LoneCrusader

The issue here is NOT the "inclusion" of various packages. It's whether or not those packages install by default or by user choice.

Granted. But Microsoft also does not include every single hodgepodge update or installable package that exists for a given OS.

To a point. This is supposed to be a Service Pack for Windows 98 SE. Go to far down the "take it or leave it" or "add everything" paths and it is no longer a Service Pack, but rather "PROBLEMCHYLD's Windows 98 SE Customizer."

The Microsoft versions of these files are different from the Adaptec versions. They are NOT 100% compatible, so therefore in some cases are NOT an upgrade.

I can confirm that, not directly with storage devices but with USB2 controller drivers. One of my machines had the Orangware/Intel USB2 drivers installed before I installed NUSB. Even though I removed them from the Device Manager to install NUSB, when the machine rebooted, it reloaded the Orangeware drivers for the USB2 controller instead of the NUSB ones.

+1 This business is not helpful to anyone or the community as a whole. We have precious few enough members as it is, there is no point to this argument. I see both sides of this, and I think it's a shining example of why I don't like and don't use unofficial Service Packs. What some people want and find important others do not want at all, and vice versa. I believe, as PROBLEMCHYLD does, that NUSB should be considered a "main update" and I would prefer that to having a myriad of different drivers for the same types of devices. However, that's just my opinion and I also sympathize with jds at the inclusion of something unwanted. There is no perfect solution. @PROBLEMCHYLD Accept that people are going to complain and criticize your decisions. You opened yourself up to this when you took over the project. Be careful when you ask others for input, because if you get input that you don't like, then you're not going to be happy and your users aren't going to be happy when you choose not to take their suggestions. @jds Accept that PROBLEMCHYLD has no desire to modify his package the way you want it. If you want to use it, then delete the USB2 and USB Storage files after installing it. I have not looked into the packages but you should also be able to build a custom version of the installer with IEXPRESS or use ResHacker to edit the .CAB inside the installer and remove the files & INF references you don't want.

Using RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch 7.0. The thread jaclaz linked contains all of the relevant info for running 9x with more than 512MB of RAM.

I assume you meant a Level 50 archer? That does suck... I know how long it takes to achieve that.

Some of us who prefer the original icons also don't use the service pack, and you told us not to respond. Just kidding, no offense intended.

Welcome to MSFN See this thread in regard to >512MB of RAM issues, and I believe you already found rloew's homepage for the SATA drive issues, but here's the address anyhow: http://rloew1.no-ip.com

I don't know how to test this, I had the help of someone far more knowledgeable about such things than myself, but I'll throw in a few bits of information that I learned during my search for a USB2 stack that could be used with Windows 95 OSR2. (Sadly no success as yet, but it may not be "impossible.") There may be differences in the way that supposedly identical WDM driver functions behave between different versions of Windows. Even a function that has the same name and is present in both Windows versions may behave differently or expect different conditions on each version. You all seem to be lucky in the fact that USB3 drivers became more complex as time went on. Some of the earlier USB2 stacks I found and examined seemed to be more complex than the final release versions. (Or at least they were missing more WDM functions on Win9x than the later ones...)

No problem. I need to be in bed myself, lol.

5.0.2195.6881 Apparently comes from KB831375. I'm getting the HotFixes that contain the later versions of the other files now.

I was just in the process of collecting those files in case I decide to experiment. I seem to have a later version of AUTOCHK.EXE, but earlier versions of all the others. (I'm using my own Win2K Pro Slipstreamed CD with SP1+SP2+SP3+SP4+UR1.)

Good choice with Win2K files IMO. Windows 2000 is "closer" to Win98 than XP or later, while the earlier NT4 files may not properly recognize/support the later versions of NTFS. Still interested.

I also find this icon replacement business very annoying. Use EXPLORER.EXE from inside NUSB and SHELL32.DLL from Q313829 to restore the original 98 Icons. You will also need to delete the "ShellIconCache" file from DOS or another OS after replacing these files.

+1

Ah, that's what I meant. As you said, not a lot in the way of naming variety though, heh. Given the fact that the "commercial" version is no longer available, and the current owners of it probably wish it had never existed and want it to disappear... I wonder how difficult it would be to achieve the same level of NTFS support...

Interesting. I was unaware of the third Avira utility, although I may have heard of it and forgotten. I was referring to Winternals "NTFS for Windows 98" rather than "NTFS4DOS" so I suppose technically there are four utilities. This being the case, I would think it should be possible to achieve an equivalent level of functionality if one could just figure out how to get those files loaded and working properly... Thanks for the info, jaclaz.

As far as I know, (someone correct me if I am wrong, I am not very familiar with this subject) both of the "utilities" for using NTFS on Windows 98 use files from later versions of Windows to actually access the NTFS drives. This being the case, the only "unknown" is how to get them loaded and working. Anyone up to trying to figure it out?

I've never used ME on a regular basis, only installed it a couple of times to play with it. But, I did do something useful with it. I visited Windows Update with a fresh vanilla install of Windows ME, made a list of the updates, and downloaded them not long before Windows Update went down. I have also collected several HotFixes to be slipstreamed when I have time to work on Windows ME. (98SE and 95C come first here, sorry ME lovers. ) @PROBLEMCHYLD I don't know what is in the ME Service Pack or what isn't, but if you find an update that you need and can't locate, let me know and I'll see if I have it archived. Or, if you get a complete list of the updates, I will see if I have anything else that is not on it.

No problem. We're all on the same side here. We just all have different ways of tackling problems, and different lists of priorities about what issues should receive attention & time invested for experiments.

Which WinME files are you referring to that are no better than 98 files? If you're referring to those in NUSB, lets break it down: Windows ME files from NUSB: No 98 equivalent: USBMPHLP.PDR USBNTMAP.INF USBSTOR.INF USBNTMAP.SYS USBSTOR.SYS USBAUTH.SYS Added to solve a specific bug in the 98 version: DISKTSD.VXD CDVSD.VXD Added to allow the use of XP USBCCGP.SYS: OPENHCI.SYS UHCD.SYS USBD.SYS USBHUB.SYS USB.INF (98SE + ME info edited in) Windows 2000 files in NUSB: No 98 equivalent: USB2.INF USBPORT.SYS USBEHCI.SYS USBHUB20.SYS Windows XP file in NUSB: No 98 equivalent; WinME version bugged; no Win2K equivalent: USBCCGP.SYS All of these files were added for a specific purpose, either to solve an existing bug, or to add previously unavailable functionality. Windows ME files ARE "better" and preferable to those from 2K/XP+ when/if they can be used to add something or solve something, simply because they are from the 9x codebase!

Which means, if the files don't work I will NOT add them. Self Explanatory We know that you wont add any problem files to the SP. I admire you for your efforts and willingness to experiment with all of these newer files. I share your desire to "improve Win98." But changing something just for the sake of changing it (i.e. a file is newer, but does nothing different) is not always an improvement, and in the case of transplanting driver files between two different OS architectures, not a good idea when there is nothing to be gained.

I don't think any of us are saying that. If there is some new or improved functionality to be gained by adding a Windows ME/2K/XP/Vista or whatever version file to Windows 98, then by all means add them. But there are other things to be considered if a newer file does not actually add functionality. The Windows 98/ME USB driver stack was written for Windows 9x and with the underlying DOS in mind. I would hazard a guess that the 2K/XP USB USB driver stacks do not know what to do with or do not recognize a USB Keyboard or Mouse during the DOS\9x startup process, so they never get loaded. If the 2K/XP USB driver stack provided some new functionality or improvement, such as the Win2K USB2 drivers, then we should use them. But if the 2K/XP USB1 stack doesn't do anything that the 98/ME stack already does, then we only take a risk that it will not work as well as the original because it was not designed for 9x to begin with. Windows ME is the only exception to this IMO, because it is actually a direct update to the 9x codebase. Windows ME is good for something - for updating 98SE.