egrabrych

Hi everyone! I made a detailed analysis of versions of files in the SP3.cab. Five files in particular caught my interest: 1) Msconv97.dll - is in version 2003.1100.8165, even though in the SP 3.0 beta 4 it was in version 2003.1100.8166. 2) Mspaint.exe - is in version 5.00.1523.1, so an earlier one than on the installation CD of Windows 98 SE (5.00.1740.1). 3) Msxml.dll - is in version 8.0.6730.0, even though in 2004 Microsoft released the official version 8.00.7002.0 (hotfix KB832414_MSXML2.5_x86.exe, http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=9354). 4-5) Msident.dll - is in version 6.00.2800.1106, Vgx.dll - is in version 6.00.2800.1612, even though in the unofficial update of Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 - MDIE6CU 3.4 (http://www.mdgx.com/spx/MDIE6CU.EXE) these files are in versions: Msident.dll - 6.00.2800.2000, Vgx.dll - 6.00.2800.1637. Probably it is so for a reason, but what is this reason exactly? Thank you in advance for any information and suggestions on this. egrabrych

Yes, because here the effect was caused by artificially - in order to see whether it is at all possible. This computer with Windows XP, cooperates with your monitor 16:9 and during normal operation this problem is not seen. I apparently just from that it depends.

Unfortunately, yes And not just for "older browsers" and the "incompatible Java"! I conducted the same experiment under Windows XP SP3 with an installed Java SE 1.6.30, for: Firefox 3.6.25, Internet Explorer 8 and Opera 11.60 - with appropriately selected sizes of windows. The result is exactly the same - see the screenshots below: Capture.mht (External link, 1.09MB) It seems that this is simply a "must-be". Permanently helps screen with 16:9 aspect ratio. Thank, CharlesF and mrsk565 egrabrych

Actually I should have asked about it a long time ago. This problem occurs in ALL THE VERSIONS of the Opera known to me, and relates to the multi-page threads of "MSFN Forum". Look carefully at the screenshots I attached: I'm trying to move the arrow pointer over the icon of the site number 66. On the first screenshot, the arrow is still far and all the site icons are displayed in one line. But when the arrow already gets over that icon (the second screenshot), the icon runs out to a new line! Moving the arrow over the site icon number 66 in this new line isn't easy, because it tries to run back to its place in the first line; however it does finally become possible (the third screenshot). Does anyone know anything more about it?

I am your humble servant : copyx.zip Nice to use ... Thank you! Ah, if it was still something of an identical action to "Run Shell Extension for Windows NT" (Runext.dll) with the "Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kit", but running under Windows 9x/ME. "Run with arguments ..." with "Synesis Software Windows Shell Extensions" is not the same ...

@CharlesF: Sorry. I thought that the word "report" at the beginning will be enough understood. But it was not on your side "waste of time" because I found out from you about things that previously I did not know. Thank you egrabrych

Thank you, but with nothing to see here please. This post it was written in reference to the thread http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/154648-dos-format-b-and-label/, which was created in reference to the thread http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/118119-patched-iosys-for-9xme/page__st__100. Oh, such memories from the past. Happy New Year

I’m impressed by your inquisitiveness! I didn’t check the thing you wrote about here, I trust it is just as you say. But I can repay you with something that admittedly didn’t require that much work, but is also an example of how Microsoft caused harm… to itself. http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/154933-send-to-extensions-vs-desktop-create-shortcut-report/#entry986415

(report) As you know, there is an add-on to the Windows called "Microsoft Windows 95 PowerToys". One of the elements of this add-on is called "Send To Extensions". During its installation, the Sendtox.dll file is placed in the %WinDir%\System\ShellExt folder, and in %WinDir%\SendTo folder, there are placed seven shortcuts widening the range of capabilities of the "Send To" command in the context menu. Because the "Send To Extensions PowerToy" works and is useful also in Windows 98, sometimes it is also installed in that operating system. Unfortunately, during the Sendtox.dll file registration, the registry key: [HKLM\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{9E56BE61-50F-11CF-9A2C-00A0C90A90CE}] gets „intentionally” damaged. Vs.txt The result of these changes is a malfunction of one of the system shortcuts used in the command "Send To": "Desktop (create shortcut)". When used, rather than create a desktop shortcut to the file to which this command has been applied to, it will now open a window of a "new message Microsoft Exchange". The remedy is obviously to restore the key’s proper content [HKLM\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{9E56BE61-C50F-11CF-9A2C-00A0C90A90CE}], but there wouldn’t have been any problem in the first place, if not for the bug in the Sendtox.dll file. This error, aside from the damage it causes, doesn’t bring any more or less positive effects, and besides, it was possible for the Microsoft to use two different CLSID!

Well, there's a bit of confusion and misunderstanding here. I did NOT report the problem to solve, this problem IS ALREADY SOLVED! The sequence of events was as follows: I was interested in ONLY identification of the type of drive: local disk ("dysk lokalny" - in Polish), CD-ROM disk ("dysk CD-ROM" - in Polish), removable disk ("dysk wymienny" - in Polish) - in Windows 98SE. CORRECTLY drives were identified as follows: the identification below is INCORRECT: My OBSERVATIONS from this experiment are as follows: 1) The file Cdfs.vxd in the version: - 4.90.3000 - original file from Windows ME installation disk - 4.90.3000 - when patched by "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" (http://rloew1.no-ip.com/Programs/PTCHCDFS.ZIP) - 4.90.3001 - with hotfix 274175 (http://ftp.isu.edu.tw/pub/CPatch/msupdate/win98se-nsrc/backup/274175usa8.exe) - 4.90.3001 - when patched by "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" in Windows 98SE works INCORRECTLY. 2) File Cdfs.vxd in the version: - 4.90.3002 - with unofficial hotfix "IOSYS98.EXE" (http://www.mdgx.com/files/IOSYS98.EXE), PROPERLY also works when you have not installed other files from unofficial hotfix "IOSYS98.EXE". 3) "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" can be applied to any version of the Cdfs.vxd file EARLIER than version 4.90.3002 (4.10.1998, 4.10.1999, 4.90.3000, 4.90.3001). In the drawing is bug; should be written: "4.90.3000 - the original file from the Windows ME installation disk" 4) The files Cdfs.vxd: - In version 4.90.3002 - with the unofficial hotfix "IOSYS98.EXE" - obtained when patched by "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" Cdfs.vxd file in version 4.90.3001 Are NOT IDENTICAL. For use on Windows 98SE is suitable ONLY: - Cdfs.vxd file in version 4.90.3002 (with the unofficial hotfix "IOSYS98.EXE"), - when patched by "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's" Cdfs.vxd file in version 4.10.1999 (with hotfix 274175), - the original Cdfs.vxd file in version 4.10.1999 from hotfix 274175 (in version 4.10.1998, as flawed as described in article 274175, omit here). The last of these observations was the reason I wrote that post - because, in my opinion, the conclusion formulated in such a way isn't consequential to the information given in the http://www.mdgx.com/upd98me.php. A thing mitigating this problem is that during the installation of the unofficial patch "IOSYS98.EXE", the existing Cdfs.vxd file is obligatorily converted to the version 4.90.3002. and restoring it to another version is possible only through one's own interference. I described the problem that was already solved in the version 2. of the unofficial patch "IOSYS98.EXE" (which includes changes to the Cdfs.vxd file, introduced by the "CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 patched with RLoew's"); nevertheless, "returning to the past" on your own is always possible, of which forewarns my note.

Merry Christmas! To All who are present here, and Great Absence.

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.