jds

I also had problems after the post 10 update : SAP GUI for Java client produced : JAVAW caused an exception 03H in module KERNEL32.DLL at 0187:bff768a1. Registers: EAX=c0030900 CS=0187 EIP=bff768a1 EFLGS=00000246 EBX=00000000 SS=018f ESP=1845e578 EBP=1845e5ac ECX=ffffff64 DS=018f ESI=7813221e FS=4f2f EDX=00000000 ES=018f EDI=00000000 GS=0000 Bytes at CS:EIP: c3 cc cc 55 8b ec 56 57 68 c0 d4 fc bf e8 01 d9 Stack dump: 78132236 01d7dfc2 00000000 78130000 81da92d4 0000000a 00000004 1845e57c 1845e390 1845e774 78138ced 61897136 fffffffe 1845e784 78132348 78130000 OO 3.2.1 (opening an XLSX file) produced : Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime Library Runtime Error! Program .....\SCALC.EXE R6034 An application has made an attempt to load the C runtime library incorrectly. Please contact the application's support team for more information. Joe.

When other approaches leave behind files of unknown integrity, calculate their MD5 and search the web for this. In most cases, the MD5 of executable files including DLL's will be recorded somewhere on the 'net, either from some site offering them for download, or some site that has performed a scan for malware on them. If the MD5 shows up, either someone has the exact same corrupt file (extremely unlikely) or it's good. Joe.

Because anyone who uses the core files shouldn't be using IE. We had members in the past report problems with this issue. You can't install Office with out IE. I though the bug only applied to Outlook 2002 is why I added it back. I probably will remove IE6 core files because IE5 core files are more stable and solid. It also will shave off approximately 4mb and some change. If you don't plan on using IE as browser, then IE5 cores is the best solution IMO. Why not simply bundle the good version 6.00.2800.1106 DLL instead of the bad version 6.0.2800.1599? Joe.

This looks way cool, jumper! Does this now supersede the previous 'NetApiEx' stuff? : https://www.msfn.org/board/topic/154868-importpatcher-find-and-fix-dependency-problems/?do=findComment&comment=995632 https://www.msfn.org/board/topic/154868-importpatcher-find-and-fix-dependency-problems/?do=findComment&comment=995699 https://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145252-netapi32dll-latest-version-for-win-98-is/?do=findComment&comment=995828 Joe.

You mean, how its in big red bold letters on the homepage and the size is 58 (MB)Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.2 I'm not sure what you are asking. I think is everything is fine the way it is. When a new update is release, then the headline becomes Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.3 When you download updates from Microsoft, do you ask them for the exact size of their files? I think what he wants is to identify what beta version is on his HD, hence the request for the exact file size. However, just to check if the version on his HD is up-to-date, he can simply compare its date on the HD (which corresponds to the download date) against the date given on the main SP page. Related to this, the only quibble is that the date format on the SP page is in US format, which can be ambiguous whenever the day field is less than 13. You might consider using the Japanese format, since this has no ambiguity between the day and month fields. Anyway, onto more important matters ... I see you still bundle 'MLANG.DLL' version 6.0.2800.1599. Please avoid this or any other version beyond 6.00.2800.1106 (actually, that's the only 6.X version I know of that is designed to work properly on W98). They are all afflicted by the "Outlook 2000 may not display a complete HTML message" bug, which was first reported for version 6.0.2600.0 here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318256 Joe.

Seems to me that if you go down that road, and I would like to see that, that KernelEx and ALL the files that are "For KernelEx Systems only" should be ONE single option. That way the folks that want a more "pure" solution can have that, and the folks that want a more expanded solution could have that with a group of files that have been tested to all work together correctly with the basic 98 SE SP 3.x files. Any more fine tuning of which files to include and which to leave out puts too much of a burden and workload on PROBLEMCHYLD. A single all or nothing kind of option only. For anything else the user can choose not to select the option and then add in the individual files that they want. Cheers and Regards Just my 2c worth ... I think that instead of having a KEX option in the SP, there should just be the standard SP (say SP3.1) and a KEX update (say SP3.1KEX). This will minimize bloat and hopefully make the workload easier. The KEX update SP would provide all the newest DLL's that need KEX to run, and have the standard SP (of the same series, eg 3.1) as a prerequisite (to avoid duplication/bloat). Joe.

See here for quick/brief details on using USB : The Adaptec driver(s) are available here : http://download.adaptec.com/scsi/dos/dosdrvr.exe The Panasonic USB drivers have moved to here : http://panasonic.jp/com/support/drive/archive/f2h/f2h_usb.exe Joe.

For completeness (up to this date), note that there was a bit more discussion on this issue in postings 34-39 of the following thread : (Also note that due to editing, not all material in those postings is in chronological order.) Joe.

Hi PC, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean, should this go into the 98SESP3+, then the answer is probably not. This update seems specific to Outlook 2000, although it might also work for older versions and Exchange client, if that still exists. Aside from the 'exchcsp.dll' version 5.5.3151.1, I think this update may also make some registry changes. BTW, Outlook 2002/XP has 'exchcsp.dll' version 10.0.2327, FWIW. Joe.

I've just discovered another 128 bit update, this one's for Outlook 2000 : http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=17576 It says it's for Outlook 2000 SR1, I have Outlook 2000 SP3, yet the DLL in this update (exchcsp.dll) was newer than mine. Basically, you run the update, wait a couple of seconds, then reboot (no dialogue is produced, so you're left wondering what to do). Joe.

Hey, great find, jaclaz! I didn't realize these olde 8" floppies had 128 byte and 1024 byte sectors! Well, the 128 byte and 1024 byte sectors in the above KB are from the time of MS-DOS 1.0 and 2.0, which was pretty much (if not completely) the pre-hard-disk era. So the BIOSes of the time (especially the original IBM one) must have been able to boot with these now-obscure/defunct sector sizes. Joe.

Again, did you found for sure that it came from the Revolutions Pack? Absolutely sure. I installed it (supposedly just the resource/stability fixes) on two machines, and experienced the problem with both. Others here have reported the same issue. Now at least, I've found a way to effect a repair. Joe.

Hurray! I've finally found a solution to the broken taskbar caused by RP, it's 'IEradicator2001a.exe' (don't forget to export your IE Favourites, if applicable)! Joe.

I had a little problem with Excel from Office 2000 crashing whenever I opened any link to an XLS document in Opera (ie. a web page link to an XLS document). The solution is to disable KernelEx for the 'MSO9.dll' file. Joe.

Loblo, now that I've been able to try WinGauge on a number of occasions, I can confirm what you say. With my settings for GDIMaxHeapSize, it's always the 16 bit GDI or User resources that run out when W98 leaks. Joe.

BINGO! Thank you!!! That did the trick, W98 and Vista machines can now see each other. I had tried enabling NetBIOS for IPv4 on the Vista laptop previously, but other settings have probably changed since then (I'll have to try remembering what). I now have bidirectional access to files between my W98 laptop and my Vista laptop. I have unidirectional access between my W98 desktop and my Vista laptop (can access the W98 files from Vista, I'll need to investigate why it's not reciprocal as with the W98 laptop). Of course, I also have bidirectional access between the W98 desktop and W98 laptop (that's nothing new). Joe. PS#1. Correction : Further testing reveals that bidirectional communications between either W98 machine and the Vista laptop is problematic. Accessing anything from the Vista laptop on the W98 machines is unbelievably slow and sometimes results in an error, no doubt due to some internal timeouts. Accessing data from the W98 machines on the Vista laptop works normally. PS#2. One of the changes made to the Vista configuration was in registry key HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa : "LmCompatibilityLevel"=dword:00000001 Other values I may have changed in the same registry key : "NoLmHash"=dword:00000000 "disabledomaincreds"=dword:00000000 "restrictanonymous"=dword:00000000

If the W98 desktop isn't broadcasting itself, how come the W98 laptop can see it? Unfortunately, this and every other suggestion in this thread hasn't worked. I can ping between the machines, use FTP or HTTP server & client software; currently I'm experimenting with TeamViewer 6. Joe.

Did you miss that part? No. The point is that this Vista can see a router which isn't a Windoze machine, doesn't have any LLDR patch, isn't part of a workgroup and doesn't have anything to share, yet it doesn't see (or pretends not to see) a W98 machine which, although it doesn't have an LLDR patch (because none is available), meets all the other requirements! Joe.

Nope. I don't have any problem of a missing Network Neighbourhood icon. The stupid thing is that the Vista laptop shows the wireless router, which it can't share anything with/from (and which doesn't belong to the workgroup), but not the W98 machine. However, if I replace the Vista laptop with a W98 one, all the networking & sharing stuff works just fine, so the W98 PC configuration isn't to blame. Joe.

BTW, in case it's relevant, the version of Vista on this laptop is called "Home Premium". Anyway, I've just tried again to find out why this thing won't network in either direction with the W98 PC and it may be this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_Layer_Topology_Discovery There's a patch for XP which is KB922120, but nothing for W98. Joe.

Well, as the Finepix software installs its own PTP driver, I suspect your camera would work this way withouth installing WIA. If WIA really is working, you should be able to access it via the "Scanner and Camera Wizard" (in Start/Programs/Accessories). When you tested, did you have WPDUSB9X.SYS on the system? It seems like the two DLL files has gotten us a step closer. We can probably just use your combined MTPPTP.INF files with the two DLL files and go from there PTPUSB.DLL 4.90.3000.0 PTPUSD.DLL 4.90.3000.0 Well, unfortunately, I can't test this stuff at the moment. I've since restored my system from Ghost backups and am WIA-free once again. Perhaps later, when my wife regains her patience (it's her Fujifilm camera, mine's a Panasonic and works via mass storage). Joe.

Not really. Just the other day I needed to bootstrap a system that wouldn't even do Safe Mode. I simply took a minimal boot diskette and copied two driver files into a suitable directory (to keep the root directory neat and tidy) and then created the following 'config.sys' file (the first few lines are probably unnecessary, I just cut down an existing file) : BREAK=ON BUFFERS=30 FILES=45 LASTDRIVE=Z FCBS=16,16 REM - Panasonic's universal USB-controller driver (formerly Novac) device=A:\USB.DRV\USBASPI.SYS /v /w REM - Adaptec's ASPI disk driver (supports partition table) device=A:\USB.DRV\aspidisk.sys Now I simply connected a USB hub (because this greatly improves compatibility with various Flash drives) and plugged a Flash drive into that. So all it takes is a boot/recovery floppy with a little space for the two driver files and a simple 'config.sys'. Note the trick about using a USB hub, although a few (not many) hubs are incompatible with the Panasonic driver, so it helps to have a couple of different types in case their compatibility is unknown. Joe.

To me, "Combined" implies "Hey, I'll support IDE emulation or native SATA, whichever you prefer". So it may be operating in two different modes for the two O/S. Joe.

Or a virus (eg., perhaps those images are also infected). BTW, what're the chances that Symantec Anti-virus can't scan Symantec Ghost images? Joe.

Why not rename it as 'xpdll.dll'? Joe.