Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by CLASYS

  1. Been here before, but not recently. I develop a freeware package that has to run identically in XP and up, and I was adding a small feature while testing on a Vista64 system all the way up, but the bug presents on a clean install of Vista 64 SP2. I have a work-around but I am stymed I have to do so. I have to check this out in all the other supported systems, not sure if Win 7 is affected, but please help me out! I have a shortcut to a BATCH file meant to be stored with similar ones in an open window as a control center for a bunch of related activities. The idea is to have a shortcut on the desktop and users click on that to open this command-center window. Most of the icons/shortcuts in that window point to one of many .BAT files in another directory, etc. I happened to add another one and the icon winds up with the UAC elevation overlay on it. Worse still, making changes to the icon particulars can lead to the UAC actually being required! Here is the ONE change that makes it go away: If I change the name of the .BAT file and a corresponding change in the shortcut info the bug totally goes away! There seems to be a reserved keyword problem that you have to avoid the word SETUP in the file name. In particular If the name of the batch file is Setup Log File.BAT then the problem happens. However, if I change the fille name to Set Log File.BAT Then the entire problem goes away. I have isolated it down to merely what I am posting here, totally reproducible: The problem requires that you change to a different icon, any change will do, but predictably change the icon and the problem pops out! [The package has about two-dozen icons already, all with renamed labels on them to make sense to users, but the added frill is the only one that the BATCH FILE name pointed to starts with SETUP, and I happen to have a bunch of coherent icons, etc.] Not sure of other variations, but why can't the name of your own BATCH file not start with S-e-t-u-p? Any ideas. [The renamed shortcut still says Setup Log File so it cosmetically is fine, but I've never heard of seemingly ordinary reserved filenames in Windows! Any help? The BATCH does some mundane things to implement a new frill feature, and that always works, just this surreal-looking problem also shows up. Thanks in advance if anyone has ever encountered something like this. cjl
  2. Hi folks! I haven't been here in quite awhile [because I got all my problems solved here!]. But of course there is always one more: I am attempting to install Win7 on a Lenovo W540 w/8GB and the 2.70 CPU. I can run 8.1 on it fine, and I have also installed Vista [although many driver problems, but I still got it up enough to have it proclaim "genuine software". I can install the product key [that matches the Windows version] fine. But I cannot install the cert file LENOVO_V2.1_Cert.XRM-MS and get the error code 0x00000BBA The spool file was not found. Is this somehow related to the fact that the Win8/8.1 key is built into the BIOS? Do I need a[n even] new[er] Cert file? All else is fine, but only got about 3 weeks more to activate. Any help appreciated.
  3. ...To this day we still have a paradox: This is 2009 and there are certainly many things discovered of W98 (patches for newly discovered problems exist). There are new ways to integrate drivers (software like Driver Magician show basics of such if nLite doesn't to you). 4.7 maybe the last but if we consider adding current available patches (USBz, INFs, default VGA drvs etc) there can still be 4.8 of current date Can you elaborate about 4.8? All I have is a provisional 4.8 that literally has bugs in it if you want to just not address the SLEEK V2 situation. Unless you are attempting to do that [which doesn't even fully work] it is a step backwards for all of the other situations that work perfectly fine, as long as you are willing to apply all of my variant steps, etc. Or are you merely suggesting there could theoretically a 4.8 version that could work [based on a lot of hand-waving]?cjl ps: Another SLEEK paradox: The Recycle Bin empties really, really fast underl SLEEK. All other ways to run 98 up are really slow, especially if you have multiple partitions.
  4. I am the chief instigator of [among other things] getting 98lite SLEEK support put into the 98SEUSP2.1a. [You'll see an acknowledgment to me in the installation pages as you start the SP up.]I still use 98lite, and was one of the most prolific people attempting to get him to make a stable version 4.8 that would actually work, i.e., a "V2" implementation of the SLEEK shell. To this day we still have a paradox: 1) The SLEEK shell works perfectly fine in terms of file maintenance tasks. Without SLEEK, even with all of the kludges using files from IE55SP2, once you install IE6.0 or SP1, you never get stability. This is not a 98lite issue, just that IE60 was never truly compatible with any Win9x system, period. So, you have to stop at IE55SP2 if you want stability, or use IE60 and suffer from always just barely stable [as long as you don't do too many operations that slowly kill memory. Tip: A band-aid is to turn off display windows contents while dragging]. Of course there are minor issues of the Win95 shell having little silly problems such as the inability to properly size large directories [over 4 GB] but that's purely cosmetic, and of course the total lack of such things as a property-sheet-oriented "My Documents" icon, but I would gladly use sleek over CHUBBY or OVERWEIGHT because it runs rock-solid. I did all of the valiant effort to attempt to patch literally dozens of apps to be sleek-compatible with the shell32.w98, only eventually to be thwarted as newer versions came out that just couldn't be satisfied. [And that includes all sorts of stuff that could only be fixed after they were installed and crashed!] I was instrumental in showing shane all of the gyrations of how to shoehorn in IE60 [any version] using the original patched LOADWC.EXE I created, and he was working on integrating it in. I still use my own procedure to get IE60 installed on SLEEK; I have some systems I cannot use anything else on due to meager resources, etc. On faster systems, I still use CHUBBY because there is no downside; once you are using the 98SE shell, the IE-related damage is done, mitigate it as best as possible, and move on; all the apps will just install, etc. However, all the above said, if anyone is interested, I can post the procedure to get 98lite to install IE60 [sP1 preferably]. It is not straight-forward; a major user-level disappointment of the product, but it *does* work. Here's in outline form what to do: 1) The one most people would want to use: a ) Install 98SE straight. If you want, you can update the drivers, etc. b ) Repair install over the freshly installed 98SE, this time starting up the 98lite install instead. c ) Install IE60 SP1; fix it the best you can, a topic for all win9x that does not use the 95shell [sLEEK "V1" as I call it]. d ) Make a sizeable bunch of small patches, TweakUI stuff, and some .reg files I wrote to do the stuff that cannot be done without regedit, etc. Done that way, you get full app compatibility, and some 98lite improvements, just not all. Most notably, you get the IE desktop icon in an unbroken manner. [in WinME, it's often broken, again an issue beyond 98lite.] A small few desktop folder settings are modestly unstable, and can easily be put back; this could be an issue beyond 98lite, and could be driver-dependent [especially video]. I of course use a lot of the Me files that improve stuff, most notably scanfrag stuff. For the more "adventurous" types, a far-more involved install is to first install SLEEK on the first and only install. This involves a lot of the tricks mentioned above, but is only the start of things. You then need to shell swap to CHUBBY. Then you have to reinstall IE60SP1 repeatedly until you get it to issue a proper message; this usually takes a total of three passes at an install! Once done, you have to apply a registry patch I derived to get most of the cosmetics and property sheet for the desktop IE icon to work, and of course eventually do all of those IE-related shell problems since SLEEK is not in the picture. However, it is apparent that the cleanest install of IE60 paradoxically is when the SLEEK shell is in effect, despite MS's prevention of installing IE60 on Win95. Once this is done, the long-way-around to CHUBBY can commence, along with a somewhat larger laundry list of patches, etc. And one over-reaching point: Other than the designated shell swaps done exactly once if at all, NEVER swap again! It's all stable, albeit messy to perform, and I have profusely documented the procedure. The only remaining issues are: SLEEK V2 never worked. For unknown reasons, it is incompatible with some seemingly unrelated aspects of explorer.exe that get confused and either crash or hang. It accomplishes all of the major goals, but he was never able to devote enough time to solving the other problems, whatever is causing them. I have the patched files themselves, and they are quite easy to apply from DOS, but it makes random other things crash frustrating our efforts to get SLEEK to also be compatible, etc. ME compatibility was never finished. I created some batch files to fix what was overlooked; how to patch the relevant files was straight-forward. The only implication to the above is of course the lack of MS-DOS being available, so you need to dual-boot to change files, and if you use the SLEEK-then-CHUBBY method, you may have to install IE60 as many as SIX TIMES! And as I said, only the recommended method gets you a "pristine" desktop icon, wierdly enough. cjl [back to msfn after a serious and long illness, largely overcome]
  5. Hello erp!I'm back from the [almost] dead, and I mean that literally. I'm finally able to catch up on e-mail, forums, etc. and noticed this recent thread, so I assume you and others are well. [i've been out of the hospital for 6 weeks now, so it appears I'll live.] Can you give me the short version: What is the reasonable consensus on what is the most effective SP-related procedure to follow today? Are we using SP2.1a, or is there something stable newer? Is something *almost* stable awaiting something with an end in sight? Is there a work-around to make useful something beyond SP2.1a? What? cjl [enquiring near-death-experience survivors want to know]
  6. Good idea, and yes, it does work for all folders. But it does NOT work for the dialogue box in the run command which just stays reversed. [it does come up in list mode and you can temporarily goto details mode, get the little arrows and temporarily re-reverse it back to normal, then return to list mode now un-reversed, but it won't stay un-reversed when invoked later, etc.] Are there dialogue box-related separate settings unrelated to the "normal" folders? [it would appear to be at least partially true; If I make the rest of the folders all tiles, the dialogue box is still in list mode by default, etc., so clearly there is some "separation" etc.] cjl
  7. You can also use XXCOPY to "flatten" directories, and overall it's a lot better than ROBOCOPY. cjl
  8. There is nothing particularly AMD or Intel-centric about Win98 [sE being the variant of choice in the 9x world; see the 98SE unofficial SP sub-forum here on MSFN]. That said, drivers are crucial. Stability is ONLY determined by how well the hardware-specific drivers are correctly written for the hardware, not anything else. Irrelevantly, there is more built-in ANCIENT Intel drivers, thus this hasn't been an issue in years; today you have to add on everything, etc. However, 98 is designed to run in much less than 1.0 GB of memory and will crash with "too much" memory unless you set specific limits within system.ini which can be reached in safe mode once the system is up enough. Failing that, access the file from DOS and hand-edit in the changes. [Ask on the forum for safe starting values to get the system up.] Unless these changes are made, it is likely that the installation will stall after the first reboot [saying something to the effect of "running windows for the first time"]. If you can make your machine temporarily have .5 GB memory, it shouldn't have this problem, and then you can add the fixes later [a standard feature of the unofficial service pack]. The usual killer preventing 98 SE install is the lack of a video driver that can work properly, and that in turn often requires the underlying chipset support that also may not be available. With regard to the hard disks, you can use SCSI disks on any supported host adaptor without problem, or you can use up to the first 127 GB of any IDE disk as long as it closely resembles the PATA IDE disks usually used [and a patch is available to use the rest of the disk as well, but only if partitioned to 127 GB or less per partitiion]. The standard files usually work in this regard, albeit not necessarily optimally. There is a last-ditch way to get the video up to avoid using "compatibility mode" which in turn forces you to have 640x480 in 16 colors. It's a little bit better than that, but slow: There exists from MS a driver that was intended for Windows 3.1 to run in VBE mode. This is EXACTLY what XP does when it lacks a driver for the video card. It runs slow, but is still capable of at least 256 colors, perhaps even 16-bit color. This takes advantage of the fact that for many years, all video cards are VESA VBE compatible. The only problem is that the driver didn't quite get its VESA act together and only ran on a small set of then-current ATI cards. However, there is a patch for supervga.drv that makes it truly VBE-compliant compatible. As such you can select 640x480x256, 800x600x256, and 1024x768x256. However, since this is a driver for Windows 3.1, and not Windows 9x, you lose a minor convenience point: We are all too accustomed to the slider that changes the resolution. In this driver set, there is only one setting per driver, so to change the screen resolution, you have to select one of the three each time. Other than that, Windows 3.1 drivers are compatible with Windows 9x! I have built Win 98SE for a T43p ThinkPad using this method. There can be a glitch: You may not be able to select full-screen text mode for the MS-DOS prompt and instead use a window of any size you wish, and just never hit alt-enter to flip it, etc. Yes, it's as slow as XP running without a driver, which isn't all that bad on a modern machine. However, no driver is running in MS-DOS compatibility mode, so all else is fine. You can limit all your partitions to FAT32 and 98 can access all of the drives, and can also defrag all of them a whole lot better than that built-in Diskeeper garbage. [And better yet, use the specific one from Windows ME, which does it better and faster still.] Note: In some cases, you may get 98SE up if you can limit memory temporarily to 1.0 GB depending on the machine, but don't count on it; be prepared to make those system.ini changes so it cannot screw up regardless of actual memory size. Note: there are no problems whatsoever using 98SE on AMD boards with VIA chipsets and CPU's such as Athlon XP 3200+ on down. Again, assuming the memory problem is contained either before or during the install, once the proper VIA drivers are in, all is totally stable. Of course, if NVIDIA you are totally at the mercy of their [lack of] support, etc. P3 and P4 drivers from Intel vary in support of 9x, but those that not only do but also support the so-called "application accellerator" Intel stuff gain something else: Full 48-bit LBA support, thus no upper limit on drive size per se. [Note: You MUST partition the drives into chunks each no larger than 127 true GB, but there is no part of the disk that would be unaddressable even if you have a 1 TB disk partitioned into 8 logical drives.] There are also third-party drivers available to augment/patch the standard driver in 98SE [for a nominal fee] to accomplish this as well; again how well your disk performance goes varies, but generally just about any disk is compatible enough with the standard driver thus getting adequate performance and full access to the first 127 GB just after installation, etc. And when the hard disks are connected to BIOS-ROM-enhancing controllers from the likes of Promise, Vantec, etc., all of the drives are accessible from DOS and generally there are MPD drivers to allow full-speed 32-bit access to the disks as well. I understand it might seem silly to hook a SATA drive to a plug-in card when you have 4-6 built-in interfaces, but for example, the VANTEC card allows me to use a full-length external E-SATA cable to a drive in an external enclosure. All of those kludges to give rear-panel access that starts at the motherboard don't work unless the connecting cable is impractically short, etc. If the interface itself is on a plug-in card, you can get a 6-foot cable to the external disk AND have 98SE 32-bit access [as well as XP]. There are variants of this card for PCMCIA, PCI, and PCI-E available, etc. The PC-card supports two drives while the other two support one internal and/or one external whether 98 or not, etc. The best answer is TO TRY it. Remember the memory problem and learn to solve it, otherwise it can't work. You may be quite happy otherwise due to all of the backward compatibility all manufacturers have to deal with. [Note: Invariably, running some utility on ANY board involves DOS, not even anything called Windows!] cjl (A small part of the team that created the 98SE unofficial service pack)
  9. Just to not waste time, I did try changing to view order by name and selected something, but it didn't become permanent, so next time still reversed. cjl
  10. Somehow when browsing in the run command [defaults to list view, correct by default], I can browse to a volume and all of the folders and files are displayed in reverse order. If this were details view, I know how to re-reverse it back to normal, but how do you reverse the list view? [i'm assuming that if it gets reversed back, it would be permanent until again changed... but then again, I don't know how this got reversed in the first place!] Any ideas, people? tia, cjl
  11. I am attempting to include this update [KB917275] in an unattended batch file. Using no switch options it does install fine. Doesn't even demand a reboot. However, I have to answer all of the questions. Notably, this update seems not to support /? to find out what the other options are. I did try /Q which made all of the questions and answers go away, but, it seems to make it not install anything, just complete as if I cancelled out on the answers, etc. Could this update possibly need some sort of response file [unattend.txt or whatever] or invoke some other option switches? [i don't know of any other update with this particular collection of traits, but some other new updates are appearing here and there breaking with their pasts as well]. Thanks guys, cjl
  12. I use the QFECHECK-type program available in KB282784 (Qfecheck.exe Verifies the Installation of Windows 2000 and Windows XP Hotfixes) and haven't ever had this problem before. For all other updates, either no complaint or at most a reboot and in an extremely rare instance actually reinstall the relevant update. But for the recent KB923689 (and no other old or recent update!) Qfecheck always gives KB923689: This hotfix should be reinstalled. Of course I have a sea of other fixes installed (and all of them are "Current on system." as they should be), but this is the only one that ever failed to correct for obvious reasons, if applicable. Also, KB923689 cannot be uninstalled, so a reinstall is probably not doing much. My system is XP SP2 with Media Player 9 then upgraded to 10 then 100% current as of two weeks ago with all patches from WU, except I hid IE 7 and didn't install it, then apply the KB923689 from either Windows Update or a download [doesn't seem to matter; tried this on several systems already both ways to install, etc.). I have three similar machines and they all get the same end result. I also have a GHOST image of where I was two weeks ago back before "patch tuesday" if that is helpful, etc. Note that Windows Update itself is perfectly fine with the update being installed, i.e., after you install it, they don't ask you to install it, etc. I know this could be a bug of the Qfecheck, but maybe they miswrote something in the update? [Note: MS screwed up exactly a a parallel thing in Win98 about a year ago. Some MSFN forum members fixed it by providing a patch for the registry info that was the culprit; qfecheck WAS correct to complain in that case! Unfortunately, this NT-family Qfecheck gives out a whole lot less info than the 9x version.) Can someone provide a list of what registry changes this update is supposed to perform? It's possible the registry is erroneusly reporting WMP 9-related info (I use WMP 10) or somesuch. [To my knowledge, the only thing the update does is update WMVCORE.dll to an appropriate rev for a WMP 9 situation or a WMP 10 situation; perhaps the registry doesn't match what a WMP 10 situation actually is?) Thanks for the help, cjl
  13. Well, we went over this before:There really isn't a need for superfluously separate packages to update 98SE. The objections only came up if there were unacceptable options. However, options different from the current scope of the SP as of 2.1a could become: 1) Do less - Don't even bother to check for IE 5.00 and update it, just ignore IE completely. Makes the package only insignificently less bloated than otherwise. 2) Do check for IE 5.00 and update if present - Baseline size for bloat of SP currently 3) Do check for other IE versions and update if they are present, NOT just for IE 5.00 - Adds insignificent bloat IF accomplished in conjunction with an optional .CAB module that contains all of the relevant updates to the version that might be updates. Clearly the "bloat" of checking for the option to do this is much smaller than the current "bloat" of actually updating IE 5.00 should it exist, etc. Thus, there are no options that bloat anything, and everyone gets what they want. It could become a quaint tiny "bloat" to maintain the update for IE 5.00 if present, but the point is that no case can be made for not having the SP update all relevant versions of IE without providing ANY bloat. Just package it accordingly. You can have a base add-on .CAB file for IE 5.00, and anyone could chose not to want it. The net effect is that the SP is slightly smaller when used for most of us who could care less about IE 5.00. For those who care, the total size is the same; they just have to also load a tiny file that would become static contents for the IE 5.00 that at this point will never have another update at all. Net effect is a small positive - future versions of the SP stay permanently otherwise slightly smaller and the few who want to have the IE 5.00 updated won't even need to load the tiny file again, since it would be a static optional small .cab or whatever file, etc. But for the larger group of us that want an added IE option for their pet version, whichever that one is, making the SP be the master installer of all relevant updates is a far bigger win. Having to necessarily have an additional installation package or (URP) as you call it [are you also the URPman? ] becomes the "bloat" for some of us. [And if insisted upon, why not then create a stand-alone URP installer compatible with the add-on module that benefits the SP anyway? This way, all of us get what we want, etc.] cjl
  14. Does he know, or are these just slapped up on his website? I don't see how anything past what I report can change anything.It's apparently true that the Q832353 version doesn't like my configuration. Perhaps it wasn't tested in 98SE or in conjunction with IE 6.0SP1 and patches, even though usually obtained along with IE6, etc. There really isn't much to explain about an explicit message "You must install Windows Media Player 6.4 first" is there? Upon examining the innards of both patches, it's clear that Q832353 was written to expressly try to solve the 6.4 problem, and clearly MP832353 handles all of the other cases for 7.1 and 9.0, thus they would be complementary if they both completely worked. I can only assume the author of the former is aware that the latter doesn't work for 6.4, or else why produce a patch for the only case needed? [The original, let's call that one KB832353 for clarity, is intended for all three cases, but won't work directly under 98SE, but does work manually using files within, but only for updating 7.1 or 9.0; the 6.4 case does not work. I would like to know if the original even works for ME in the specific case that applies: 6.4 and 7.0 and no upgrades would be the relevant ME configuration, since strictly the package only updates the highest version you have and only from 6.4, 7.1 and 9.0 while that ME configuration doesn't qualify as 7.1, only 7.0, thus would qualify for the 6.4 update, etc] So, once more for the record: KB832353 from MS hates 98SE, was written expressly for ME, and I want to know if it ever updates WMP 6.4 should the highest version from the set of only 6.4, 7.1, and 9.0 be 6.4, essentially an initial install and never updating 7.0 to 7.1 [which clearly wouldn't get updates because 7.1 is a prerequisite for the relevant part of the update]. KB832353 when unpacked can manually be used to update 7.1 and 9.0, but not 6.4, all of this from 98SE. MP832353 was apparently written to at least allow usage from 98SE whether unpacked or not. Although it claims it handles all three WMP versions, it clearly doesn't work for 6.4. However it works perfectly fine for 7.1 and 9.0 thus eliminating the need for manual updates from the KB832353 version in 98SE, but still no solution for users of only 6.4. When you attempt to use it, there is some activity, but the file doesn't update Q832353 clearly was written only to upgrade 6.4 only. This would make sense where both the KB and MP versions fail to accomplish this, at least from 98SE. When unpacked, it allows a successful install of the upgrade to 832353 level, but only manually. When used as packaged and executed normally, it issues a complaint message telling me I need to first install WMP6.4 even though I already have when I earlier installed IE6.0 SP1 with 6.4. I have also tried installing MPfull.exe over this to no avail. I can only conclude that it wasn't tested in 98SE or that it interacts badly there with IE6.0 SP1. If it can be made to work in 98SE at all, I would have to install MP6.4 before installing IE6.0 SP1, which I can try in my next overall install, but it is contrary to my typical install order, and I believe also anyone else's recommendations along these lines. Especially is this quirky in light of the manual usage that functions fine. The need to fix this stems from the fact that there are further updates for the newer Media Player versions; you need not even apply 832353 for 9.0 since it is superseded by I believe several other updates, one even better than the others. However, for 6.4, this is the highest revision for this particular file, replacing 828026 which was known to be problematic thus MS wrote this update at all, etc. cjl
  15. I almost forgot to mention a perhaps crucial factor to this entire hang/freeze situation: A lot of the overhead can be removed merely by unchecking the setting "Show window contents while dragging" and then applying to all folders. It would appear that leaving this set aggravates the problem because the slightest mouse motion to disturb a window setting will cause a backup of the screen update sequences. In any case, all of this talk about too-few resources has little to do with it. The problem can exist with over 80% resources free. My test machine starts from 512 MB main memory and Windows-managed swap file and the SP 2.1a settings for caching etc. for use with over 64 MB. cjl
  16. C: is not filled enough And regarding licenses etc. M$ has completely dropped support for 9x/ME and not even making any profits from it so there is no harm done at all from downloading 9x/ME. Microsoft should have made both Windows 98SE and Windows ME free upgrades to Windows 98 I think, like you have SP1 and SP2 as free upgrades to Windows XP. I think we can distribute these Windows ME files now to work around some Windows 98 problems, as far as we don't ditribute complete Windows iso's Maybe we can get MS to support 9x if we can write the WGA validation and Notification tools for 9x?
  17. When I delete many files/large files [machine has 512 MB main memory] the screen tends to have one window semi-freeze. Moving it with the mouse leaves a "trail" of frozen images all over the screen where the window had been. Eventually, it figures it out and cleans up the old images, etc. When emptying out the recycle bin there can be a similar problem. First there is a lengthy delay if there are really a lot of files and/or drives where there needs to be file removal, and then a later effect where the window will fixup later as above. I think the timing of the problem is related to when the delayed writes for carrying out the file processes start kicking in is the common factor. These large file operations mean that you cannot completely cache them, i.e., they are unable to complete within the time before the earlier operations would start to be finalized and still are attempting to add new things to do to the cache, etc. [Or at least it seems to be this is the case.] Again, the presented arguments are that regsvr32-applied copies in \windows are being used for most purposes while clearly the ones in \windows\system are being used in others, and I have seen signs in the registry supporting some aspect of this, etc. Thus, I ask again: What is the point of actually bothering with three sets of files? If IE is using the ones in \program files\internet explorer, then why have the ones that are in \windows\system at all? Or, is it that the ones in \program files\internet explorer are actually superfluous? Can someone make a case for less than three sets? I haven't yet seen a proper reason as to what exactly continues to use the \windows\system copy, but apparently something still does. If not IE, then what? And what exactly is the downside of using the 5.5-related files in \windows\system instead of having two copies [while having first moved the 6-related files to program files\internet explorer]: first unregister the 6-related files in \windows\system then delete them. then replace with the 5.5-related files and register them. I don't mind temporarily replacingregistering the two original files in \windows\system should there be another update I can appy, THEN restoring the 5.5-related files again, so I don't consider the need to avoid this as an issue. Even if any of this has to be done from DOS, etc. But I am concerned about all of this hanging/freezing that seems to continue even with this so-called "fixed" situation, where the so-called fix seems to be somewhat nebulous. In some ways this is the proverbial cure is worse than the disease. In case it matters, I am not concerned about any IE settings becoming impossible to further adjust, as long as I can get them where I want/need then have them become quasi-permanent unless reverting some files transiently for readjustment purposes then re-"fixating" them, etc. [i believe someone once raised an issue that some of these problems could interact in such a way that you were no longer able to access some IE parameters to change, as opposed to being able to first set them as needed; if this were the only down-side, it's a good compromise if this file-maintenance problem would disappear.] Fixing the overall problem may not be seen by all as that important; and there are people who never use explorer to move even a single file. But others do a lot of file maintenance and it can be quite frustrating. Please also note that despite all of the other problems, using 98lite with the Sleek [win95] shell NEVER has any of these problems and is rock-steady for any possible file operation. Unfortunately, this option is not compatible with a lot of recent applications; the ability to switch back and forth, as the author intended, is simply not possible. To do so requires a complete reinstall of IE 6.0 SP1 and all of its updates at the minimum. The fast switching mechanism was designed when IE 5.5 was just getting started, and there didn't seem to be much to worry about; but with MS bringing out IE 6.0 deliberately incompatible with 95 [and additionally not all that compatible with 98, 98SE or ME!!] this has become quite problematic. [For those who are unfamiliar, the Win95 shell lacks support for a small class of calls to shell32.dll. Where possible, 98lite patches affected files to instead use shell32.w98, which is actually the original shell32.dll renamed, or its descendant as described in q313829 with that same rename. I have successfully applied this method to many applications such as IE 6.0 and 6.0 SP1, Adobe Reader 6.0.0 through 6.0.5, the latest AIM classic client, but a growing number of applications aren't able to have them applied such as PowerArchiver beyond Version 8.80, Norton AntiVirus 2003 and up, SpySweeper.] If instead, the Win95 shell itself could have these missing functions added on, this would allow the original 95 system to be more compatible with many applications, and also allow it to replace the 98/SE shell as in 98lite Sleek, but wouldn't require any patches at all. Presumably if this could be accomplished, this entire problem would cease to exist. Here's a list of the features currently lost [or gained!] using 98lite Sleek: 1) There's a bug reporting the size of a folder or file such that the size is reported modulo 4 GB instead of actual. 2) There is no support for the registry patch to enable details view to display attributes; just ignores the settings either way. 3) A couple of minor cosmetic settings that for the most part I tend to turn off in the regular shell anyway. The only one I miss is the ability to turn off the autocasing of files and folders [first letter capitalized, rest lower case]. Is there a registry setting that should make the shell turn off this "feature"? [sometimes referred to as allowing all upper-case names]. 4) Extremely fast recycle bin emptying even with multiple drives. However, if drives are removable, fails to notice a recently added drive in need of emptying unless something is added to that drive's recycle bin first. This seems to have been crudely fixed in the regular 98 shell but the tradeoff is that emptying always takes an inordinate amount of time if you have a lot of drive letters. Win XP seems to be more like Win 95 in this regard, although this doesn't imply the same implementation, etc. Of course all of this is the norm for win95 as well. I would assume also there is no interaction with any greater than 137 GB stuff; I haven't seen any and have used 250 GB disks connected through the Promise Ultra TX2-133 and using their mini-port driver. My normal install is 98lite with Sleek first, then install IE6.0 SP1. At this point, make a shell choice and stick with it. Then apply any and all IE/OE updates, etc. The Sleek choice gives me total stability with the few predictable minor problems, but a growing number of apps that cannot be accomodated because they cannot be patched to get around the shell problem. But no file management problems whatsoever. The Chubby choice give me exactly what everyone else here is describing, except that I lose overhead associated with the Active Desktop; this is not a shell component change so much as a bunch of favorable registry settings to remove overhead. I believe that 98lite chubby could be achieved by a .reg file! Especially in light of the inability to "quick change" shells now virtually impossible in light of IE 6.0 etc. To raise a possible alternate solution: How badly does the 98FE shell react to IE 6.0 SP1 and any browseui/browselc issues? If I replace SHELL32.DLL, COMDLG32.DLL and EXPLORER.EXE with the 98FE counterparts, would anything be different regarding the file hang/freeze issues? I daresay the 95 shell incompatibilities would disappear! [And MGDx, if you are reading this, same question for using the ME files?] cjl
  18. In some monitors, you really do need drivers, but not for the video. These are to talk to auxiliary interfaces, sometimes seen as serial or USB to help the monitor auto-adjust to system requirements. Since these are not analog video, they might need a driver in their own right, etc. Complete installation packages and system dependancies, the need for .SYS and .DLL and .EXE files, etc. could apply. I think that EIZO/NANAO comes to mind as a vendor over the years where this could matter. cjl ps: Even UPS systems need drivers for the same sort of ancillary purposes [sometimes referred to as the "powerchute" sub-system?]
  19. You don't actually expect Windows 98 to work properly on a dual CPU system, do you? Actually it works quite fine; this board's GX chipset is perfectly supported in "vanilla" 98SE from 23-APR-1999. As to the use of the second CPU, that's another story! To successfully use this board with a 450 MHz CPU requires the dual-CPU buss to be "terminated" properly. Your options are a hard-to-find buss terminator that plugs into the second-CPU socket, OR to plug in an identical CPU. I chose the latter, since I happen to have a pair of the latest stepping PII 450 MHz, the ones in the SECC2 package more usually associated with the PIII that uses the slightly different CPU hold-down hardware. [This board doesn't really like PIII, and while the upgraded BIOS is rated for it, it's merely a family upgrade of the BIOS for the benefit of related boards that support only one CPU, etc. I did the upgrade to get larger-disk LBA support that comes with the last release.] So, at first glance, it appears to be a dual PIII system, but while using SECC2 hold-down hardware and heatsink/fan units, they are actually the tail-end production of PII chips. All works perfectly fine on 98SE, including APM support and the ability to shutdown and power-off. However, in XP, another matter entirely: With a single CPU [slower to regain stability, I used a PII-300], it works perfectly fine as APM, but XP does NOT support DUAL-CPU shutdown to power-off unless you also have ACPI, which this old board doesn't quite have. Thus, with the present two CPUs, you get the rarely seen XP version of the "It is safe to shutdown Windows" message. It's a nice old board, and gave me a place to put FOUR 128 MB PC-100 SDRAMs. In seven slots, you get a 2x AGP, one ISA, one ISA/PCI-shared and the rest are PCIs. Only problem is that while it is ATX, it's broad in the front-to-back sense. Won't fit in quite a few cases, but I found an adequately "deep" one, etc. cjl
  20. I just copied that in the registry at HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\inffile\shell\install\command I don't know more about it. resp: OK, I'll try it. There are a couple of other applications for pretty much the same thing. For example, there is a [i believe MS-sourced] .inf file to defrag all drives after next reboot that works with a right-click install that would be more convenient if a batch could apply it instead [perhaps with a forced reboot as well], and perhaps an easier way to install TWEAKUI version 1.33 which is also accomplished the same way, etc. The overall purpose is to batch together all of the prevailing updates to Media Player 6.4 in 98SE. Unfortunately, the packaged version of 832353 was released with a deliberate restriction [probably arrogantly by a manager within MS] to prevent the package from running on other than ME. [Note: The typical usage is to update WMP 7.1 in 98SE. The right-click option on the related KB832353Me7.inf file to "install" works just fine, and was the way we worked-around these updates when they were first released, etc.] Since then, at least two user-written packages CLAIMING to perform this have appeared [available from MGDx], but neither quite function correctly for unknown reasons; the Q832353 [as opposed to the MP832353] is the object of this, since it actually does work [manually only, but the other one doesn't work at all for the same purpose; it works splendidly for MP 7.1 and MP 9!], etc. There is probably not a lot to change in the inf file to make 832353 work on 98SE as well. I'd suggest you compare a simple inf file that works on 98SE with this one and you should find quite easily what to change to make it work IMO. I think that the_guy is working on such cumulated updates for the Media Players, so maybe it's best you just wait for it. HTH I hope it can be fixed, since clearly two other attempts haven't fixed it, other than this right-click method to update MP6.4 as the only way currently available that actually works. Although I haven't tested it, I would like to hear from anyone who got the ORIGINAL MS hotfix to work in ME. The only way to have this checked is to build ME and not update it with regard to WMP. This would give you MP6.4 elegible for the hotfix[es; since the problem also applies to the obsolete 828026 that 832353 replaces] and irrelevantly MP7.0 but not MP7.1. Since the fix only updates the highest version installed among 6.4, 7.1 and 9.0, this would be the only configuration where the original could be tested as released, etc. The original release, although constrained by the package to check for ME, actually does have use in 98SE as long as you are attempting to use it for the purpose of updating MP7.1 or MP9.0. It sounds more like this is a bug regarding the ability to patch mp6.4, not which operating system. Additionally, it only patches the highest of the three supported versions installed. While I cannot get it to patch 6.4 if 7.1 is installed, this appears to be by design. And of course if 9.0 is installed, that's what gets patched, etc. The user-written MP832353.EXE works perfectly fine for patching WMP 7.1 or WMP 9.0 for Win98SE and is perfectly batchable. However, it claims to work for 6.4 and fails to. Same if you unpack the files within the user-written hotfix, which is how I observed its failure to update WMP 6.4 [when 7.1 or 9.0 is not installed]. The user-written Q832353.EXE perhaps almost solves the problem, but I cannot get it to run as supplied. It always issues a message regarding the need to install WMP6.4 and will not patch my system [which has 6.4 installed either from the stand-alone MS installation package generally known as mpfull.exe or as as the result of optionally installing it with IE6.0 SP1. This one claims to specifically solve the problem I seek relief with, since it's a package to just update 6.4, not 7.1 or 9.0, and I think for more systems than just 98SE. Once unpacked and using the right-click INSTALL option, it is the only way to get this problem solved available now. Perhaps it works as released in 98 or 95 but... cjl
  21. I raised yet again the issues over using BROWSELC.dll and BROWSEUI.dll taken from 5.5-related releases over the same files installed by updates to IE6.0 SP1, etc. [see my previous post above.] Can anyone address a new concern: I notice references in the registry to the browseui.dll in \windows\system as opposed to the one registered in \windows. Thus: Is the copy now in \windows [as suggested] and then regsvr32'd there actually replacing the copy in \windows\system? Should it instead go into \windows\system so there is only one copy? [Notwithstanding the IE6-related files are in program files\internet explorer, where perhaps they either do no harm or perhaps are merely ignored?] I don't understand how/why registering the file does NOT completely obliterate references to the ones there before this attempt at fixing the file copy/hang problem, etc. So, is the recommended method flawed as I describe or is this by design and in fact we have perhaps as many as three sets of files deliberately placed for some definable reason? This does not seem to be a problem of browselc.dll at all, just browseui.dll. cjl
  22. ? resp: Meaning all updates called 828026 or 832353 from MS or user-written replacements. PowerArchiver is just a convenient way to get these updates unpacked into their component form, etc. Each one generally would allow a command-line usage with typically /C and perhaps /T, etc. ?resp: Meaning to work with the unpacked files as opposed to the package as is generally expected. Sometimes it's a designated internal .exe file, other times it's some .inf file or other that would be used with a right-click to "install" option on the opened menu, etc. You could maybe simply put this in a batch file : "rundll.exe setupx.dll,InstallHinfSection DefaultInstall 132 %1" And replace %1 by the name/path of your inf file. But you'll probably have to use the wait command if you want to chain updates. Better bet is to create a single inf file where you put everything in. Or create an installer for each inf file with IExpress and chain those installers with WishMaker's tool, the Windows Updates Installer. The purpose is to hardwire the command inside of a much larger batch, so a passed argument isn't necessary. However, it would be nice if it worked relative to the current directory it was running in. An example would be to first unpack the files of the user-written Q832353.EXE into an arbitrary subdirectory of the batch folder itself. Call that TEMP, thus from the vantage point of the running batch job, this is .\TEMP etc. In there would be the .inf file that wants to have accomplished the equivalent of the right-click "install" option, along with all of the other files released within the Q832353.EXE package. [As a relative folder called TEMP, all of this is easily accomplished with normal batch commands, etc., and thus no open questions about that aspect of things.] So, would this be an appropriate usage: CD TEMP rundll.exe setupx.dll,InstallHinfSection DefaultInstall 132 KB832353Me64.inf CD .. [for the benefit of the other updates in the batch lacking this problem] [Can you explain what this does? I am especially curious of just what is 132 meaning? I know that a lot of .inf stuff uses arbitrary numbers to designate such as specific subdirectories, etc.] The overall purpose is to batch together all of the prevailing updates to Media Player 6.4 in 98SE. Unfortunately, the packaged version of 832353 was released with a deliberate restriction [probably arrogantly by a manager within MS] to prevent the package from running on other than ME. [Note: The typical usage is to update WMP 7.1 in 98SE. The right-click option on the related KB832353Me7.inf file to "install" works just fine, and was the way we worked-around these updates when they were first released, etc.] Since then, at least two user-written packages CLAIMING to perform this have appeared [available from MGDx], but neither quite function correctly for unknown reasons; the Q832353 [as opposed to the MP832353] is the object of this, since it actually does work [manually only, but the other one doesn't work at all for the same purpose; it works splendidly for MP 7.1 and MP 9!], etc. Unlike Media Player 9, Media Player 6.4 and 7.1 never had updates that render this one obsolete, thus the user activity to replace the flawed original. cjl
  23. Minor update: Q832353.EXE does NOT require browse helping. That was an interaction with the innards of MP832353.EXE. Still needs to be naked though [the main concern]. cjl
  24. First of all, Hi to all of you! Been a long summer, and back to work, etc. Been having a few problems with the 828026/832353 updates for MP64 and MP71. Here's the configuration: Hardware: SuperMicro PGDGE dual PII-450, 512 MB, 3com Etherlink III, TEAC DW-552E, Matrox Millenium I 8 MB. [Note: No drivers added; this is a test configuration to see if you can make a system adding NO driver upgrades beyond 98SE release.] Software: 98SE with 98lite installed before [as opposed to after], followed by upgrade to IE 6.0 SP1 and many patches, then SP 2.1a, then remove extraneous reference to q313829 in IE Help/About the SP causes [minor cosmetic; the SP needs to check that the update has already been applied and not do it again.] The IE 6.0 install included the WMP6.4 option. At this point want to apply 832353. [Note: WMP7.1 is NOT present.] Of course the "official" release can't work, because this ain't ME. Using the MP832353.EXE seems to do something, goes through the motions, but ultimately cannot update msxdm.ocx. Using Q832353.EXE says "You must install Windows Media Player 6.4 to use this update" so no better. Applying powerarchiver to all of the updates I know of: I have had success with the MS release for ME of 832353 if I work with the innards of the fix as long as MP71 or perhaps MP9 are present. I don't remember if I used the LaunchWMPInf.exe file or right-clicked "install" on the appropriate .inf file, but in any case all of that doesn't work here where I only have MP64 installed. I also tried the MS release for NT innards and it doesn't work either. The innards of MP832353.EXE also doesn't work. The innards of Q832353.EXE **DOES** work!!! So why is it complaining unless opened "naked"? Additionally, using it this way [the only way I can get it to do anything useful!], it seems to have the mark of several other unofficial updates, in that it gets confused about finding update files during the update, which makes unattended use impossible even if I can figure out how otherwise to make it unattended, etc. Is there any way [some form of RUNDLL or whatever] to automate for batch purposes what is the right-click to "install" option of an inf file? Thanks for reading, guys cjl

  • Create New...