CLASYS

exactly, PROBLEMCHYLD! I hope some people like Big Monstro dont ask in the future when the next release of 98se SP will come out. if anyone else wants to b*tch about that will have to answer to me. the next version is inevitable but we all need to wait patiently for Gape to release it. exactly, erpdude8!And in the meantime, we should make every attempt to minimize any grief for him by hashing out all issues he would want to deal with and show as united a position about what should and should not be done, etc. What is also inevitable is that there may not be much after said next release! cjl

First of all: Hi guys! Been a busy summer, but I'm back a little bit.What eidenk says here is serious if accurate. I thought the whole idea is that the files taken from what best you can get if you install IE5.5 SP2 is supposed to relieve the problem? Clearly it seems to get much better when using IE6.0 SP1 (mucho patched), but why wouldn't the "native" form be at least as good if not better. I have found that patching it as recommended here, while a major step forward, still might have some occasional problems. I'd like to just raise some potential issues: 1) Moving the original files [before you applied anything 5.5-like] to the IE directory -- Does this actually do anything other than a convenient placeholder to undo it. Does Iexplore.exe actually use them, considering the registered versions are in \Windows? Or does the rule of "in my directory is mine" trump that? 2) The 5.5-like files, and I assume the choices are now final as to which two, are placed in \Windows and registered there. Anything to gain by keeping the originals in \Windows\System? Wouldn't we possibly be better off then deleting those, since presumably, anyone playing by the rules has to ignore them, since they are no longer the registered copies? Or as a more drastic step: Replace the ones in \Windows\System with the 5.5-like ones in \Windows? Or even more drastic: Do that and deregister the ones in \Windows and instead register the now-same ones in \Windows\System? And to finish that thought, delete the ones in \Windows at that point [should always be able to delete the non-registered copiesl, correct?] cjl

Older one doesn't work on this machine; the newer links just wait forever and never download for me...cjl

Problem: Sony VAIO PCG-F390 came with Win2K and Sony's driver for ALPS pointing device is one of these self-installing thingies that won't let you put the driver in directly; it has to "install" it which gets you a driver and a proprietary control-panel mouse extension. But it only installs in Win2K; it checks I was able to install Win2K, install the Sony driver, then upgrade to XP. The driver seems to have survived. Is there any way to eliminate this step for a clean install of XP? 1) A newer Sony machine uses the same hardware with an XP-supported driver? Or someone else's implementation of the Alps glidepath device would be compatible? 2) Any way to "lift" what the driver put into 2K/upgrade to XP to make it be installable after the fact? 3) Fool the driver installation package into believing XP is 2K? 4) Or anything else you guys might dream up! tia, cjl

Problem solved. Thanks guys! The DELL stuff was apparently from a failed former DELL [not REAL OEM!] version that was in turn messed up by attempting to slipstream it to SP2 from its original state [past SP0 with a few updates, but not even SP1, etc.]. The problem was assuming that would be fine with a reinstall relative to the real OEM install. Switching to an OEM collection of files [taken from an OEM install disk at SP2] all just worked fine reinstalling it on the same exact hardware as the one the info was posted from. Liked by WGA and activation now! cjl ps: The DELL version has some problems apparently not discussed *enough* on the forum. I attempted to install a DELL version after a slip-stream attempt on this very disk. Here's what I did: Removed SVCPACK.INF file and replaced with SVCPACK.IN_ file taken from REAL OEM [essentially a dummy version; this was necessary so SP2 would slipstream at all!]. To save space, removed the SVCPACK subdirectory in I386, and all of these post-SP0 Qxxxxxx.exe files in I386 as well [essentially redundant to the ones in the SVCPACK subdirectory.] I noticed three variant NT Kernel files as described on a Dell Forum. I believe the slipstream created them in EXPAND format [.ex_] but they were there as .EXE from the obsolete original, and this is what was causing the message about "USBEHCI.SYS is corrupted" which went away by EXPANDING the three .ex_ files overriding the originals, etc. [A question: Is it NECESSARY to expand the three files? Isn't it enough they are there in the .ex_ format? Or is it that the DELL variant needs the .exe form because it started that way?] The install is just using the SP2-slipstreamed I386 directory, thus getting rid of things like $OEM$ directories, etc. Either booting from a DOS/SMARTDRIVE diskette/WINNT.EXE or from Windows/WINNT32.EXE; results apparently not affected by choice of starting up [but this is NOT a complete CD, just an I386 directory, etc.] In any case, just doing that much wasn't quite enough! It DID try to install, but eventually ends with a STOP 71 error BSOD somewhat later into the install. Actually, my question is [in support of solving this problem]: If I find that the original has a .EXE and SP2 comes with a .EX_ instead, changing them all should solve the problem? And generalizing, should the fix be to delete the old .EXE or REPLACE the old .exe from the SP2-derivable .ex_ ? I suspect this would get rid of the STOP 71 problem eventually, but clearly these DELL disks are even more non-SP2-slipstream-worthy than has been reported in forums, etc. [My gut feeling is that as long as the files are present in only ONE form, it doesn't matter, but I figure I better ask!] cjl

Ok, here it is:_________________________________________________________________________________________ Diagnostic Report (1.5.0540.0): ----------------------------------------- WGA Data--> Genuine Validation Status: Genuine Windows Product Key: *****-*****-J4DWT-P4MHG-3JHJ3 Windows Product Key Hash: 0wGMxQ4/6vqyEbHkYympr8AHXE0= Windows Product ID: 55274-OEM-2214435-90129 Windows Product ID Type: 3 Windows License Type: COA/Sysem Builder Windows OS version: 5.1.2600.2.00010100.2.0.pro Download Center code: 3X95GS7 ID: 01fad7d2-f2ac-4ee9-a93c-21596991810a Is Admin: Yes AutoDial: Registry: 0x0 WGA Version: Registered, 1.5.530.0 Signature Type: Microsoft Validation Diagnostic: System Scan Data--> Scan: Complete Cryptography: Complete Notifications Data--> Cached Result: N/A Cache refresh Interval: N/A Extended notification delay(non-genuine): N/A Extended notification delay(un-activated): N/A All disabled: N/A Reminder reduced: N/A File Exists: No Version: N/A Signatue Type: N/A OGA Data--> Office Status: 109 Office Diagnostics: B4D0AA8B-467-80070002 Browser Data--> Proxy settings: N/A User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Win32) Default Browser: G:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe Download signed ActiveX controls: Prompt Download unsigned ActiveX controls: Disabled Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins: Allowed Initialize and script ActiveX controls not marked as safe: Disabled Allow scripting of Internet Explorer Webbrowser control: Disabled Active scripting: Allowed Script ActiveX controls marked as safe for scripting: Allowed File Scan Data--> Other data--> Office Details: <GenuineResults><MachineData><UGUID>01fad7d2-f2ac-4ee9-a93c-21596991810a</UGUID><Version>1.5.0540.0</Version><OS>5.1.2600.2.00010100.2.0.pro</OS><PKey>*****-*****-*****-*****-3JHJ3</PKey><PID>55274-OEM-2214435-90129</PID><PIDType>3</PIDType><SID>S-1-5-21-484763869-436374069-854245398</SID><SYSTEM><Manufacturer>VIA Technologies, Inc.</Manufacturer><Model>VT8363</Model></SYSTEM><BIOS><Manufacturer>Award Software International, Inc.</Manufacturer><Version>6.00 PG</Version><SMBIOSVersion major="2" minor="2"/><Date>20020613000000.000000+000</Date><SLPBIOS>Dell System,Dell Computer,Dell System,Dell System</SLPBIOS></BIOS><HWID>AD7434C70184C959</HWID><UserLCID>0409</UserLCID><SystemLCID>0409</SystemLCID><TimeZone>Eastern Standard Time(GMT-05:00)</TimeZone></MachineData> <Software><Office><Result>109</Result><Products/></Office></Software></GenuineResults>

I apologize if this one has come up before, but it's a specific system for a user of mine: The machine had already on it a copy of XP Pro that was corrupted, taken from another computer, but he wanted to rescue the contents of his installed stuff, etc., so that was the original state of the machine, NOT a clean install. XP was repair-installed using a legit OEM copy of XP Pro, which required activation. It was successfully activated. But it still has some problems internally, unrelated to activation. It has already gone to Windows Update and has successfully passed WGA as well. [The Notification Tool is NOT downloaded and has been told to stay away, but the validation was installed, passed, etc., and now it recommends updates, etc.] Thus, the only problem here is the apparent interaction with the old installed stuff and the new [repair] install. Now to the new problem: I talked him into doing a clean-install, but my new problem: Activation won't work claiming a bad Prodkey. Fortunately, I made a GHOST image of the old system, and when I put it back, all is well as before, activated and WGA/WU friendly, etc., but still a bit messed up. I understand I cannot use WPA.DBL and WPA.BAK [which exists] to make the clean install appear activated, but it looks like he is stuck with his [paid for!] OEM license activated on a broken install and no way to do a clean install without buying XP PRO again, etc. Any help here? tia, cjl

'scuse me if this is already discussed: I know there was a hotfix on Windows Update called 885250 that had all kindsa problems ranging from corp install issues to network incompatibilities [and I think a fix for some of the problems, 896427?], and a different security update called 913446. Apparently these aren't currently on Windows Update. Any reason? Replaced? Withdrawn? [if so, why?] I have the updates themselves, should I install them or not? [There may be others also awol from WU!] tia cjl Title edited -- Please, use [TAGS] in your topic's title. --Sonic

I have created Hangfix.bat, anticipating the need to repatch after each cum. IE update that includes browseui.dll. I had posed the question of whether this might be needed; I guess you answered that! cjl

And what exactly does that mean [in polite circles]?cjl

avast! is not only good, it's now more cooperative in case it's not the "main" AV program. You can disable any portion of the protection you wish, to lower the overhead. Defaults may not be to your liking but are easily changed. [such as the k00l skin that makes it harder to use! Sorry, I'm a "base" kinda guy!] Very low system overhead and not buggy. And home edition is free. cjl

It's a feature of my router, so I just ask it to make a new MAC and it generates it at random, or I can scroll down through either recently used ones, or can clone the ones from the machines hooked to the router, etc. cjl

At http://tp.lc.ehu.es/jma/win95.html get touch210.exe Does files, folders, etc. freeware cjl

Finally a complete fix! Yes, this works completely. I went to System Information and find the 5.5-derived files are always loaded [for explorer.exe presumably] and no sight of the 6.0-derived files. Running IE, the 6.0-derived files ALSO appeared! And of course WU no longer has a problem; Installed cumulative IE updates STAY installed. Thanx guys! One question: I created a hangfix.bat to do this again. If a new WU cumulative update comes along, do I have to run it again [due to file re-registering]? Not a big problem if prepared for it. I addded /V and /Y to the copy commands so my 5.5-derived files don't generate erroneous complaint messages, etc. cjl ps: I'll keep an eye out for non-solved minor annoyances; I suspect there is still a smaller interaction with a lot of open windows and IE, perhaps while downloading and opening dialogue boxes, etc.

Besides the downsides, hopefully mostly band-aided by using the browseui and browselc substitutions to overcome:Many on-line anti-malware scans require Active-X, a virtual lock for IE. An alarming change is that they are now also requiring IE 6.0, not earlier [ Haven't yet found one that required IE 6.0 SP1, yet!] I assume you understand the worth of such as Trend Micro Housecall, Panda Security Scan, Bit-Defender, a-squared anti-malware scanner, Webroot Spy Audit, or even McAfee and Symantec's parallel offerings. IE <less-than-6> is now officially a dead-end. New security updates already have appeared post 5.x; more will follow; some are specific to 98/SE/ME, or some of us will make them so. To my knowledge, AOL is a thinly-disguised IE 6.0 SP1. Clearly many other apps are; they don't work with earlier versions, or at least not necessarily completely. I prefer FireFox; these companies and others prefer IE, and most if not all either currently do or soon will require IE 6 or newer. cjl

Update Spartan!

Why are you not reading the Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack sub-forum, where this is a routinely solved issue?cjl

You really don't want an answer to that question in like form; it would overflow most browsers cjl

Another reason why I disagree with Chozo4 keeping IE 5.00; some Win98 patches do NOT work unless IE 5.5 or better is installed such has KB888113 and the newly release KB918547. Some Win98 patches DO check the version of IE installed. Run the KB888113 or the KB918547 update under Win98+IE5.0 and the patches will say "This update is not designed for your version of Internet Explorer. Press OK to Exit". Only Win98+IE5.5 or Win98+IE6 configs those patches should work as expected. Agreed.What do you want the SP to do? Have a downgrade option which does NOT install security updates coupled with refusing to at least upgrade to IE55 SP2? I suspect there is little support for updating to IE6.0 sans SP1, so it appears there are only three options at best: 1) New SP warns that security updates cannot be installed unless you check viable IE upgrade box[es]. 2) Choose to install ALL upgrades to IE55 SP2 and relevant updates. 3) Choose to install ALL upgrades to IE6.0 SP1 and relevant updates. I think it's counter-productive to ask Gape to support #1. #2 should be the default and an additional check-box for #3 should be available [and these numerals disappear!] or it just checks what IE version you already have the base install for, etc. cjl ps: I haven't pinned it down, but I believe there is some interaction with Q823559 and just exactly what IE 6.0 SP1 and following updates are installed at the time.

I finally got to the point that Windows Update indicates no further need to update! But then, I wanted to apply the explorer hang fix. Can I assume this is the SUM TOTAL of what to do for that? 1) Copy browselc.dll [Version 6.00.2800.1106] and browseui.dll [Version 6.00.2800.1692] to \Program Files\Internet Explorer. 2) Copy browselc.dll [Version 5.50.4807.2300] and browseui.dll [Version 5.50.4948.700] to \Windows\System [in MS-DOS mode!]. 3) Reboot. [There are no other steps, is this correct?] Now Windows Update insists I do NOT have installed Q916281! Any ideas? cjl ps: If I put the files back, it says I have all updates again!

Apparently the KB918547 updates DO care what version of IE is installed. I've tested the KB918547 updates under Win98/ME. They will NOT work unless IE 5.5 SP2 or higher is installed. Looked at the contents of the KB918547 Win98/ME updates in Wordpad and they check the version of SHDOCVW.DLL file installed. It has to be version 5.50.4807.2300 or better. Otherwise the KB918547 patches refuse to install the files. Can we now agree that the SP should optionally include updates to IE? Apparently limiting the choices to either IE55SP2 or IE60 [or IE60 SP1]?It would appear the hand is now forced, else new updates have to be withheld! cjl

I do too!I didn't say NO ONE uses WMP 9, just not EVERYONE uses it! [i also use MPC 6.4.9.0.] cjl

I notice a new update KB917734 for WMP 7.1, but only for Windows 2000. Inside, there seeems to be Wmpui.dll Version 7.10.00.3078, presumably one point release past what KB911565 applies in 9x with WMP 7.1 installed. [KB917734 claims WMP 6.4, such as obtainable with installing IE 6.0/SP1, is unaffected.] Can anyone check this one out? [it would seem to be an easy fix borrowing the innards of KB911565 installer, and incidentally likely obsoleting KB911565 for WMP 7.1 users.] I don't think everyone installs WMP 9. cjl

That all depends on what exactly you mean by "official". The unofficial 98SE service pack is primarily derived from official MS updates, placed all together in a way that makes it easy to appy them, or so goes the theory.In a few cases, some have been "synthesized" due to MS's lack of any true support for 98SE for literally years, virtually from inception. [And don't think that XP support currently is all that good either! There are literally HUNDREDS of unfinished fixes for it currently!] In recent several years, support seems to be to always mention 98, 98SE, ME, and then point out the way that they bamboozle you into NOT providing an update at all. [And sometimes to irrelevantly mention the 9x systems in situations that don't even apply!] For the most part, the code was written and it does appy to 9x, but the provided updates are in a form that checks for and rejects attempts to install in 9x, but if that check weren't there, it would work perfectly fine! Thus, synthesized updates based on the original MS code get the job done. In a still fewer number of cases, MS releases only work on ME for no good reason at all. By using the "innards" of the update, it can be applied to 98 or 98SE without problem. The restriction to ME is erroneous and apparently the result of an overzealous manager dictating MS policy in contradiction to company policy. [Note: 9x support ends, or so it seems, in July. However, it once was true it ended in 2003, different months for different systems, but all the same year. At a time clearly in the previous year, this a-hole manager declared 98 and 98SE obsolete but not ME. Clearly he is totally wrong! Circumstances changed still later to make him even more wrong. To date, no one has yet updated the installer packages of these updates to correct these problems, but the official packages are vital security updates quite needed. The unofficial SP provides them if you don't want to tackle the problems of the "official" updates, etc. But these would be on the list of updates to be synthesized eventually. Just that the ones that are harder to install are more important. This means ones where you have to manually patch in files while running from DOS as opposed to something you can do totally from Windows itself, just not the minimal way you expect to run updates typically, etc. The active players [my lowly self being one of them] of the 98SE project have been gathering up the underlying updates, and various people have packaged them in various ways. You could consider this a collection of "official" updates. However, there are known problems: 1) Some "official" updates have "official" bugs! Yes, they are official and are non-functional; their installers are broken code never fixed! In some cases, this means that you have to apply them in a certain order, or at least avoid certain known defective interactions of order, etc. [The unofficial SP avoids much of this because it uses its own composite mechanism based on what's in the updates to apply them as an aggragate, thus avoiding the problems.] 2) Some of them are just plain broken! You need to judiciously appy PARTS of these updates because the non-broken parts are beneficial, and is better than to ignore totally the broken update. 3) In one sore case, someone, presumably a noob at MS, designed an update in a manner inconsistent with all other updates, creating pointless compatibility issues and actually non-functionality in certain circumstances. A user on this forum has created an alternative that applies the typical way MS does these things, totally straight-forwardly instead of the bizarre "official" release. His non-"official" version works perfectly fine, the way you woud EXPECT MS to have done it, and avoids all of the consequential bugs, etc. 4) Some updates exist, but never packaged stand-alone, such as you must accept a package you might not even want in the main. But as a side affect, it applies a beneficial "official" file update. But since MS never packaged them separately, there isn't an "official" update to merely apply the fixes, not the superfluous packaged app. The SP applies them as miscellaneous improvements to relevant system files, but cannot attach them to a particular update, other than make reference to the package they came from. Some of this includes such as Win2K server provides 98/98SE apps complete with these sort of fixes to system files considered as a mandatory portion of the app. [Here's a specific one not in the SP, but none-the-less totally official: If you use an app derived from the WinXP official CD, you can apply UPnP to 98 or 98SE just as it exists in ME and XP, and just as broken! Once you have done this, you need official updates to correct these problems. In one case, Windows Update currently correctly points out your need for the update which they can provide.] The unofficial SP also has OPTIONS that go beyond merely adding in the updates, and you can argue about their unofficiality, but just about all of them are check-off items and can be prevented; most users don't want at least some of these frills. None of them introduce bugs, just predictable alternative behavior or cosmetic look changes, etc. Additionally, the SP, by adding in all of them at once, has the added benefit of not loading down the system with file or registry bulk that would accompany installing all of the updates, and this might be of concern to you. This is part of why MS creates SP's in the first place, to effectively erase all of the cumulative overhead of the updates/hotfixes by wiping that part of the slate clean at each release of an SP, etc. Many of these "official" updates have "official" overhead associated with cached files [to be applied on a subsequent reboot] or seldom-needed uninstall file overhead you likely wouldn't ever care about. [There are a few crap cleaning programs that can rid you of some of this overhead, but better to have never had the crap in the first place!] Lastly, Windows Update offerings define "official" for some. Problem is, Windows Update itself "forgets" many of the updates historically it had. I am not referring to cumulative updates merely offering the latest and greatest, I mean non-cumulative updates that fell through the cracks and are now lost - well lost to Windows Update! Windows Update seems to run more like a "popularity contest" for updates, the older ones get forgotten about, even though the fix is just as necessary as ever. And some are security updates too! Generally lacking a replacement [which would be fine if so, etc.]. [Note: This is also true about Windows Update and XP, perhaps more so than in the 9x cases!] I would suggest you carefully think about just how "official" you want to be! cjl (contributor to the 98SE unofficial SP, currently Ver. 2.1a)

ME is as supported as 98 and 98SE, which is still worth a few weeks. It's a bit weird on a forum devoted to 9x issues, to claim ONE of them as obsolete.I hated 95 when it was new; it needed fixing. I hated XP when it was new; it needed a whole lot of fixing, arguably much more than ME, and, more disappointingly, STILL needs a whole lot more fixing. To make matters worse, arrogant MS KNOWS OFFICIALLY of LITERALLY HUNDREDS of fixes that are in hotfix limbo [visit t h e h o t f i x .n e t for details] that they will "consider getting around to" AFTER they release Vista and THEN a service pack 3 that MIGHT deal with some of them, MIGHT NOT. Your experience is just typical of all of computerdom: Never use version 1.0 of anything. As to any initial problems, I can tell you horror stories about NT 4.0, where all of the Adaptec SCSI drives were broken to a man. You couldn't install AT ALL if you used SCSI disks, unless you went back and got the NT 3.51 drivers for Adaptec, and figured out how to override the built-in ones. Maybe you never used NT 4.0 and SCSI, maybe someone else didn't use the combination you had trouble with. Everyone's mileage varies in terms of specific driver support at the beginning, and in no way reflects on what happened as the product matured. Generally, ME got low marks more for what it DIDN'T do, namely be a major step beyond 98. In some ways internally, it actually was an improvement, which we are getting results for now, thanks to 982ME. Nothing flashy, just some better stability. Cosmetically, it resembles a bit of XP, which was hated by many, but then overlooked when XP did some of the same things, as irrational as that sounds. [Many here don't tolerate the LUNA-cies and turn them off, which makes all of these systems, on some basis, look alike. Compare the Win2000 theme as, for example, optionally delivered by the Unofficial 98 Second Edition Service Pack, to Win2K itself, or XP with the LUNA-isms turned off, or to ME. It would appear that cosmetics mean a whole lot to some people who know nada about what's under the hood. This is why Tihiy's Revolutions Pack is important to some, etc.] For myself, the best part of ME is the SCANDISK and DEFRAG pair that work oh so fine in 95, 98, and 98SE, the latter being where I want it to be the most. The speed improvement is rather staggering when you compare. And oh, btw, there is NOTHING that can come even close to what it does compared to ANYTHING you can run under XP on any hardware you might conjure up. [No, the ME defrag does not run under XP!] cjl