LoneCrusader

No. I don't have that one installed on any of my machines. I've considered adding some of those files to my slipstream, but haven't had time to make any progress on that for a while now. Yes, I remember reading that. And I also would like to know what was changed, because I wouldn't use it unless I knew. And I, for one, do not want my Icons updated. Then, by using PEDUMP as described above, getver and dir I compiled this table for the patched versions 1700 and 1710: explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1710 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Mon Feb 08 1999 21:04:25 explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1700 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13 Now, you can get IE4SHL95.CAB from three different sources, AFAIK: IE55SP2, IE55SP1 and IE401SP2. From each you can extract a version of explorer.exe, but you'll find that those from IE55SP2 and IE55SP1 are identical, according to fc /b. So this leaves us with just two different versions, which analysis is the following: explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1700 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Mon Feb 08 1999 21:04:25 from IE401SP2 explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1700 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13 from IE55SP1/2 So far, these are the hard facts. Below is the explanation I concocted that, IMHO, satisfies all known facts. I believe that explorer.exe from IE401SP2, originally versioned as 4.72.3612.1700 *IS* the unmodded original from which modded explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1710 was created, by adding the 256 colors patch and updating some of the icons. Its version was changed to reflect the fact that its compilation date is *newer* than that of the explorer.exe found in IE55SP1/2. A quick and dirty comparison of the relevant files using first eXeScope and then WinHex seems to support my conclusions. So, AFAIK, you already have the file you are looking for. But this is just my opinion... My forensics, at the time, were more thorough than what I implied in the above quote. By now I'm positive the above is the right interpretation of the facts. While this is getting off-topic, I'm glad this came up. A few months ago when I was working on my slipstreaming projects I did some digging around for information on this. My reason was that I had discovered the later-timestamped EXPLORER.EXE inside IE4SHL95.CAB from IE 4.01 SP2. I remember doing an FC ... /B comparison of it versus the earlier-timestamped version. There were many, many differences. I believe MOST of the unofficial updates running around, including NUSB, are still using the earlier-timestamped version. I'll have to do some checking over my notes and see what I found then.

I have seen this before. However, it is an intermittent problem that I cannot reproduce consistently. It only happens when a CD/DVD is loaded, and sometimes ejecting a disc that's already loaded and reloading it will cause this to occur, sometimes not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. That version gets installed by NUSB, which has become "standard equipment" for all of my machines. Actually I think the last "official" version was 4.72.3612.1700 but the 1710 version includes the 256 Color Tray Icons fix... I think there was some discussion of this elsewhere... EDITED 12-22-11 - Reason For Edit: Attempt to correct continuity of split threads.

No problem. I was a bit miffed when I first read it, but after the confusion it just seems rather funny

Yep.. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I thought it was obvious since I quoted the 95-related content beforehand.

It appears to work for both of the Hotfix files as well. Thanks! @dencorso I believe a slight change to this thread's title may now be in order EDITED 12-22-11 - Reason For Edit: Attempt to correct continuity of split threads

For completeness sake, is it possible to get these bugfixes applied to the Windows 95 IO.SYS from Q185301 KB Article HotFix? (I believe that's the last official version for 95, but I'm not at my usual "project machine" so I can't check right now.)

rloew's patches can be found here: R. Loew Electronics Consulting

Same here on all 3 counts!

Agreed, I did not mean that you shouldn't be able to have that feature if you want it. My point was that it must not be possible or "easy" given the fact that it has not already been added to the Revolutions Pack. Taskbar grouping in XP and up can simply be turned off in the taskbar properties, this along with setting ALL of the interface back to "Classic" style is the first thing I do when I sit down at an XP & up machine.

Taskbar grouping has to be one of the top 5 things I HATE most about Windows XP and up I would have thought something like this would have already been included in the Revolutions Pack if it is possible to do so...

Right here Maximus-Decim Native USB Drivers Be sure you get the latest version, 3.5 here. MDGx has not put the latest version on his site yet.

a bit too apodictical for my tastes . I actually spent a fair amount of time researching it myself a while back. I didn't turn up any of these other solutions then; I guess my "Google-fu" isn't as good as yours However, I was taking the approach that I wanted the wheel to be supported by a clean installation, out of the box, by the default driver.. as in 98; so I didn't look into the possibility of using a generic 3rd party driver. I tried using downversioned VXD's from 98 along with the INF file from 98 to no avail. AFAICR at the moment, IntelliPoint loads different VXD's along with a file named MSWHEEL.DLL when installed in 95. Trying to manually install & register these files was unsuccessful. Even after IntelliPoint is installed, if one stops it's process from running in the background, the wheel stops working. Hmmm... Well, I can't speak for this odd mouse you have, but I know IntelliPoint works perfectly for standard wheel mice. Does this mouse along with it's wheel/button/"slide" or whatever it is work out of the box in 98 WITHOUT installing its specific driver?

Yes. I posted that when I was in a hurry I'm glad this subject has come up however, and that you all seem to be finding other solutions besides IntelliPoint. I have been trying unsuccessfully to figure out how to "slipstream" Wheel Mouse support into my 95 project. I tried downversioned 98 files to no avail, and I tried to "rip" what I needed out of IntelliPoint but that doesn't work either. Maybe one of these other approaches could be used.

Thanks Worth noting however that 4.12 will NOT work on 95. It only works in 98 & up. I have IP 4.0 and can upload it somewhere if anyone needs it.

The only way to get a Scroll Wheel working in Windows 95 is to install Microsoft IntelliPoint 4.0. EDIT: Incorrect information struck through. See Post #46.

I use ATi Radeon 8500 128MB's in my Windows 95 boxes. I have an original drivers disc for one from back when 95 was still supported. Later ATi cards may work as well, but it's been a while since I tried experimenting with them. I think I had a 9200 working at one time, but I believe my 9800 XT's had some issues. Note - there will be various errors about missing DLLs, exports, etc etc unless you be sure to install DX8 and several other updates before attempting to install any "newer" drivers. One DLL in particular that installers will complain about is MFC42.DLL. It is contained in the updates or it can be copied from a 98 machine.

Firefox 2.0.0.20 with Java 6 Update 7 and Flash 9.0.289. I have never used KernelEx on any of my real machines. I tried installing it once in a VM and had no text in any menu in Firefox 3. So far I haven't needed anything more than Firefox 2 with the User Agent Switcher installed to do the things I need to do. If you're determined enough you can still force Yahoo to show you the classic version. I don't know for how long, but we can hope. I absolutely despise GMail. I have always hated it, and I will continue to hate it. I can't stand how it combines emails into "conversations" and then you can't get the d@mn things apart again. Edit: Agreed with you about Opera Drugwash, I hate Opera.

Huh? Why? I use Yahoo Mail and I prefer it to Hotmail or Gmail garbage. I don't have any problem accessing it. Of course I refused to allow them to force me to upgrade to their "new" mail. It should work fine at least until they manage to permanently kill the classic version.

Well said jaclaz. I agree. I think USP's should only contain official MS updates in the main install, and if the creator wants to add options for unofficial fixes, special tweaks, and/or program replacements, fine, but they should be strictly optional and not interdependent. My gripe with the 98SE USP is that it makes tweaks that are incompatible with RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch. A test system of mine with both installed was very unstable and did not correctly report the amount of RAM installed. Without the USP, there is no problem. The Windows 95 OSR 2.x USP crashed one of my test systems as well. It seems to be incompatible with my FIX95CPU upgrade which contains only official MS fixes (with the sole exception of RLoew's PTCHCDFS). Agreed. But as you see, not all of us even agree on what is "essential." Many here would deem the USP "essential," whereas I would list it as "to be avoided." I have always found P4-class processors to be extremely fast and reliable, especially when running Windows 9x. Of course I should also point out that all of my P4's are 2.8GHz or faster (except a couple of 2.0 GHz ones I had stockpiled from before I broke the 95 2.1GHz barrier). IMHO, you have not really experienced Windows 9x until you have run it on P4-equivalent hardware. You click and things are done. It's a situation where the hardware is finally fast enough to make the OS fun to use. They make the hardware faster, and Microsoft makes the software slower. It's an endless cycle. I imagine that machines now supposedly designed for Windows 7 would be excellent for running XP. I am most certainly no expert on malware. In all of my computing days, I have only contracted a virus on my home machine once. I do not use Antivirus software, because IMHO, it operates in the same manner as a virus - it slows down my machine and is a real pain to get rid of once installed. My policy is somewhat similar to the one you stated above - I use common sense and don't go to the wrong places or click on the wrong things. I would surmise that the XP problem I described came from something that was embedded into the websites that were displayed as results by Google Image search.

I have seen several people make this request, and I understand where you are coming from. The problem with making such a thread is that not everyone wants the same updates made to their system, not everyone wants the same modifications made, etc etc etc. For example - I regard NUSB as an integral part of any Windows 98 setup. However I do not use and do not recommend the Unofficial Service Pack. Many people love Tihiy's Revolutions Pack, and I greatly admire his ability and his dedication, but I like my Windows 98 GUI just like it is by default. The last thing I want to do to it is disgrace it with some XP lego-look. In fact, if I had to choose between Windows Vista and Windows 7, I would take Vista for one reason - it still has the classic Start menu. And the list goes on. These updates are chosen by personal preference, and some are incompatible with each other or require special tweaking to work together. Simple - you buy RLoew's RAM Lmitation Patch and install it. Problem solved. No trial-and-error. No editing INI files or any such rubbish. No Tweaking. No looking back. As for the CPU's, I am aware of no issues with modern CPU's other than the fact that Windows 9x cannot use multiple processor cores. It can be run on those processors, but will only use one core. Whats more important is drivers for current motherboards. Lack of driver support for newer hardware is IMO the worst hurdle facing Windows 9x at this point. However, 9x drivers exist for P4-class motherboards and some of the early 9xx series Intel chipset boards. While I was at college, I got a virus on the XP machines there TWICE by simply searching for pictures on Google. Nothing "out of the way" either, I was trying to find a picture of a car to show a friend. And these machines have SP3, Virus Scanners, and DeepFreeze. DeepFreeze cured it with a reboot, but the fact remains - a simple Google search produced an infected machine. It's not easy, and I wish I had more time and had more knowledge. If I ever win the lottery maybe I'll hire someone to do nothing except work on Windows 9x issues.

Oh I have plenty of issues that matter to me other than my choice of operating systems. This is not necessarily the forum for their discussion. Try translating or searching for the phrase under my avatar, and you may have some idea. I would use Linux before I would use an NT-Kernel based Windows. And when/if the day comes that my Windows 98 won't do what I need it to do, then Linux is where I will go. Microsoft lost my "support" for good when they abandoned 9x, and they will never get it back.

As others have stated, the majority of your problem comes from Dial-Up, not from Windows 98. I spent over 6 years on it myself, so I know how it is. Also, if you are serious about running Windows 9x systems these days, IMHO you need to max out your hardware. 9x drivers exist for Pentium 4 class hardware, and with RLoew's patches you can correct RAM, HDD, and SATA issues. I use Windows 98 on a daily basis, for everything I need to do. Now that means I have to accept that some things will not work or not work 100% properly. But that doesn't matter to me, I accept it and deal with it. I keep a copy of Windows XP for the few games I have that require it, and for handling >4GB files - but that is ALL I use it for. And I'll be d@mned if I EVER use Windows 7. At least Vista still has the Classic Start Menu. It does take a lot of dedication however. I'll admit that it is frustrating sometimes. But I'm an idealist, I'm dedicated. If something doesn't work with Windows 98, then I will avoid using it. Until only a couple of years ago, I refused to purchase ANYTHING whatsoever that connected by USB, simply because it would not work with Windows 95. To this day the only USB hardware I own are flash drives and USB-to-IDE adapters for hard drives. I don't compromise my positions or my principles for convenience - and I'm used to being on the side of the minority.

I suspect adding a CAB would be tricky. I've never tried it, just placed added files into the original CABs, trying to follow any logical "patterns" present, for example placing DLL files in a CAB with other DLLs, INF's with INF's etc.

I've never seen this occur... this behavior is not present in VMware Workstation or VirtualPC. Of course I don't have a similar USB-Floppy drive setup though. Maybe VirtualBox is mapping the entire USB device to 95 instead of the floppy by itself, and 95 is trying to compensate... Which version of 95 are you running? My tests were all performed with 95 B/C setups, RLoew did the testing on 95/95A setups. He did identify a bug wherein the floppy drive was sometimes not recognized properly with these earlier versions. I scripted FIX95CPU to not update the file that causes this in 95\95A... Maybe RLoew can elaborate a bit on the floppy error he encountered. Windows 95's USB support is badly lacking... (although I am beginning to believe part of this was by design or due to outright laziness, the INF file has an unresolved bug actually LABELED in it! ). Unless VirtualBox is able to "translate" the USB floppy into a standard floppy there are bound to be problems.

The slipstreaming tools are actually not listed there yet. I know RLoew has been very busy lately with updating some of his other tools and creating an initial release of advanced CD/DVD/BD tools, so I don't know if he plans to add them right now or not. He may address this here, or you may want to send him an email.