LoneCrusader

Ok, that's cool. I fully support "personalization" but I prefer it be left up to each user. Some Icons I update on my own 98SE, some I don't, etc etc. As long as there is a "bare minimum" modification version in existence before other changes are made, I'm happy.

So this version only has two changes - remove the WS_VISIBLE style and rebuild the CDROM icon, right? Now eXeScope is reporting bogus sizes and color depths for the CDROM icon. - all sizes reported are "rectangles" not "squares" and it claims they are all 4 or 8 colors. I have frequently seen icon depths "out of order" on other 9x files, why would it be causing a problem now? Please no. Why does someone always have to "personalize" these things? Not everyone wants their icons or their bitmaps changed. Why can't we just get a simple, plain version with no changes other than the ME specific tools and "styles" hidden and the 98SE "General" tab restored (all of which is already accomplished by my first linked version except hiding the "Disable System Restore" option) before someone starts personalizing it?

Here's another copy with all of the Dialog sizes edited to exactly match the 98SE version. (I open 3 windows of eXeScope, one with the 98 version, one with the copy I'm actually editing, and one with the ME version so I can always see what is different and what the original setting was.) The Troubleshooting Dialog is of course messed up in this copy because of the size edits. But, a minimum patch to this copy should result in a Dialog exactly like the 98SE one. EDIT: Removed old link.

Good job, looks like you successfully eliminated the Disable System Restore option ..But too many changes at once If you change the size of the group box for that dialog, you must also shorten it for the "Hard Disk" Floppy Disk" "CD-ROM" and "Removable Disk" dialogs as well, because now they are all truncated at the bottom. I had planned to just hide the option, making the absolute minimum changes necessary to get a 98SE-correct version. Then later mods would be up to users. Edit: Also noticed that somehow the CDROM Icon on the CDROM dialog is messed up somehow. Don't know what would cause that. I do agree that the dialogs should be shortened to be equal to the 98SE version. I just like to do things one step at a time and test each step. It took me 3 versions to get to the one I posted.

eXeScope is the only tool I have that will open SYSDM.CPL so I'm limited to what it allows me to do I can't edit the text, unless I tried directly hex-editing it... Repositioning might work, if one could make sense of the positioning coordinates for the other options. Many of them are negative. I can't resize the box because it doesn't seem to be treated as a text box. A bit over my head, I'm no programmer. eXeScope has a checkbox for "Visible" on this item, but it's already not checked by default. (Tried this because it worked for the slider bar on the other dialog.) Thanks for the help guys.. any more ideas?

I have modified the Windows ME SYSDM.CPL 4.90.3001 to correct a few cosmetic errors when it is used under 98. Not perfect yet, but what I have changed so far seems fine. Need some testers and maybe someone can fix the one thing I've not been able to? Changes so far: - Fixed the General tab under System to show "98" and "Second Edition" instead of "Me" - Removed System Restore disk space slider bar from the File System / Hard Disk dialog. - Fixed all Strings to read "Windows 98" instead of "Windows Millennium Edition" What needs fixing: - Remove "Disable System Restore" option from the Troubleshooting tab. (everything I've tried messes up the rest of the Dialog) Comments anyone? EDIT: Removed old link.

Had about 6 inches of very wet snow here. Thankfully the power stayed on, but my internet has been out all day. At least it's back now

I extracted the package with Universal Extractor on an XP machine. submix8c is right, all of the .INF files have "Signature="$Windows NT$"" and the package makes no mention of 9x/ME anywhere inside. However... It looks like all this package (and the last working package for 9x) contains is a bunch of .INF and .CAT files. Unless I'm missing something here, all one should have to do is modify the .INF's to be 9x-compatible (as xrayer has done), because the only purpose they are serving is to specifically identify the devices on the motherboard. I'm not seeing any .SYS files or the like that would require Windows 2K/XP for compatibility. The real problem would seem to be finding drivers for video, sound, ethernet, and other integrated devices that actually have driver files other than .INF's. (Or am I REALLY missing something here?? )

IMO there should be two separate categories here. One for "working" hardware that can run, but doesn't have a full set of drivers, and another for "compatible" hardware that has a full set of drivers. I would consider having to use the VBE9X driver a serious limitation. It's a good driver, and has many uses, but the lack of being able to use non-full screen DOS boxes is an irritating problem. (Sorry I don't have more to add at the moment guys, I need to see if I have any hardware laying around that uses these chipsets and find the time to do some testing. I've been content to build all of my 9x systems with 845/865/875 chipsets so I haven't looked into the issue before.)

Examine SHELL32.DLL with Resource Hacker. I don't know what would cause the particular condition you've found, but you can examine the Shortcut Arrow Bitmap in the .DLL and see if it has been altered...

Adding the ME USB 1.1 stack enables the use of USBCCGP.SYS. (Remember RetroOS's USB Composite Device experiment?) However, if changing the USB 1.1 stack is going to cause widespread problems, then it is best to revert back to using the updated 98SE stack. Using the ME stack can be reserved to use in specific situations only, or can be added during a fresh install as I outlined above if desired.

Hmmm... Well, I do have an idea that should solve the issues at hand and keep you from having to remove all of the USB updates. (rloew please comment on this and confirm whether or not it should work ) Replacing the USB 1.1 drivers seems to be causing this issue. If you revert back to the Windows 98SE USB Updates/HotFixes for USB 1.1 WITHOUT using the Windows ME USB 1.1 stack (back to NUSB 3.3) and remove my combined USB.INF, then users should not have to remove USB 1.1 devices & controllers and should not have this problem. Having the updated 98SE HotFix versions is better than having no USB updates at all, and this would prevent you from having to remove the USB2 and USB Storage files. If users want to use the ME USB 1.1 stack then they will have to have PS2 Keyboards & Mice, or they will have to put the combined USB.INF & ME USB stack in their \WIN98 folder when doing a clean install. (This would override the 98SE versions from the beginning, leaving no errors from changing them later.)

Try this package. I can't say for sure that it supports that particular chip, but I believe it does. I once tried to install Windows 98SE on a Compaq computer that had this particular motherboard for a friend of mine. It was a nightmare. At the time, I was never able to get everything working correctly, but it's been so long ago I don't remember what the problem was.

Technically there's no reason they could not be left as an option, provided an appropriate warning NOT to choose that option if you use USB Keyboards & Mice is given. Just for the record.

I believe that if you copy the drivers to the same folder as SETUP & the .CAB files, then the installation will find and use the drivers. This is how it works for updated HotFix files (ones outside the .CAB's will be used instead of those inside) but I've never tested it with drivers.

Thats your problem, you think too much with that simpleton brain of yours. Stop thinking and learn something for a change. Nice. Have a nice day!

If all of us followed the instructions we would be running Windows 7. If all of us followed the instructions then we would have burned our Windows 9x hardware and software and be singing the praises of Microsoft. If jds prefers to use his Intel USB2 drivers, then he has every right to, regardless of what you think about it. And the instructions are irrelevant here. He did not get any errors from his "lack of following them." He simply requested that a part of the SP be made optional, and you got mad about it. End of story. I think I've made my point.

So, if you call should asking then I was totally wrong. I'm not referring to the ASPI layer business. You didn't attack jds for that. You attacked him for making the USB request. Here it is: (emphasis mine)

You still don't get it either. It's not about what decisions YOU make with YOUR own project, it's your attitude toward other people that have posted here that I have a problem with. Jumping down jds's throat because he made a request, and this "person A will receive updates but person B won't" business is extremely childish. And how was jds "not being considerate of others" by asking that something be made optional? It's not like he asked for it to be removed! I just said that it isn't up to you to create the "missing" patches. If someone creates them, great. If not, then too bad. All I said was that there should be options for the ones that ALREADY exist.

When I have spoken up in this thread it has usually been to help or to give information. The only reason I have interjected myself this time is because of your attitude toward jds. (And believe me I now wish I had just stayed out of it.) jds DOES, or DOES WANT to use your package, and has contributed to the project, and made a request based upon your previous statements about "suggestions" and "compromise." You in turn flew off the handle at him, and accused him of whining. A simple "no thanks, I believe NUSB should remain mandatory" would have sufficed. It IS your project, but there is no need to attack people who make requests or suggestions, especially when you asked for them! Under certain conditions I might use or recommend the use of a Service Pack. I personally have no need of it because I can slipstream the updates that I want. But I have tried to help make it better for others, and I have spoken for others who couldn't be bothered to post, or didn't bother to post at the risk of being treated like you treated jds.

It's really not that hard. You simply have the original MS version install by default and have a nice little checkbox for "Install Patched SHELL32.DLL & EXLPORER.EXE (Bugfix + Updated Icons, Removed Shortcut Arrows)." If checked, the MS version will be overwritten by the MDGx version. If someone wants to bother with creating a bugfixed version without the other modifications, then great, add it, but if not, then users can choose between the two options. I'm not suggesting that you fill all the gaps yourself. Yes, they are lazy. But I would be d*mned irritated if a Windows XP Service Pack forced me to install IE7, or IE8, or WMP10, or WMP11, or the .NET framework, or some other rubbish, just because they feel I should. There's good reason for only including system updates that do not change the look, feel, or overall operation of the OS, and there's good reason for not bundling all updates and all installers. If it breaks something while fixing something then there should be a clear warning about whatever is breaks, and an option to not install whatever update does the breaking. It all comes back to OPTIONS. I said plenty about SP2 in other threads. It was not under active development though, where your current version is. Nowhere did I say it was OK to create a bug, so no, I don't think you get it at all. I have tried to be even handed in this and see both sides of the issues. But your attitude keeps driving me over to the other side. I respect your right to have your project the way you want it, but you're asking for it when you say you're willing to compromise or that you want input and then get mad when people want something changed or give input you don't like. If you keep acting they way you are about it, then sooner or later you will have no one willing to help you. For the record, I never personally asked for anything to be changed, because I don't use the SP. I have tried to help in whatever small ways I can though, because I like to see any development for Windows 9x succeed. jds contributed to the project as well, in more ways that I did, and he did not deserve the rude manner in which you responded to his request.

Oh no, don't put words in my mouth. I believe I said "bugfixes" should be installed. KERNEL32 is a bugfix. The patched SHELL32 contains bugfixes, but also contains "personal" modifications. (Icon changes, removal of Shortcut Arrow, etc). SHELL32 with BUGFIXES only should be installed by default. If you want a version with the other mods, it should be an OPTION. Basically all MS HotFixes and unofficial BUGFIXES should be installed by default. But when you get into the realm of "I like this icon better than the other one, so I will include it," or "I want the shortcut arrows gone, so I will include it," or "I use KernelEx, so I will include it," it has gone beyond a Service Pack. jds wanted the USB updates to be optional. I believe, as PROBLEMCHYLD does, that they should be included in the "HotFixes/Bugfixes" category, because there is nothing to be lost by using them. I sympathize with jds on this one, but don't agree. However, when it comes to the ASPI layer, the Adaptec files and MS files are NOT 100% compatible. So in this situation jds is right.

I just said that Gape's SP pushes the limits of "Service Pack" as well. I see no need to break down and itemize the differences. The point is, that the boundaries have already been pushed. Don't push them any further. Anything added should be optional.

Not by the current established format they have been using. Of course they have a habit of changing things, so there's no guarantee what applies today will apply tomorrow. Not quite. Gape's project existed first so he has first claim to the name. I do agree that Gape's SP pushed the bounds of "Service Pack" as well though. Several things were included that I think should not be, and one of those is still an issue now. (The Icons.) Also Gape had some stipulations that have gone by the wayside in PROBLEMCHYLD's version. For example, Gape had a policy of not adding any files from Windows ME. This is no longer the case. While I personally believe that's a good change, that's just one person's opinion.

Also granted. But that wasn't what I meant to imply. My point does back to what I said about this project being a Service Pack. If it remains a system update that installs bugfixes or corrects issues on a wide range of systems, then it's great and it deserves the "Service Pack" title. But, if it goes into the realm of installing every single installable package for 98SE and customizing the system according to what one person or a group of people think it should be, then it should no longer be called a "Service Pack."