D40. I changed the "4.90.3000" to "4.10.2222" in USER.EXE and installed it. No change, the version number in the System Properties dialog box still read "4.90.3000 A". On the second try I changed the second incidence at hex offset: 00083220 from "4.90.3000" to "4.10.2222" and left the first one unchanged. When I installed it the version number in the System Properties dialog box read the correct 98SE version number 4.10.2222 A. It is only necessary to mod the second one. There are quite a few other strings where the second incidence of the version number occurs so it looks as though its function is purely cosmetic. Don't know about the first one though. As I was looking at the System dialog box with the correct 98SE version number I thought it doesn't look right somehow given the fact that I replaced so many of the 98SE file with those of WinMe. So I modded the WinMe USER.EXE again this time to "4.10.3000" in keeping with the spirit of the 98SE2ME project. The version number now appears as "4.10.3000 A" in the System Properties dialog box on my computers. If I decide later to install Option 3 with its more WinMe-like interface I'll mod USER.EXE again so the version number reads "4.90.2222 A". A nice touch I think.
  10. I did install option 3...So do you I reccomend I keep my system unable to view shutdown logos if option 3 is installed? It's all up to you, whichever you prefer...1. see the logos when you shut down Windows or 2. keep the features installed by 98SE2ME option 3 [and the rest of WinME files]. P.S.: IMHO: I keep the WinME files, I don't care about any wait-to-shut-down +/- shut-down logos, the only logo I want to see is the startup/bootup logo [C:\LOGO.SYS], which is not affected by the WinME USR*.* files. HTH For what it's worth, I used Win 98 FE for six years and only ever saw LOGOW.SYS flashed on the screen very briefly a handful of times. I usually only saw LOGOS.SYS. When I finally got around to installing 98SE I did a clean install and have never seen either LOGOW.SYS or LOGOS.SYS appear on the screen despite having installed both of the official 98SE shutdown patches, and that was BEFORE I installed USER.EXE from WinMe. When the computer powers down the screen just goes black and that's it. Now I have two computers running 98SE and it's the same story with both of them, no LOGO files on shutdown even though they are installed. Both are Gateways, one with a 440BX motherboard and the other with a i810e chipset. Some systems just seem to work that way.

  • Create New...