egrabrych

I noticed an interesting thing: a. I install ONLY "IOSYS98.EXE" (http://www.mdgx.com/files/IOSYS98.EXE) - it's OK. b. I install ONLY "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" (http://rloew1.no-ip.com/Programs/PTCHCDFS.ZIP) - it's OK. c. I install "IOSYS98.EXE", then I replace the CDFS.VXD file (in the C:\Windows\System\IOSubsys catalogue) with the original version of Windows ME (4.90.3000) AND install "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" - it's WRONG: All CD/DVD drives are seen by the Windows Explorer (4.72.3612.1710, but also earlier versions) as "Removable Disk", without the ability to read the disc's content. After uninstalling the "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" with CDFS.VXD, either in version 4.90.3000 4.10.1999 (from the hotfix"274175usa8.exe") or version 4.90.3002 - it's OK. MDGx writes about the "IOSYS98.EXE" this: "Updated (v2) to include newer CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched for > 2 GB DVD-size bug using RLoew's patch", but the CDFS.VXD in version 4.90.3000 after being patched with the "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" and the CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 of the "IOSYS98.EXE" hotfix DIFFER (perhaps not only by the version number: 4.90.3002 vs. 4.90.3000). A detailed list of differences is as follows: I have the Windows 98SE + KernelEx 4.52, IO.SYS file with the hotfix 311561... 8.exe, patched with the "Patching Program That will add the Partition Offset Bug Fix" with RLoew's.

Link obsolete. The current link is: http://rayer.ic.cz/os/w98iopat.exe

I like the idea ... provided that it will have a LEADER who will sort all submitted proposals. I think that every file should have its source and required cooperating files noted. In order not to be groundless: already reported as running under Windows 98SE + KernelEx 4.52 Wordpad.exe 5.00.2195.7155 file is derived from hotfix: Windows2000-KB923561-x86-....exe, to the work needs to necessarily Mfc42u.dll file - which is not normal used in Windows 9x/ME.

It just may be correct. The original file IO.SYS with Windows 98SE Polish version has a volume of 222,390 bytes, while the volume of the IO.SYS file after you apply hotfix 311561 is 222,670 bytes - in both cases is good. Of course I agree with the above finding.

Hmm... And I just noticed that the Winboot.98s files are in all languages IDENTICAL It seems that I am a "dinosaur". From Wikipedia: IO.SYS must be the first file stored in the data storage area for files (...) must be contiguous. - So it was in earlier versions of DOS, but in DOS 7.0 and 7.10 probably does not need to be. So please forgive me ... though what I wrote was (formerly) true.

Then I would like to add that it does not need to be the 311561USA8.EXE hotfix, because RLoew's patch also introduces the CORRECT changes to the Io.sys file installed by the 311561POL8.EXE hotfix and probably also by all the other updates for Windows 98SE still available for download at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311561 In general, I think the Microsoft wouldn't have released 27 different language versions of this update without a reason (even more so, because, for example, Polish version doesn't have messages translated to Polish language at all). So I recommend preinstalling the 311561 hotfix in the correct language version, and then using the RLoew's patch on the Io.sys file installed this way. One more thing: at least I have exclusively positive experience with overwriting the Io.sys file (ever since MS-DOS 3.3 till now; naturally on the FAT/FAT32 partition), PROVIDED the volumes of these two files are EXACTLY THE SAME: new and old (the one being replaced). So the Io.sys file copied this way by me was always placed in the right place on a disk, the place occupied by the previous Io.sys file. update: Well, I wrote these words, and only THEN I decided to see what REALLY differences exist between the various language versions of the amendment 311561 hotfix. Well, it turned out that virtually .... NO. Winboot.98s files (and Winboot.98g) are IDENTICAL, entries in the Windows Registry also practically the same, only the files involved in the installation are in separate languages. But that does not interfere with using proper language patch for installed in Windows

Yes, with an installed "Unofficial Windows 95/98/ME Rich Text (RTF) Edit Controls Update" is OBVIOUSLY all right ... but not in this thing. Well, the discussion on the MSFN forum, which led to the creation of this patch, regarded errors in Riched20.dll file, not errors in Riched32.dll file (at least I have not read about "bad action Riched32.dll file"). In the same year 2000, Microsoft released two Riched32.dll files with the same version number, which later were not corrected (in Windows 98 and in Windows Me), but the effectiveness of these files (as I wrote ) is not the same. Perhaps it is only in my computer, and maybe not. Riched32.dll of "RICHED9X" in English is UNLESS Riched32.dll with Windows Me (in the Polish version of "RICHED9X" is so for sure) - but WHY Riched32.dll from hotfix 249973 is different, do not know (but I would like to know).

Riched32.dll v.5.0.1461.82, 198KB (203 536B), modified 03/28/2000, derived from the hotfix 249973POL8.exe, vs. Riched32.dll v.5.0.1461.82, 212KB (217 088B), modified 06/08/2000, the original Windows Me POL. The same version 5.0.1461.82, but not the same file; different not only by date of modification. Does anyone know about it something more? The thing is that in Windows 98SE: a. when the Riched32.dll file version is 5.0.1461.82, 198KB: - WordPad when opening very large text file (export the Registry, 13 MB), reports an error message (in which blamed Riched20.dll file) and closes. b. when the Riched32.dll file version is 5.0.1461.82, 212KB: - WordPad works, not reporting any error.

I know, but it works. I thought that it is most important I did not understand that it MUST be the WDM. If so, try this (link below). It is in Spanish language, I did NOT verified - You install it at own risk! Sound_Blaster_16_WDM_emula_XP_en_Win98SE.rar

For Windows 95/98/98SE best (and latest) set of drivers Sound Blaster AWE 64 is "SOUND BLASTER 16/32/AWE DRIVERS FOR WINDOWS 95/98" rev.16, including available here: http://www.driversdown.com/drivers/6632.shtml Note! Contrary to the information given, it is Rev.15, not 16 !!! To create a Rev.16 should AFTER unpack the downloaded file, but BEFORE installing the drivers, replace existing files with files that I attach. These drivers for Windows 95/98/98SE work in my Windows 98SE without objection. Best regards, egrabrych Update rev.15 to 16.zip

@Xeno86 I never suspected that this was due to KernelEx (4.5, 4.51): Opening the window's file properties was accompanied by a leakage of GDI resources - which a was visible when you open the properties window for multiple files in succession. Yesterday, having already installed version 4.52 KernelEx, with a positive surprise, I noticed that this leak is NO longer present! Thank you!

NUSB 3.6 Polish language version is available at: https://www.sendspace.com/file/l3r6bw . Since the original English version also differs in that: - File Explorer.exe is version 4.72.3612.1710 (instead 4.72.3612.1700), derived from the "Unofficial Windows 98 SE 256 Colors Icons Explorer EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 Fix": http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPL98PL.EXE ; - Files Hotplug.dll and Systray.exe are in version 4.10.2225 (instead of 04.10.2224), derived from the "Unofficial Windows 98 SE 256 Colors Tray Icon + + Warning HOTPLUG.DLL Systray.exe 10/04/2225 Fix" : http://www.mdgx.com/files/SYSPLGPL.EXE ; - Files User.exe and User32.dll are in version 4.10.2233 (instead of 10.04.2231), derived from the "Unofficial Windows 98 SE Animated Cursor (.ANI) + Icon Handling USER32.DLL + USER.EXE 4.10.2233 Security Vulnerability Fix" : http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q891711P.EXE . Because of these differences NUSB 3.6 Polish language version has a sign: "3.6a".

What is wrong in ISOBuster 2.5.0.0 ? For me (Windows 98SE) only the ISOBuster 2.5.5.1 did not give a run after installation.

I used to use the Windows Update to validate the installation of patches. Because Windows is "alive" and sometimes something that was good yesterday, today isn't good anymore. But fortunately, there is another way of verification. I recommend: http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html This of course doesn't show what is missing, but it signals the possible incorrectness of what is already installed on your system.

I tried, does not work I think you're right.

Greetings! I'm a user of the Opera web browser, working in Windows 98 SE + KernelEx 4.51. My Opera has the additional button [Open in Internet Explorer] placed on the toolbar, that allows to open the currently visible site in the Internet Explorer (mine is in 6.0 SP1 version). This button is implemented by a notation in the Opera standard_toolbar[...].ini file: "Open in Internet Explorer"="Execute program, "iexplore", "%u", "Open in Internet Explorer"". Up until the version 11.01 of the Opera, the button functioned properly. Unfortunately, after actualizing the Opera to 11.10 version, the button ceased to function completely - even though in the same version of the Opera, but installed in the Windows XP Professional SP3 executive system, it does still work (however, the button applies to the Internet Explorer 8 there). I don't have the knowledge vast enough to fix the problem by myself. I noticed, however, that clicking the right mouse button on a website window displayed by the Opera opens a context menu, in which one of the entries is command "Open with - Firefox" (I also have the Firefox 3.6). I was thinking, that perhaps I could try to place the entry "Open with - Internet Explorer" in there too. In order to do that, I used the notation placed in Windows XP Registry in the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet] through the Internet Explorer 8 installer. This notation, after importing it to the Windows 98 SE Registry, I abridged of the sub keys irrelevant to this matter, finally leaving it in this very shape: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\IEXPLORE.EXE] @="Internet Explorer" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\IEXPLORE.EXE\DefaultIcon] @="C:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\iexplore.exe,0" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\IEXPLORE.EXE\shell] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\IEXPLORE.EXE\shell\open] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet\IEXPLORE.EXE\shell\open\command] @="C:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\iexplore.exe" The import.reg file contains such an abridged notation. After executing all this, in the context menu suddenly appeared the expected "Open with - Internet Explorer", that functions properly in the Opera 11.10 (11.11) operating in the Windows 98 SE + KernelEx 4.51. I must add, that placing in the: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Clients\StartMenuInternet] key the @="IEXPLORE.EXE" value causes the entry "Open with - Internet Explorer" to be placed the highest in the context menu (without this value, the alphabetical order (of browsers' names) is in effect). The import_plus.reg file contains such a notation, with that value as well. Thanks to using the aforesaid solution, the lack of functioning [Open in Internet Explorer] button is no longer severe to me and I removed it from the toolbar. Of course, if anybody knows how to fix the problem properly, let him give it away to the other Opera users, including me .

For my Win 98SE, "I2360131.EXE" extracted into the Windows\Temp folder but did not automatically install. Right-clicking the ".INF" file and clicking "Install" did the trick. Affirmative. I have the same thing.I have revised the fix, please install again, it should work properly now [2.22 MB]:http://www.mdgx.com/files/I2360131.EXE It installs now only on Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME. PS: Users of Windows 2000/XP Pre-SP2 must install this one instead [Wild Bill's unofficial patch] [2.56 MB]: http://www.mdgx.com/files/X2360131.EXE Thanks for all the feedback. Is OK

For my Win 98SE, "I2360131.EXE" extracted into the Windows\Temp folder but did not automatically install. Right-clicking the ".INF" file and clicking "Install" did the trick. Affirmative. I have the same thing.

@MDGx: Placing the variable "DisableRegistryTools"=dword:00000001 in the key [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\ System] does not, at least for me, the blockade.

I am also facing the same problem?? The answer you are over ... although not directly. Well, the problem stems from the variable in the Windows Registry: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System] "DisableRegistryTools"=dword:00000001 You delete the variable "DisableRegistryTools" - the problem disappears... but how to do it? Fortunately, just change the value of this variable on the dword:00000000 Create a text file named: ANY_NAME.REG and content : Warning! This content may not contain spaces. Remove, if you find them. After saving, double click the file to merge with the Windows Registry. Now Tweak UI and Regedit.exe become available.

In RICHEDNT.EXE (for Windows NT 4.0) Riched.dll file is exactly the same as in RICHED9x.EXE (for Windows 9x/ME) - so the file suitable Riched.dll Polish version, which convey in the previous my post. Riched32.dll 5.0.2134.1 there is no Polish version, English version is a universal version.

Thanks for your feedback.Good point. But it looks like other people here at MSFN [older posts in the RichEdit topic], a while back, experienced problems/bugs with newer rich controls, so I left those files the way they are. If you [and eventually others] confirm that the newer richtx32.ocx works ok, I'll update RICHED9X with the newest one. Tx HTH You twisted my arm real bad... ... So I've updated RICHED9X.EXE [Win95/98/ME] + RICHEDNT.EXE [WinNT4] with newer RICHTX32.OCX 6.1.9782 :: >here< + >here<. Enjoy. HTH Thanks MDGx It now please even the Polish version I attach the necessary files: Riched.dll and Riched32.dll (The original files are Microsoft!). Other files (except Advpack.dll): English version of Universal.

Wrong link to OLEUP_PL; - should be: http://www.mdgx.com/files/OLEUP_PL.EXE not: http://www.mdgx.com/files/OLEUP_UP.EXE

Tihiy, 'Natural file sorting' doesn't seem to work here too: HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer -> don't have such key HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer -> don't have the value "NoStrCmpLogical" HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced -> don't have the value "SeparateProcess" HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer -> don't have the value "DesktopProcess" When writing my post, I thought that I am "guilty" of no "natural sorting" in RP 9.7. In truth, I expected the requirement of cooperation with the relevant Windows files in their respective versions, but I did not know with which files and in which versions. "SeparateProcess" I really did had turned on, not even remembering about it - but disabling this option, and even complete removal from the Windows registry key, did not help at all. Which is a injury, because it makes contents of the folder more readable (I know this from Windows XP).

I know that is not a discussion thread about this, but I just ad vocem; see here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/137591