LoneCrusader

We need a little more information before anyone can help you. What are the full specs of the computer you're trying this on? Were any errors reported during the installation process? Are any errors reported when the machine reboots?

WinRAR 3.93 is the last version with official 98-ME support. It's been a long time since I visited this issue, but IIRC, the installers for 3.93 and down to somewhere in the 3.7x range (this seems to be very close to what the OP said about 3.80, so all 3.7x builds may work) crash when run under 95. The program itself MAY still work under 95 up to 3.93 IF the unpacking and installation process were done manually, but I never tested this.

I've been mostly offline for a couple of weeks and I return to find this. There aren't even words to describe the shock. I was just thinking that I haven't spoken with him in a couple of months and I should see how he's doing... and now I'll never be able to do that again. I was probably closer to him than anyone else here. I considered him one of my best friends. Unfortunately I never had the opportunity to meet him personally (although if I'd ever had occasion to go to New York we hoped to do so), but I've spoken with him on the phone and we have exchanged hundreds of emails over the years. He was always helpful and knowledgeable and never failed to help me with whatever issue I asked him about, from the small and insignificant to the overwhelming. I can't count the hours he probably spent helping me; fixing bugs, developing drivers, explaining arcane subjects so that I could understand them enough to help him... I always hoped that real life would eventually afford me the time to spend learning about programming and reverse engineering and that I would have his wisdom there to guide me along the way.. and now it's lost... Oh God this doesn't do things justice but I'm at a loss for any more words right now. Rudy, you will be missed.

It sounds as if the "product type" ("SKU" in the more recent Windows versions) of your copy of the upgrade does not match the product type of the key you have. Are you certain they were bundled together? I'm assuming you have a valid, legal Product Key for your Win98 upgrade in this situation. You can find the information you want here, but it is intended for research and informational purposes, not as a means to circumvent licensing requirements. Otherwise this discussion cannot continue; we cannot promote "bypassing" licensing requirements, even for such an old system. Just keep this in mind for any further discussion.

Let me be sure I'm understanding the problem... If you perform a factory vanilla installation of 2K Pro with SP4 on such a system, USB2 does not work? I assume these problem systems also have no USB1 controllers showing up in the Device Manager as well? If the above is the case, then chances are the problem is that the file USBD.SYS is not being copied during the installation of USB2 controllers. This file is not listed in the copy sections for USB2 controllers in USB.INF, but the USB2 drivers are still dependent on it. It is only listed in the copy sections for USB1 controllers, which at the time the INF was written, would also automatically exist on a USB2 system. On newer systems with no USB1 controllers to install, the file is not copied. This issue also affects Windows 9x. Verify that USBD.SYS exists on the resulting system. If not, then copy it manually to SYSTEM32\DRIVERS, reboot and see if the problem is cured. If USBD,SYS does exist on the resulting system, then verify that USBHUB20.SYS exists on the system. It seems to be called in both a copy and delete operation for the same USB2 Hub installation routine. If anyone can verify these conditions one way or another I may be able to sort it out... No problem. I'd just like to get to the bottom of this USB issue since I've seen it reported before and I can't understand what the problem is. It should be simple to fix!

I've seen this USB problem mentioned before, and once again, I ask: How does your Windows 2000 even have any references to "Intel C610/X99 series chipset" or "Z68" or "X79" or X58" even? Unless you are using a modified installation source or are running an Intel Chipset INF update after installation these should not exist! The Intel Chipset INF updates include garbage do-nothing INF files for later Intel USB2 controllers under 2K (and for Intel USB3 controllers under XP). All these files do is name the controller with it's proper Intel designation, and link back to 2K's USB.INF, but use the UHCI (USB1.0) install section instead of loading a proper USB2 (EHCI) driver. They do NOT properly link to a USB2 driver (.SYS file). (Examine the [USB_2K.NT] (2K) install section versus the [USB2.NT] (XP) section in one of these Intel USB files, I used "patusb.inf" for example.) However, since these Intel INF files are dated newer than any existing USB.INF file under 2K, 2K chooses these garbage files by default and complains if you want to use the older-dated standard driver. Should work. If anyone really wants these controllers to be given their specific names, then someone will need to add all the Intel USB2 VEN&DEV ID's and their corresponding proper names to 2K's USB.INF, linking them to the proper EHCI driver install section. See NUSB for 98SE's USB2.INF for reference. This will also have the effect of making the updated USB.INF file have a newer date than the Intel ones, which should make 2K use it by default (although it may complain it's not signed, not sure if 2K does this like XP and later).

Weird. The KB Article seems to only refer to 32-bit (although it may have been edited as such, never trust MS to leave KB articles alone); but the Security Bulletin clearly identifies 64-bit as being affected as well. Methinks something is missing here.. EDIT: Ugh, the KB# is apparently different for x64. The Security Bulletin also says .NET4 is affected; there are probably individual updates for each .NET version affected on each architecture.

I would say yes, all updates and packages are important, even those that have been superseded. Non-superseded ones are a higher priority obviously though. Huh? KB2978114

Welcome to MSFN! Regarding your project game machine, you should not encounter this with 2GB of RAM, but if you go above 2GB you may encounter issues with any games that run inside DOS boxes (WarCraft, WarCraft II, probably others I'm not familiar with). If you encounter this, rloew has a patch for this issue as well (DPMI memory limiter). I have a stockpile of high-end P4-era hardware myself, and I've had a couple such gaming machines "under construction" for years now. I never seem to be able to find the time to fool with them, or to be able to put together a group of friends for good old LAN gaming anymore.

I took a look at this tool and it seems very impressive. This video is nice for anyone who's not familiar with it. I'm not sure I would ever use the "automated installer" part of it, but it seems to be a great way to build an archive of updates even if one uses them manually. However obviously it depends on how thorough the person building the database was... and whether or not the links in the database still work. Also probably doesn't include any updates that were not offered on WU or the Catalog (assuming some of these exist) such as anything in a "HotFix by request" category. At this point I suppose we only have The HotFix Share for anything like that... It seems one can somehow write custom Update lists; for someone familiar with the tool it might be possible to modify the working list from this thread to work with the tool.

I've just spent the better part of two days fooling with getting fresh installs of Vista x86/x64 SP2 installed, connected to WU, checking for updates, then manually downloading all the listed fixes from the Update Catalog, and I still have to install them and recheck for anything new afterward. What a nightmare, lol. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if the service weren't (possibly) about to disappear, and if I didn't have other OS'es that need the same treatment before time runs out. Such a repository would be a great benefit, and it's good IMO to have a separate repository with official pre-EoL Vista updates along with the repository of post-EoL fixes. I think the Platform Update file you have is considered a "Supplement" to the Platform Update. I've not been able to figure out if the Platform Update was ever issued as a single package, because its KB number (971644) does not exist on WU, or whether it's just four component packages counted together (971512, 971513, 971514, 960362). Anyone with knowledge of this please chime in.

Yes, this is important. We don't want any MP10 (or MP9) updates to get left out because the MP11 updates have the same KB numbers etc. Same goes for IE6/IE7/IE8 - all need to be preserved, not just the latest update for the latest version.

Looking forward to seeing the updated list. I could swear I saw a list here before somewhere that someone (heinoganda maybe? ) posted that had links for all of the POSReady 2009 updates, but now I can't seem to find it. Did this exist or am I confused? Server 2003 is important because there are and/or may be more useful things in it that might eventually be backportable to XP (replacement USBPORT.SYS to go along with the 64GB RAM patch, and STORPORT.SYS are two good examples). I tend to think of Vista in the same way; it's closer to XP than Windows 7, so maybe there are useful things there. Also in the case of Vista, the fact that it has so few users now makes it even more likely that its updates will really go into the "memory hole." XP's files should survive, and Windows 7 will as well, but Vista is more "endangered." Given our group of Vista diehards here I'm surprised no one seems to have at least some kind of list..

If any one of you Vista diehards has anything resembling a complete list of Post-SP2 updates (and hopefully their links!) I'd like to see it. I've been trying to collect everything for XP, but I'd like to see the same done for Vista and Server 2003 before this potential deadline falls, and I don't think I'm going to get there in time doing it manually.

So, did everyone finally decide on a definitive, complete list of files + links? I've been working on collecting things myself, but it's very slow doing it all manually. Not to mention the fact that it also needs to be done for Sever 2003 and Vista as well before time runs out...

I will never understand what motivates people to try to appease other people who are disagreeable, arrogant, condescending, and clearly would never reciprocate such efforts. As VistaLover said, full rebranding would not change a single thing about how "upstream" views this project or its users, and those who are now pushing rebranding again are only echoing MCP and Tobin's agendas. Apparently Tobin doesn't even need to come back here again to keep the subject alive. Why would anyone here spend the first second attempting to do anything they "demand?"

Let's not start this whole name changing bit again. There is nothing to be gained from it, and only more work to be created. There's a relevant point in another thread (that thanks to the lack of a proper BBcode editor in IPB I can't just copy and paste here ) about how this may affect addons and related applications, requiring them to be modified to recognize the resulting renamed binary.

My INF files cover these chipsets plus many newer ones. I did get some of the original inspiration from xRayer's work though.. discovered the "drivers" are just INF files, so then it was easy to port the data to a 9x-compatible INF.

I keep hearing all these reports about WU/MU not working with SP3 + IE8... Just a couple of months ago I was still able to use Windows Update with bare SP3 + IE6. All I had to change was to enable TLS in Internet Options... EDIT: Oops, forgot to mention that three manual updates are necessary as well. See this thread and my link there. I'm getting old and forgetful, lol.

Weird. It worked for me. Only 2 of my Addons were affected, Adblock Plus and Classic Theme Restorer. It may vary depending upon the Addon(s) or versions of said Addon(s) in use?

Then why post in the 9x forum? Topic moved.

Glad you solved it. I forgot that the option may vary or even not exist under different desktop environments. I only use KDE3 or Trinity, which are not common these days.

I got hit with this earlier this evening in 52.9.0esr. Very annoying. Setting "xpinstall.signatures.required" to false in about:config allowed the Addons to run again, but they still had nag warning messages in the Addons dialog.

IIRC that alliance was born out of an act of subterfuge committed by the Federation. And they say we're the dishonorable ones... Just venting one of my pet peeves about the various "24th-century" incarnations of Trek. The Klingons went from being a ruthless, opportunistic enemy in TOS (where they were party to several "dishonorable" acts including planting spies in the Federation) to being the "honorable warrior culture" ally. If anything, the Romulans in TOS, despite being enemies, were portrayed as being much more "honorable" and "duty oriented" and AFAICR never resorted to espionage or sabotage. In TNG and later, their personality mirrors that of the TOS Klingons. Anyway, moving on, I'm a fan of most of it myself, although TOS and ENT are far superior to the others IMO. Agreed the "reboot" movies are garbage. Let's hope the situation has resolved itself for better or worse, and move on. To address the rest of your point, it's not nearly as simple as you're thinking. Current Pale Moon 28 is forked from Firefox 52 ESR, not nearly that far back. Recreating Pale Moon would be a very long deviation from the purpose of roy's projects and be pointless, as Pale Moon is open source just as Firefox is. Tobin seems to be more concerned about his own "Binary Outcast" projects more so than Pale Moon. But same situation here - they're built on open source code, so overall the same rules apply to them as do to Firefox or SeaMonkey and anything else descended from Mozilla.

I've run into this a couple of times. Somewhere under your Linux Date/Time or Regional settings there should be a checkbox for "System Clock set to UTC." Clearing this should set Linux to the Windows-style behavior of setting the system clock to Local Time.