CLASYS

I agree with you. However, there are some factors to make everybody happy:1) Not to make the SP much larger. This is handled by making the IE portion an option, say in a .CAB file optionally present in the same directory when you run the SP .EXE package. In fact, doing this way, the SP becomes SMALLER if you remove the current built-in support for upgrading IE 5.0 and handling that as the same optional external .CAB package. [Clearly the file sizes of what the scripting adds to accomplish this is smaller than what IE 5.0 support is already in there now. Also, this is a moot point since it's not very big currently. The main point is that adding in IE support adds little to none to negative space in the package depending on how it's done, etc.] 1a) By modularizing the package this way, the notion of upgrading the SP and upgrading the IE module become independent. Thus, assuming one changes more slowly than the other, one need not download nearly redundant stuff. [This probably especially applies to versions before IE 6.0 SP1 where in some cases there will be no more foreseeable changes.] This concept could conceivably apply to other subcomponents of the SP, such as optional add-ons like metapad or logo files or whatever. I don't mind either one big monster file or a collection of smaller ones. What I do mind is loss of functionality falsely serving the notion of file size economy when it's clearly demonstable that features such as IE updates can be added on without enlarging the overall package either incidentally or even at all [such as when it makes it smaller!]. 2) Not everyone agrees with you about which version of IE they want. I generally do, but I must admit there are some problems past IE55's latest and greatest. IE 6.0 and up *break* things. Can anyone post the current status of just how good can we "repair" 98SE after installing IE 6 or 6 SP1? I hear stories about hanging on large file transfers of transfer of many smaller files or both, or related instability. And ever newer replacement files to try to fix it. Personally, I find that if I do more than a few cut and paste explorer file manipulation, an open window or two hangs and can be killed by the task manager, but new windows will then always crash until a reboot. Also, the faster the machine suggests the more error prone the problem is? Unfortunately, a lot of what we use is starting to demand IE 6.0 regardless of what we mainly browse with. Unfortunately, unlike Opera and Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox, you can only have one version of IE and must choose. [While you may not want to, you can run Netscape 4.79, Netscape 7.2, Mozilla 0.99, and Firefox 1.5 for example, on one system all simultaneously installed.] But this still qualifies as above as a potentially "external" IE .CAB file. Conceivably the .CAB can come in various one-off and does-em-all versions that are used only to the extent it matches the base IE version already installed. For those who like all things in one place, a one-stop-shopping whopper .CAB file could even have all of the install files for all of the IE versions as well, since this would be ignored by the properly designed SP. In any case, there are theoretically afficionados of IE 5.01, 5.5, 6.0 and 6.0 SP1 out their, as well as perhaps all of the various betas and SP levels. But it should be relatively straight-forward to make everyone happy over this! cjl

.bmp

To my knowledge, 313829 is in there. In any case, for the record, there are a whole lot of issues that need to be addressed in order for 313829 to serve everybody [if possible]1) The basics are that it updates to a newer version of SHELL32.DLL from NT4 to fix a security hole. 2) It is normal for it to be the first update mentioned within Internet Explorer under IE Help/About. Within this update string it is known as "q313829" as opposed to "Q313829" which is the signature format of all of the other updates to IE/OE [starting with a capital "Q"]. As an accomodation to 98lite when used with the SLEEK [V1] or MICRO shell, the normal installation of the hotfix Q313829 cannot be made, since SHELL32.DLL is actually the one from Win95B. However, the file is in there, just renamed to SHELL32.W98 as part of the overall SLEEK [V1] or MICRO implementation of 98lite at the time [as opposed to the OVERWEIGHT or CHUBBY shell versions which uses the standard SHELL32.DLL file]. In this situation, the Win95 versions of icons are all that are present in SHELL32.DLL and presumably a smaller head count of icon choices. [some people care about this!] To my knowledge, the SP 2.1a correctly does update this situation as well. In any case, I personally manually modify the designation to "Q313829" to indicate this subtle alternative should it apply. If no one objects, I would ask that this sublety become part of the SP. [Or it become an installation option; arguably others may want the capital Q just for consistency with the other updates!] [Note: There are restrictions on the use of the Win95 shell; it clearly isn't a free ride. However, while having many restrictions, it also offers many benefits that could be of use to many users. Curiously, it may also be of transient use to cause a cleaner/better installation of IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 and then abandoned in favor of the standard version.] 3) The update makes SHELL32.DLL change only in terms of updated files. 4) The updated SHELL32.DLL as provided is slightly incompatible with some known packages that use I believe "transparent" icons. A small patch restores this compatibility. [Contact the appropriate authors or MGDX.] 5) SHELL32.DLL is the home of some system icons and some possible alternative ones. Apparently portions of the O/S know of these icons by their relative position within SHELL32.DLL [presumably unchanged by the Q313829 update in this regard]. The reason we know this is that if you patch the icon pixels, your updated icons are used. Thus, nothing is checking or anything of the sort; just using an area designated for a particular function. There is an SP option to use the more "modern" icons associated with WinME/Win2K/XP. By some means I'm not sure even matters with respect to 313829, the associated text verbiage can be made to match such as "My Network Places" instead of "Network Neighborhood". Regardless, these changes are part of the option as well. The net result is a SHELL32.DLL consistent with Q313829 but icon-wise patched for ME cosmetics. There is a consideration with regard to the icon patch I don't think has been addressed, albeit a minor one. In theory, any icon-bearing file can be used for any system icon pretty much. However, there is a nuance to the situation: Unless the Recycle Bin icon is within the designated file [and perhaps more specifically is the one in the designated position, I am not sure of this aspect!], then a display anomaly occurs where the displayed main Recycled Bin is updated, but when you open a drive window to display a drive-specific "local" Recycle Bin, the icons used there are the original ones, not the updated ones. Thus, the designation of the "standard" icons in terms of being within SHELL32.DLL and perhaps being in the standard positions [recycle bin empty and recycle bin non-empty] is important to maintain. The minor problem is that within SHELL32.DLL is about 1.5 sets of icons for this, not two. So, if the main set is chosen for the ME variant, there aren't enough alternate icons to fulfill a reasonable alternative and avoid the display anomaly. Thus, I would suggest that if the ME design is opted for, some other icon be replaced by the standard one to at least have an alternate set of reasonable icons for this purpose; this allows the user to change their mind freely without having to regret letting in the ME icon option in the first place. [Just look at all of the icon choices within SHELL32.DLL whether ME-oriented or standard to see what I mean. Clearly something can be designated within the ME-modified one to have essentially the standard type still also available without having to dump the entire ME modification overall.] 6) QFECHECK is not a factor for Q313829, so don't look there for proof it's installed; only within IE Help/About. If all else fails, check the version number of SHELL32.DLL. Q313829 installs version 4.72.3812.600 stemming from December 6, 2001 11:25 PM. The original release should be version 4.72.3612.1700 from April 23, 1999 10:22 PM. Hope that helps. Logo files: I agree, those optional files are pretty funky! Perhaps there should be a way to specify alternate files to be applied. My personal favorite was part of an earlier release, which is essentially the original 98 FE logo screen, except tastefully modified to clearly say Second Edition. The main thrust of the SP is to make it easier to install what you want/need. I can always hand copy alternate logo.sys, logow.sys, logos.sys files. But wouldn't be nice if I can specify which ones I want to optionally apply? On the 98lite [litepc] site are a bunch of others that should be looked at, created by other users of 98lite [i have no art skills whatsoever!] cjl ps: Someone modified the standard logos.sys, the one black with orange lettering that says "It is safe to shut down Windows" to instead say "It is safe to shut down Windows, or is it?"

I was away awhile, and I apologize if this is old business: Can someone explain EXACTLY what the VOLTRACK.VXD story is? I have update 273468 providing VOLTRACK 4.10.0.1998 which I believe is redundant to doing nothing in 98SE. I have also seen unofficial versions of 249824 [the official I assume is unavailable?] that claim to add 4.10.0.1999 and another 4.10.0.2000. The SP 2.1a apparently does nothing for this file. What is going on here? tia, cjl

Glad to see there's finally a discussion about this long-needed SP feature! A few observations over the years: 1) IE 6.0 and 6.0 SP1 are very broken and do damage to 98SE. Despite the few times I have tried the browselc and browseui fixes, I don't see any improvement in using explorer for file maintainence; I almost always am expecting it to hang any second! That said, however, I find myself stuck because an ever growing number of such as on-line malware scans are requiring ever-newer IE versions. Some already require IE 6.0, so even IE 5.5 is out! Thus, we need to keep all of our options open; no version is obsolete to somebody! [Well, what about all of the betas and SPx-related local updates? Anyone have a beef against 55 specifically SP1 for example?] I am also a big supporter of Shane Brooks' 98lite [not win98lite!] which also has great interaction with this entire process. Please note that the '95 shell is totally immune to the hanging problem and is amazingly snappy! No problems with any version, including 6.0 SP1 and 38 updates, etc. However, there are problems with the MICRO/SLEEK shell support in terms of an ever-growing number of apps that cannot run on the 95 shell. Until recently, I have been patching just about all of the problem cases using the standard innards methodology of 98lite Sleek itself: Patch the relevant file to use SHELL32.W98 instead of SHELL32.DLL. This fixes the installation of IE 6.0 and IE 6.0 SP1 loadwc.exe file, and a few files that 98lite forgets to patch, especially in the Me-specific installation of Sleek. The list has grown to include every Adobe 6.0x release from 6.00 to 6.04 [you need to patch ACRORD32.EXE] and a bunch of other apps, including the latest AIM 5.9 release. However, there is a major problem with an ever growing list of unfixables: SpySweeper, and NAV past 2002. These programs either cannot allow a patch during their install, or in the case of NAV either the shell can't support it, or the app complains it's been plundered, etc. I cannot get powerarchiver past version 8.80 to work in Sleek at all. Thus, I see the handwriting on the wall -- no more sleek unless you have a really spartan system, such as my bootable LS-120 98lite 98SE micro. Regardless, it's quite a problem to install IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 on 98lite/98SE, but I have a foolproof, albeit weird way to do it reliably. 1) Install 98lite over the 98SE files as documented; choose Sleek [don't care your ULTIMATE choice; chose Sleek NOW!]. 2) Finish up any and all initial install issues, drivers, etc. 3) If you allowed IE to be installed [5.0] remove it now [98lite makes IE an uninstallable option!] and also Windows Update which requires IE be installed; better you opted for neither initially. 4) You need my patched LOADWC.EXE file from the IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 installation handy. Install IE as you normally would. However, at the end of the install, do NOT yet finish the install to reboot. 5) Now replace the \windows\system\loadwc.exe file with the patched one. [Note: Shane Brooks is working on a mechanism to automate what I describe here, but it's not in the latest release yet; he and I worked out this procedure as an interim solution.] 6) Now allow the reboot. Once it comes up again, you will see this amazing display of resetiing personal settings and menus and menu items; on some systems this takes as much as 15 seconds. At this point, Sleek will correctly run IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1 that you just installed; well, as long as you do not install any of the updates! At this point, it is necessary to PERMANENTLY decide what shell you want to use, thus either do nothing or do a shellswap to CHUBBY. [Note: OVERWEIGHT is just showing what you lose giving up 98lite entirely, so why bother!] Fix up any cosmetics you want associated with this near-normal to 98SE system if CHUBBY or spartan speedy system if Sleek. Now, go back and reinstall the same IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 you just did. Thus time, however, always use the method of "custom" instead of "typical". Reinstall everything you did the first time around. Yes, this seems like a total waste of time! If you did this correctly, the IE installer will recommend you exit the install. Don't do this! Instead, choose "reinstall all components" and let that happen. [Note: If you do not get this option, repeatedly install IE until you do! I have seen ME systems require as many as FOUR installations to get the message to pop up!] At this point, the only problem may be that the "E" icon is damaged on the desktop. I have a small registry patch to repair the property-sheet of the icon, and you can use tweakui to rebuild the icons after selecting "Internet Explorer" as opposed to "The Internet" or other brain-damaged desktop icons tweakui offers up, etc. [Or you can choose to take it off the desktop from within Internet Tools and Options.] Sleek does not have this problem, just Chubby. Now you can install any and all of the IE/OE updates as in regular 98SE or 98 or ME. Failure to heed all of the above seemingly wacky/waste-of-time stuff will guarantee that the updates WILL corrupt IE/OE and portions will actually fail to run at all, especially Outlook Express! But doing it will allow all to run fine! Installing IE to our preference is our business. Updating the version we have is the business of the SP. By providing a separate cab file for IE updates that pertains, the SP can do everything anyone needs in this regard, and also make all download bloat considerations become moot. Also, the consideration that you might only load the SP once a month doesn't even apply! For the most part, IE updates are never more to happen, especially in older versions. At this point, IE updates should be considered virtually static and as such deserve to be in a separate cab file. Clearly the rate of change of any IE cab file should be less frequent than an SP release at this point. Personally, I am in favor of adding in all things MS as options, and that includes WMP versions, MDAC/XML and DirectX or even OFFICE updates. Added on as modules, the only overhead is the effort for Gape to do it, and the incidental size of the script files to create the mechanism [and I believe this would be compressed text size change!]. And what of updates for the SP that depend on optional installs? Some are for Plus!, some for UPnP from XP install disks, updates if WebTV is installed, some if WBEM or perhaps WMI are installed, etc. btw, there is a subtle reg patch for 98SE if you remove IE 5.0 and then install 6.0 or 6.0 SP1: There is a bit in the registry to tell 98lite Windows Setup that IE 5 currently is installed. By faking it being there instead of 6 over <no prior install>, Windows Update can become an add/remove option even in the circumstance I documented. cjl

I have a few points I think need to be clarified even before the "bold step" you suggest:1) Can someone please explain the EXACT process by which "all" of the updates are meant to be applied? By this, I mean pretend that we are back in time, waiting for each and every update to come out, and are johnny-on-the-spot in a timely install of all of the relevant updates. This would go a long way to explain just what "all" of the updates actually means, since apparently a lot of us don't quite understand exactly what this even means. And what this does NOT mean is the paltry subset of them that Windows Update actually released, since it missed many of them! 2) A related matter: Can someone explain in plain language what is going on with regard to various forms of "rollups" which were brought out apparently for the purpose of certain categories of specific catch-up. Apparently there are some registry considerations to allow/disallow certain aspects of these things. It's terribly confusing, and again, clarity is needed so we even know what we are attempting to decide about! 3) With respect to 2) above and perhaps other reasons: Where in this overall picture does the IE6WZD [from the IEAK allegedly] fit in? Is this to fix a bug, or only to repair an avoidable bug most of us would never get stuck with in the first place? 4) A loose end or two such as: If you install 258191, the Sens.dll file can get updated past a value more associated with IE 5.0 to at least 5.50.4807.2300, presumably by installing IE 5.5 or newer. Where does this specific file fit in? There is an ongoing discussion about shell hang failures associated with copying either a lot of files or large files or some combination. I believe also the speed of the CPU is a possible factor. It has been suggested that this can somewhat be alleviated [but apparently not completely!] by obtaining BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL which apparently have been updated by various IE-related releases [possibly even from XP]. What would the interaction be here? [should these "little" issues be resolved before or during or after contemplating an IE-oriented major update to an installed version.] Speaking purely to the logistics of adding any of this to the SP: Right now, the SP includes a few updates to take the originally-imbedded IE 5.0 to as far as that can be taken and still be a descendant of IE 5.0 [as opposed to IE 5.01 or any newer]. Some people have taken exception to the inclusion of these IE 6.0 SP1 [or another version newer than 5.0] because of the attendant increase in size of the SP. Done properly, the SP can become SMALLER than it currently is! 1) Remove the built-in support for upgrading IE 5.0. This saves a small amount of space in the release of the SP. 2) Make available by separate download an IE-specific .CAB or other archive file. It should contain the relevant update files for whichever IE version is currently installed. By clever arrangement, it could be compartmentalized into a universal update for all known IE versions including betas if desired from 5.0 through 6.0 SP1. Standard subsets would be popular and available for 1) IE 5.0 to maintain compatibility and essentially make the overall release size-neutral, just the need to obtain two files where the IE file would likely hardly ever change even as the SP itself changes, 2) IE 5.5, 3) IE 6.0 SP1; I suggest these merely because they are the obvious most likely requested versions. Gluttons for punishment can download the does-em-all version for their CD/DVD collection! 3) Should the newly designed SP notice the availability of this IE update cab, AND its innards match the currently installed version on 98SE, then add in a check-box [defaulted to off for all versions past 5.0; 5.0 can be defaulted to on to maintain total compatibility with the current version] to allow updating the currently installed IE. The script/coding to support this is clearly far smaller than the current files supporting the upgrade of IE 5.0 currently. Thus, the notion that this whole matter enlarges the SP can be totally dismissed. No one is asking anyone to download anything they don't want to use. An installation logistic some people need to hear: Unlike the 9x-specific updates [which is most of them, but not quite all of them!], the IExpress-type updates that the IE updates come in do NOT universally install without rebooting first. Yes, you can suppress the error messages, but not their results. Many of these updates do not need to reboot despite the suggestion, and as such, the switches to suppress do serve well. But it has been observed that certain combinations will exhibit error messages and not install without an intervening reboot. Using the quieting switches doesn't change anything, just suppresses the error message, not the negative results. The SP mechanism has no relevance to this, since instead it gets around the entire problem by just doing all of the relevant registry patches and mass file upgrades all at once. There are many sore points even in the 98SE proper updates that refuse to install at all based on order-of-install conflicts with other updates, traceable to bugs in the installer; yes, they SHOULD install, but in fact they do not! For example, Update 249973 will NOT install at all should certain files be provided at the time of the installation attempt because of a prior installation of, say IE 6.0 SP1 [and others]. The installer is grossly broken and only works if few updates are already there at the time. [No, I do not have an exact analysis of just what ticks it off! Suffice to say, install IE 6.0 SP1 and then try to do 249973 and that WILL fail!]. But the SP just correctly installs the files taken from the original 249973, unless existing files are newer. Thus, the SP solves the interaction problem. Other updates I am specifically aware of that exhibit this behavior in certain analogous circumstances are 249863 and 823559. I do not have a current record of IE-specific interactions; however, I have observed the negative interactions between some of them. A specific logistical detail: When you install any version of IE into 98SE, the internal help/about indicates the installed version. Should you install update 313829 to enhance shell security, this is indicated as an additional update in this same area. Subsequently, installing IE updates adds additional update entries to this area. Thus, the desired order is to first install the IE version of choice, then you have to install 313829. However, that is redundant to the SP! Thus, you have to install the SP and then the rest of the IE updates. It would really be convenient if the SP itself could finish that up and install all of the IE updates after first installing 313829, etc. Lastly, a minor sore point: Update 240308 is NOT meant for IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1. Perhaps earlier versions as well, I'm not sure just how far back it should be avoided. It IS for IE 5.0, but clearly must be avoided past some IE release. The SP has to be clear what to do/not to do with this update. [Curiously, the hotfix version is ignorant of this and ALWAYS installs into any version! The SP can do better.] Since others are patterning 98FE and ME SP packages after 98SE SP, it would be a really good thing if this was nailed down, so then it would become a universal modular component for any and all related 9.x efforts. The only differences have to do with the starting points of IE 4.01 for 98FE and IE 5.5 for Me. cjl

Thanks, guys! As always, you are all the best! Petr: At the site I found there is this "other" Q269874.EXE, and it is a password-protected self-extracting zip archive. I suspect because the site is cht [Chinese-Taiwan]-oriented, this is some augmentation for local language-specifics; clearly the one you pointed me to is for the usa-en version. I'm almost done getting all of the QFECHECK-worthy updates [well, all I know of!] into a batch of START /WAIT xxxxxx.exe /q:a /r:n command lines, so that the SP 2.1a augmented by installing all of these updates agree with each other [well, after a reboot!]. I assume there is no reason not to do both, but a question: Does it matter which order? Here's what should be an easy one: I have Q246817.EXE. Does this also cover KB246615 as well? cjl

Also found in this CPATCH archive is the cht version of 306889, which supplies the version of apmbatt.sys found in SP 2.1a. Anyone have the usa version of this? [The apmbatt.sys file itself is the usa-en version of the file or there are no language-specific variations of the file; was this how it was added to the SP?] Alternatively, can anyone modify the cht version to usa-en or other language versions? cjl

In Service Pack 2.1a can be found the following file: 09/25/2000 11:48p 4.71.3336.0 329,488 Rpcrt4.dll which apparently comes from the Q269874.exe file associated with the KB269874 article: DCOM IStream::Write() Corrupts Data with No Error Return Anyone have this fix? I *almost* have it, in that it's available on many ftp websites, usually associated with many other fixes, in an archive generally known as cpatch. The problem is that this one is stored in a self-extracting zip executable archive with a password set. I can point or send anyone to the file offering to crack the password, etc. cjl ps: If not from 269874, where did Rpcrt4.dll come from?

I remember about the not installing the file on other than IBM portables, so yes, what you say is coming back to me, etc. My specific problem is that the KB article refers to a previous generation to the specific laptop. This one is NOT the 600-x series, but the newer T20. The removables from the mentioned era are called "UltraBay" while on the T20-T23 they're called "UltraBay 2000" not compatible with "UltraBay". To make life more complicated, I have to work on a T30 Thinkpad which uses a quasi-compatible to UltraBay 2000 called "UltraBay Plus" and eventually some quite newer machines using the current generation called "UltraBay Slim". Other than the 2000 and Plus being similar, all of the models are incompatible with each other. However, docks exist that allow crossing the lines, muddying it further. It appears the 600-type model is supported on a newer dock concurrent with the more standard dock associated with the T20 family bearing an internal UltraBay 2000 in it, and that's precisely the dock being used with the T20. So, is the caveat about which to use particular to the machine? The dock? The combination? [i don't have a 600 to put the super-dock on; I would apply the 2226 patch if I did, just as I would if I had the older dock with the "plain" UltraBay on the 600; But neither of these cases are what I am asking about, etc.] cjl [clear as mud] ps: Is there a way to know that something isn't working/in conflict? If the 2226 version fixes something, what does it also break? I am willing to try various hard disks, test partition schemes and/or programs if need be, as I have available a 60 GB that is compatible with all of them [7200 RPM, 9.5 ms seek, 2.5" Hitachi/IBM Travelstar; it belongs with the T20 which is running a goodly amount faster with this 60 in it than the original 4200 RPM 12 GB that was in it!], as well as that 12 GB itself, and a 40 GB 5400 RPM that belongs in the T30. And of course all sorts of desktop scenarios just to reveal what the restriction actually breaks if need be.

I've been going through my list of available fixes and came upon this one: Your Computer May Hang While Resuming From Standby Mode with a Removable Device in the Docking Station (252187) The SP 2.1a seems to install the much-discussed ESDI_506.PDR file version 4.10.0.2225, while the 252187 update installs 4.10.0.2226. Does this revision have any reason to be avoided? Might it impact on the discussion about larger partition sizes? More to a specific point [why I found it] is that I have a friend with a T20 ThinkPad and a removable LS-120 (as mentioned in the KB252187 article) and a "super-dock" with the UltraBay 2000 in it. It seems he may need this update in order to use the drive in the dock, is this correct? [And not available in SP 2.1a.) [PS: he also has a CD-R/W drive which is dock-worthy; he tends to use the T20 with the UltraBay battery for more total mobile lifetime, etc., and then brings the machine to the dock at his office where the R/W drive also is; I know he can take out the extra battery while on AC power, and put the R/W drive in the machine's UltraBay, but can he do it the way he prefers, i.e., just to dock it?] Using the LS-120 in the machine's UltraBay, I have built a bootable 98SE[lite-micro] system for maintenance purposes. The whole thing fits in 87 MB not counting the swap file. I can send Q252187.EXE along to anyone who needs it, etc. The KB article doesn't appear to offer it directly. cjl

I'll be glad to see those and other updates added as well [as discussed here previously] The SP installs the equivalent of Q249635 - USB Driver Uses the Largest Supported Report Size to fix some USB problems with semi- or more complex device handling. It updates Hidclass.sys to 4.10.2223. I installed the USB 2.0 support for the aLi chipset in my USB 2.0 card and it installed ME's version 4.90.3000.0. Any problems here? Is this really the best file for 98SE w/SP 2.1a? [btw, actually installing 249635 does correctly report the ME driver in QFECHECK.] cjl ps: Is it me, or is anyone else having problems perusing the forums where the first article or so is repeated as you advance through the forum pages?

Thanks, Erp!So, we have to thank the wonderful "Update" to V4 for this "improvement" to ME. cjl

Go ahead, make my day cjl ps: Don't forget our unsung heroes here [erp, mdgx, etc.] who "somehow" get ahold of all of these updates from others [not just me! I'm a contributor, but by no means a large one; just capitalizing on opportunities: Long before XP SP2 came out, I received an XP post-SP1 update as a "crackerjack" within support downloads for my cell phone! Apparently MS updates pop up when least expected. Anyone care to reveal how 299014, which first was in WU for ME, then disappeared from there, and now is available again, not from WU, but from someone here, etc. actually became "reincarnated"? For the longest time I was manually "synthesizing" the update because fortunately I had an ME system that had been to WU at the right time, so I lifted the registry entries and files, and did it manually, etc.]. Without the updates, we wouldn't have an SP, and we'd all lose to WU and its largely empty promises believed by the those in "clueless" and "wussie" modes (or both).

And that's why I am still a member there. All of us wear lots of "hats" which some people here need to remember! cjl

The upgrade edition is of course a full retail installer, just demands some proof of ownership of a prior system during the install, assuming you install over an empty partition, etc. That other edition you mention cannot do a stand-alone install, it requires running from Windows, which is presumably how you got it to install from Win95 instead of Win98FE. Since Win95C is just a few weeks older than Win 98FE, I have no quarrel with that! However, be advised that the 98lite package can user the former, but not the latter. 98lite installs from a DOS base, thus only the former, a retail DOS-worthy, albeit upgrade edition, is acceptable, as are full retail and OEM editions of 98SE. On an unrelated note: MS sells XP as an upgrade edition, and claims it too cannot install from Win95. This is only partially true, and generally for most of us totally irrelevant. What ACTUALLY happens is that if you attempt a Windows-based install or upgrade from Win95, then indeed it will gracefully tell you it cannot work, etc. However, if you install this XP from a DOS diskette, a more usual way to install XP, meaning the hard disk partition is empty, then you will be challenged for a valid upgrade from former media, pretty much the same way you describe for the 98SE upgrade situation from an empty hard disk. [Note: I haven't tried this from self-booting from the CD, but I believe there is no difference. In any case, the diskette boot method works as explained here.] But, unlike the MS spiel which accurately tells you what you can do from what version of Windows, the DOS install allows the use of Windows 95 as a valid upgrade media! [Actually says so on the screen and it works!] From the product description one would be led to believe you need 98FE through Win2K, but 95 works just fine from there, etc. cjl

First of all: Hi to everyone; been busy, etc. [Alleged to have life beyond SP!] Hearing all of this noise about Windows Update from people who think it's the be-all/end-all just brings up the main point with regard to just about everything this group stands for, which is the total lack of actual credibility MS really has with regard to fixing *anything*. Eck: I haven't been an active member on WindowsBBS since something like 2004; they were wussies then and nothing has changed. The sad part is that people go there believing they actually know anything! We may make noises at each other on msfn, consider it just a lot of "family" squabbles, etc., but all of us are, in theory, on the "same side" with regard to the fundamentals: Just trying to get Windows to work knowing that there are fixes, in various states of officialdom or lack thereof, and we want to use them to fix problems we know about or have heard about, etc. Here are a few reality points [excuse the bandwidth if you know about any of these already, but I think a summary is in order]: 1) No version of Windows has ever been released without quickly needing fixes. This of course years ago gave rise to the perfectly sensible "Don't use Version 1.0 of anything" phrase, and it just about always applies. 2) It has never been easy to get fixes from MS, and they are always ready to make it even harder. I laud various individuals for having "intestinal fortitude" to get past some of this. Without them, we would be quite frustrated. However, on this forum, we have become empowered to the point that we can anticipate getting some measure of control of the situation. 3) Windows Update can be a cruel joke. Far too many people believe it to be both complete and accurate. Most of the time neither apply. Some problems over the years: a ) Lost updates that were at one point on WU, but now aren't nor replaced with "better" ones. Fortunately for all of us, we have recourse, primarily from top members right here! b ) Never-had updates simply because MS policy about what is expected to be in WU itself changes. Is it a place for bugs to be fixed? Or security updates? Both? Neither? It seems that for certain specific sore points all four have applied at some time or other. c ) Total lack of timeliness: I have maintained an unofficial list of WinXP "should-be"s in terms of stuff I don't understand why these aren't in WU. Some were removed because they became allegedly replaced by other updates, that I suspect in some cases was a misplaced trust with regards to whether the replacement actually accomplished anything positive. Still others just seem to have no reason not to be there and months go by. And in a few cases, apparently after a baffling amount of months, amazingly they eventually get to WU! [but once there do they stay there?] Some of these are fairly recent MS security bulletin subjects. Yet, they don't surface quickly [or ever?]. I believe there were some 9x updates that were promised and either never were delivered, or were delivered after one would long ago given up hope, yet verbiage would have you believe it was "real soon now" that they would get there. d) Improper distribution of updates: How many updates obviously pertain to more systems than are nominally offered for? What about the ones where you have to do sneaky things with the innards to get them to install where they are needed, unless you just so happen to be running ME? Some of these updates include arrogant verbiage from self-appointed MS policy makers proclaiming the obsolescence of various systems and thus the justification for non-support, etc. Yet, these statements themselves are fatuous and totally wrong! [Note: In some cases, the specifics are fantasy notions that proclaim obsolescence well before any official drop-dead dates, and I am not talking about when such dates eventually were modified. Yes, official support was extended to June 30, 2006. But this was back before there even was a need to extend it, before the old expire dates, etc. These people were just making up their personal notion of obsolescence, etc. Additionally, since the extension to this June, what about the total lack of change of policy on these updates? Clearly they deserve to be rewritten to include proper support, etc., yet how many just didn't get any changes?] Again, many thanks to all in this forum for getting around much of this, but to continue to allow WU to have anyone's respect is pure fantasy. And if anyone thinks this is just some overall MS policy to get rid of all things prior to XP, here's a few tidbits to give pause: 1) Indiscriminately, before and during the XP era, MS personnel made much of the KB useless by making the notion of date of article totally worthless. Articles were updated merely to point out that they were changing their name from Qxxxxxx to xxxxxx where xxxxxx is the KB article number. Non-information was used to change the effective date of an article because all that was added was a notice of when an article was reviewed, adding nothing literally except the update of the date/time of the review itself. 2) KB articles mysteriously disappear, including XP-related ones, never to be heard of again. Some KB articles contain dead links to others because the demise of the linked page is news to the maintainers of the referring page! 3) KB articles have contradictory contents. Some examples are the infamous "stonewalling" language many of us are familiar with, where they essentially "dare" you to get an update that does clearly exist as documented there, etc. Yet, in some cases, after all that spiel, a download link is actually provided! I once saw a KB article for a recently-released security bulletin update that used the stonewalling language! Fortunately, the actual security bulletin itself added a download link to trump the KB article. But some bulletins use language that depends on the KB article, and in some cases the KB article never has the download link, or in some cases, the KB article itself is never posted! [Or perhaps it was removed?] For those of you familiar with t h e h o t f i x . n e t, it appears there are nearly 300 updates post SP2 for XP, but something like only 60 of them can be counted as ever having been in WU at some point, and usually more like 40 at any point in time. It's true that some of the "extra" 20 come from the claim of having been replaced, but it doesn't seem to hold for all of them. And remember, some took at least 9 months to eventually even be added to WU, so in part it depends on just when you went to WU. It makes it seem like for XP, WU is essentially a "popularity contest" of the most requested recent XP updates, etc. But in this larger list, we find literally hundreds of things MS has at least made a half-hearted effort to fix, many in the "stone-walled" form in terms of the corresponding KB article. [users of that site can get them there anyway, etc.] Far too many of them are fixes to things admitted by MS as being broken by the application of SP2. The reader is advised not to install these fixes unless absolutely necessary, because they haven't been "regression tested" or some other Micro-speak phrase. Yet, the stuff that went through WU has had to be either re-released or replaced at times. Notice how many updates are of the "v2" variety. At certain times, it seemed that WU only provided an update that needed to be replaced less than a week later because the fix, presumably rushed into WU, was actually incorrect and replaced, etc. The point is that WU is not a "seal of approval" on many of these updates, yet there are individuals that basically pronounce all things not in WU as unusable and all things actually in WU as perfect and flaw-free; obviously reality dictates that both of these notions are wrong. For the longest time, some XP updates are in internal conflict, i.e., certain updating methods exist that cannot be applied to something like a sore-point duo or trio. i.e., you have to either use WU or manually install after-the-fact, but not according to the normal rules of server-based installs, etc. Yet, in spite of the known problems, these updates just don't get changed. And of course, WU just continues to make them available. Thus, the widespread use of WU means that MS never hears sufficiently about the actual problems with the update interaction, etc. If XP is a priority, I hate to think of how long a non-priority takes to get implemented. How many months/years does it take for MS to actually bring out a SP? How many months/years more than they claim? And just what about it actually breaks the alternative of the previous SP augmented by available hotfixes regardless of whether "WU-approved" or not? As of this writing, MS envisions Vista to be out, possibly sometime later this year, or next year, or who knows when? But more importantly, they now, having changed their tune several times, admit they intend to bring out an SP3 for XP, but only *AFTER* they release Vista. Dates implied by this mean that not only are there those hundreds of not-quite-available fixes for post-SP2 XP, but probably there will be many more in the next year or so that would also have to be added on so an SP3 could even be half-way relevant. [Maybe they'll change it to release after Vista SP1!] All of this means that some people will always remain clueless; this doesn't mean we have to. On the contrary, because of all of the long and hard work by all involved here, we don't have to operate in "wussie" mode like some others, etc. Please keep up all the good work, as always! cjl

If you us the command described several posts before (ie6setup.exe /c:"ie6wzd.exe /d /s:""#E") you will have no choice to select any feature - just all files necessary for later installation will be downloaded. It shall be noted that the current IE 6.0 SP1 available on the MS website is stripped down version, some components are no longer parts of the setup, like Microsoft VM, Direct Animation, Uniscribe, etc. Petr The original definition within IE6setup.exe was to opt to download "all" of the files and not to install. If this is the command line version of that, then perhaps the same "lie" still applies?The point is that what you formerly got when asking for a "full" download was essentially only all of what you needed for a medium-sized install, not much different from a "typical" install, etc. The rest of the files had to be post-downloaded only if needed because you invoked some additional option. Thus, IE6setup.exe was NEVER prepared to get "all" of the files ultimately needed in every install scenario. Is this the current situation? Or perhaps it's a coincidence because you cannot ask for any options any more associated with the optional files no longer provided? I can't believe this is totally the case. I suggest you try your method, then attempt to install from the download directory and invoke ALL of the options. This should prove whether additional files are still needed, changing the meaning of "all" to merely "some" etc. cjl

Since this thread is about IE 6, I don't expect anyone to object to a further discussion of the updates beyond the basic installation. [This does not mean that I in any way acknowledge the right of others to either obstruct or object to this discussion in other threads merely because RECENTLY it wasn't being done while HISTORICALLY it was.]. There apparenly are some misconceptions about the updates to IE 6.0 SP1. Attempting to add order to the chaos already here: 1) Some of the updates in this thread are technically not part of IE. You certainly can update DirectX for example, but merely independently of IE version or update level. 2) There are more updates than posted so far. Since I have been virtually unavailable for 98SE subjects since this last summer, and only recently have precious little time now, I am speaking largely from the vantage point of what was available as of July or August 2005. However, apparently there is at least one recent update, perhaps more. It would be helpful to me personally, perhaps others, if someone can post on this thread ANY AND ALL updates available since say April or May, 2005. I can then compile a more authoritative list of "all" of the updates. 3) It is true that SOME of the updates are cumulative. It is a falsehood to claim that they ALL are. Given MS's clearly sloppy history, I will not accept without proof that even the claimed cumulative updates are actually cumulative unconditionally. 4) There are two main accumulations. One is for IE 6.0 SP1. The other is for the associated release of Outlook Express intertwined in the installation of IE 6.0 SP1. To repeat, I remain skeptical until reasonably proven wrong that these two separate cumulative streams are such that you merely need the latest of each of them to totally obsolete any and all previous ones connected to their respective accumulations. In any case, clearly one accumulation does not obsolete the other accumulation. 5) There are clearly additional updates not in any way related to the two accumulations. They generally are bug fixes while, at least in the case of the IE collection as opposed to the OE collection, the accumulation is concerned primarily with security updates. 6) Some of the updates, at least in the case of the accumulations, introduced bugs while attempting to fix security problems. While I don't remember the update numbers, I do remember the symptoms: If a specific security-oriented update was installed, some scroll-bar functionality was corrupted! This is quite counter-intuitive, as one would assume that scroll bars is a portion of the gui interface, not a security issue, yet it is true that installing that particular update broke part of the IE gui, etc. To my knowledge, a newer-still member of the IE accumulation remedied this problem. Thus, installing all of the updates in a reasonable order leaves you with net no newly introduced problems of this sort, AFAIK. 7) With the exception of -- I believe the number is KB870669 -- all updates to IE and/or OE will be indicated within Internet Explorer Help/About explicitly. Once you install IE 6.0 SP1, the updates indicated are merely SP1; Introducing these additional updates will show Qxxxxxx where xxxxxx is the KB article number of the applied update appended on the end of this display. The updates that can accomplish this are any for either IE or OE. There are several additional points of interest: #i) Q313829 is indicated if you apply the KB313829 SHELL32.DLL security patch after you install IE 6.0 SP1. The effects of this update are part of Gape's SP2.x package. But to get the indication in IE help/about you have to apply the actual MS update and this must be done AFTER installation of IE 6.0 SP1, as IE installs clear the list. While it could be argued this is NOT an update to IE 6.0 SP1 or even OE 6, it none-the-less is genuine MS update behavior. I would argue that if the SP 2.x is updated to include IE 6.0 SP1 support which I strongly recommend in general, it would make sense to maintain this nomenclature to authentically install the update, etc. #ii) Some versions of the SP in the past erroneously applied Q240308 to IE 6. The problem is that this update is NOT relevant to newer versions of IE, just IE 5.0 or so. These SP releases even applied the correct implementation of the help/about information! Hopefully, this is not currently the case with the latest 2.x which should bypass this update for IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1. #iii) KB870669 was created to counter the infamous "Russian" 0-day attack of June, 2003. It makes IE incompatible with certain proprietary MS applications involving I believe certain MS exchange server implementations, but prevents this deadly effect from happening again. For some reason it is considered an MDAC update, even though clearly it effects IE itself. It is NOT shown in IE Help/About, but does show up as an installed program in the control panel add/remove programs area. This update should be added to any IE installation collection; Can someone confirm that the SP 2.x currently does implement the same results as 870669? To my knowledge, it is merely a registry patch underlying all of the overhead, etc. 8) In other parts of this forum, others have erroneously claimed that there NEVER is a need to reboot between updates if you are applying all of them, thus allowing a batching of all the updates followed by one final reboot. These claims are apparently based on theories, NOT actual experience. I have ACTUAL experience with the updates and can confirm that there is some interaction that REQUIRES a reboot. To not reboot means that an update won't install since it checks to see if some previous update has finalized as a prerequisite for its own installation. While I don't remember which updates interact negatively in this manner with which other updates, I have solved the problem, albeit crudely, with a toy batch file that in essence forces a reboot after EVERY update, thus ensuring this problem will never happen. Installing every update will show up in IE help/about every update in the form of Qxxxxxx where xxxxxx is the number of the update for each and every one of them. Clearly there is no downside to installing all of the updates. To do this manually, especially if rebooting after each as each update usually recommends, is admittedly tedious. My toy batch file is totally automated and unattended. It takes around an hour to self-install, mostly due to the numerous reboots. Due to a quirk of the freeware reboot program I chose, you have to reset the system time [not DATE!] after it has finished. I have to wait for system quiescence before forcing a reboot, and the program I chose has no function such as "wait 30 seconds before reboot" but instead has the function "reboot at exactly the stated time hh:mm:ss". Thus, the batch forces the time to just before the chosen time which gets the job done other than the need to reset the time after all has installed, etc. [Note: I admit that IF you consider installing updates presumed to be obsoleted by other updates is superfluous AND this is actually correct AND you opt not to update the IE Help/About information with regards to the updates you opted out AND it turns out that the unique updates NOT associated with the cumulative updates don't interact negatively with the latest cumulative updates THEN it IS POSSIBLE you do not need to use something akin to my method. However, I certainly haven't done the research to prove any of this, and I am not even inclined to do so as I personally WANT all of the updates indicated; if for no other purpose, it shows just how patched up IE actually is! Additionally, I would suggest that those suggesting that I am DEFINITELY WRONG have NEVER even pondered the entire list of the updates ACTUALLY AVAILABLE, just the SUBSET they personally are aware of. In any case, any of these suggestions will PREVENT the indications of the updates being applied in IE Help/About as cumulative updates DO NOT indicate what they "replace" in any sense. Please note as a counterexample, when Windows XP was expecting a Service Pack 2 which was horribly late, MS released a rollup of all of the most critical then-current updates; This was clearly a "cumulative update" etc. However, in the case of this update, QFECHECK information for all of the contained updates appeared indistringuishably from installing the actual component updates separately. It even installed QFECHECK information about itself! Clearly this is the desired way to implement a cumulative update. However, in the case of these IE updates, this is NOT the way they install!] 9) Some of the updates interact negatively with 98lite. This is true of at least any of the relatively recent OE updates that are claimed as "cumulative". Apparently they DO accumulate the bad behaviour! There is a surprisingly complicated remedy for this, but it will work: a) Pick a shell choice for 98lite. Contrary to the documentation this will be the LAST time you elect to make this change as the consequences of further shell swap are the changes are tantamount to almost a complete reinstall being needed! B) Initially chose SLEEK [V1] regardless of your choice. Install IE 6.0 SP1 as you wish. However, when asked to reboot do not. As of the current 98lite 4.7 and the 98lite 4.8 beta there is no built-in remedy for the problem, but the author, Shane Brooks, is working on a built-in fix. In the meantime, the following will suffice: The installation places the file LOADWC.EXE in the \Windows\System directory. Obtain that file, preferably doing all of this before the actual installation from either a dry run or extract it from the IE .cab files, and perform a patch operation to the binary: [i use Norton Diskedit] Search for the ASCII string "SHELL32.DLL" and patch three bytes to be instead "SHELL32.W98". This is in keeping with how 98lite makes "uncooperative" programs behave under SLEEK [V1] shell. This is the replacement LOADWC.EXE file. Replace the LOADWC.EXE file just installed by the IE installation with the patched version. Then allow the reboot as in a normal installation. The reboot will cause the installation to initialize all correct customizations and browser personalizations that were missing from all IE 6.0 installs that are reminiscent of the analogous install details of the IE 5.x era especially when installing on Windows 95. This is a sore point of the IE 6.0 installation because Windows 95 support was arbitrarily removed from IE 6.0 and following. In the process, this part of the installation was also lost! Thus, you get a "better" installation of IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1 if you do it this way, etc. Please note that if you install IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1 under the CHUBBY or OVERWEIGHT shell in 98lite, you don't make the LOADWC.EXE file replacement, but you also won't get all of these nice "lost" update actions! c) Now implement your chosen final shell choice [which could be SLEEK [V1] which is the current setting. the recommendation is to chose the shell swap even if to the same shell, etc.]. At this point, it is now necessary to TOTALLY reinstall IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1. If the current shell is SLEEK [V1], you will again have to ensure that the LOADWC.EXE file is the "patched" one, since it could get corrupted by the IE install. You must REPEATEDLY re-install IE, using the custom choice [as opposed to the "typical" installation] chosing any and all options you want, including those in bold which claim to indicate they are already installed. And of course if this is the SLEEK [V1] shell, replacing the LOADWC.EXE file, etc. This process MUST be repeated until the attempt to install produces a new installation message suggesting that you do not have to reinstall, but DOES give you the option to "reinstall all components" which you should in fact select. It is this installation that finally causes there to be no later corruption of OE caused by later installing the updates. In the case of the 98SE 98lite SLEEK [V1] installation this will problably succeed on the second install. On Windows ME using CHUBBY, this could be as many as four times to install before the "reinstall all components" message finally appears. In 98SE, after the switch to CHUBBY it appears that two more reinstalls will suffice, not four. At this point, the shell choice must be frozen. Attempts to install Q330994 or any of the newer cumulative OE updates will succeed. Not heeding this advice GUARANTEES that OE will be corrupted under 98lite unless perhaps SLEEK [V1] shell is avoided. [Note: I cannot guarantee this even works! I always chose the initial SLEEK [V1] shell choice to get the "best" IE installation, then usually swap to CHUBBY. I can vouch for the fact that anything less than this WILL in fact permanently corrupt OE 6 requiring starting all over again by going back to the SLEEK [V1] shell and proceeding as above. Also, once corrupted, a plain uninstall and reinstall will also not work, even if you chose CHUBBY; apparently the corruption can only be removed back at the SLEEK [V1[ shell choice, etc.] Please note that 98lite greatly predates Q330994, thus this bad OE corruption wasn't seen for quite awhile. There is apparenty some form of .DLL file mixup caused by the Q330994 update itself [and all of the newer-still OE cumulative updates as well!] interacting with something done by 98lite that wasn't known to be harmful before the update release. At this point, the only known remedy is causing IE to believe it is being reinstalled over IE as opposed to a virgin install, thus all of the above became necessary, etc.] For those faint of heart, I can provide a copy of the patched LOADWC.EXE for IE 6.0 SP1; it is only a matter of patching the three relevant bytes, etc. 10) Some people have objected to including support for IE 6.0 SP1 in the SP 2.x because it would make the download larger. This is simply not true, since the size of the updating scripts would be minimal. However, to avoid the problem, the updates should be made in an alternate package which could amount to a size comparable to the current overall SP! Thus, anyone wanting to NOT update IE is not penalized in any way, while those of us who want the updates just have to download some alternate .CAB file or something containing the rest of the IE-related files. This notion could also extend to alternate versions of IE between IE 5.0 and IE 6.0 SP1 that are favored by some people. The scripts to install any associated IE updates would do little to change the final size of the service pack update binary file; the appropriate update file copied into the same directory as the SP installer would get the job done if opted for, etc. cjl

While I haven't tried to download IE 6.0 SP1 lately as I already have all of the relevant files, which I believe is MORE than 40-something MB, more like 55 MB, this is how I came by them: Just obtain and run IE6setup.exe and run it from a 98SE system already up and running a lesser IE, such as 5.0 standard with the release. You are given the option of supposedly obtaining a download-only of ALL of the files and the ability to specify an alternate download directory of your choice. While this sounds good, it's somewhat of a lie. In actuality, you get about half of the available files you might need. Once you actually constructively install IE 6.0 SP1, you again run IE6setup.exe. Depending on the options you choose, you might get a message essentially asking if it has your permission to download additional files from an Internet download server of its choice. You should respond affirmatively and let it locate one from the list. However, I have never seen more than one such server, at least from North America, which is what it was choosing for me, etc. In fact, you should choose ALL features of IE 6.0 SP1, so that ONLY ONCE you will get each and every file. Thus, in my case, this raised the downloaded files in my choice of directories from about 1/2 of the about 55 MB of files to just about all of them. My numbers are slightly contaminated, because I also added on a few more by additionally taking the entire collection to other machines running XP pre-SP1 and WinME which causes a few more files to be requested. Petr is effectively wrong on his guess about deleting the files, although I cannot vouch for expressly if this is because of the method he suggested being perhaps different from mine. In any case, doing it PRECISELY this way deletes none of the files you already have. Thus, the collection merely grew, never shrank, etc. About the only discrepancy between my collection and MS releases could perhaps be if NT4 or W2K needed any additional files, since I don't run these systems, etc. So, limiting ourselves to obtaining any and all files you might ever need for IE 6.0 SP1 itself, just actually do the install of literally every option, and you will have all of the files you will ever need regardless of which options you might select in the future, etc. If you feel you have over-installed IE, just uninstall it and then reinstall choosing only the options you actually want. In any case, you have all the files to do a maximal install for the future. I would suggest doing this NOW instead of waiting as indeed as others have suggested, sloppy support and the approaching end-of-life in June means that it's all downhill from here; indeed we may need to support each other in terms of supplying "missing" files, etc. This is part of why I am one of the proponents of the Service Pack including support for IE 6.0 SP1. This would encourage a CD package for anyone needing the "whole thing" once MS starts letting us down even further than ever; remember, this entire forum is dedicated to doing what MS SHOULD have done, but never did! Clearly, the IE 6.0 SP1 problem represents a significent portion of the overall problem. If it were not for the efforts of Gape, Erp, MGDX and others [me too a little!], we might be far worse off than where we are today. The collection of files need not be in any particular directory. If any files are needed from the Internet, they are just added on to the directory where IE6setup.exe was run from presently. If you get all of the files, it could be burned onto a CD, since effectively no additional downloads happen, thus no attempt to write out new files, etc. cjl

That's a good suggestion, but this is a new install that just wants to be good for a low-end user on an apparently somewhat odd mobo.I solved it! The problem is in the design of XP's default guesswork about ACPI. Apparently, unless your mobo is on the "good" list or on the "bad" list, they assume that anything with a BIOS date after 31-DEC-1998 is perfectly ACPI-compliant. This one ain't! [i guess XP ACPI is sorta like a Santa Claus that thinks he knows who is "naughty" and "nice" .] The BIOS had been updated a few times, most recently in 2002 to get to 48-bit LBA and prevent hanging on a disk over 30-odd GB, etc. No actual ACPI changes and no XP awareness about the "rules" of ACPI, etc. Thus, XP assumes it can do the ACPI HAL, and it's all down hill from there. The fix is to install XP from a copy of the I386 directory modifying the TXTSETUP.SIF file. In the [ACPIOptions] section, the default value for ACPIEnable is 2 which means that ACPI is considered compliant if a ) It appears to be ACPI, b ) The bios date is ACPIBIOSDate or newer, which itself defaults to 01-Jan-1999. Thus, this mobo was considered "good" for ACPI. Setting ACPIEnable to 1 overrides the setting so a ) it appears to be ACPI is considered good enough, which would make this situation no better! Setting ACPIEnable to 0 overrides the setting so ACPI is totally ignored. That did it! As I reinstalled XP, I soon saw the first sign of sanity: Today's date [change time zone; this is Eastern USA, not Western USA default], as opposed to a day in the year 1601! Once installed, all worked fine; Windows shutdown gets to the "It is now safe to turn off your computer" message, a minor annoyance, but no ACPI entries in Event Viewer, and no instability and good time/date, etc. However, that went away as well: In Device Manager, I enabled legacy APM support as well as in the power settings; the board *IS* APM 1.2 compliant. So, now the puppy completely shuts off like the big guys do, and the kid is quite happy; I was glad to help him out gratis. cjl [Merry Christmas AND Happy Holidays for all!]

Need help on an older board for a disadvantaged user. System is Pentium-II/450 128 MB based on FIC KA-6130 already at last BIOS level [c. 2002] but still has some lingering problems that apparently only XP is showing. Initial symptom is that the time is reset to the year 1601 12:00 am [i think Sep 01] which is apparently a zero-ed out time register. Always complains at each bootup about wrong time/date. You can fix it and even net-synch it, good for rest of that session, etc. Event viewer shows some blocked AML operations from the BIOS apparently poking at some APIC registers or somesuch. In any event, this appears to be problems with a not-quite-compatible ACPI bios as XP defines it. What do I have to do either before, during, or after install to make XP not attempt to use this as an ACPI machine? Or is there some unrelated problem about why the time is hosed at every boot? cjl [perfectly happy to see the XP "It is safe to turn off the power on your PC" message] Title Edited - Please follow new posting rules from now on. --Zxian

A fine tip to a good resource. I didn't look through all those 139 pages for IE-specific updates, but I do have a few questions that could be troubling:1) IE updates do not track OS releases. Sometimes one binary can install anywhere the product goes; In other instances, multiple different binaries are needed to handle all of the situations. IE 6.0 SP1 can apply to XP, XP SP1, Win2K, 98, 98SE, ME. I don't see any connection between IE updates and 98 in their lists. 2) When they say "98" are they lumping together 98 and 98SE updates? Clearly some apply to both while there may be alternate binaries or singular support as necessary. ME represents an additional complication in some cases. 3) I looked up one of the more obscure bug-fix updates for IE 6.0 SP1 [not a security bulletin, not a rollup AFAIK] and found it at KBAlertz. However, there was no OS association of any kind given. Thus, the main event is not served: How to know you have all of the updates, when all you can do is find an update you already know about? For example, if I didn't already know this update: 17) Q826940 - Internet Explorer Unexpectedly Quits When You Use It to View a Web Page That Contains VML How would I know I didn't have it? So, how does this resource give me any confidence that all of the IE updates are accounted for? My fallback answer is merely that I was pretty dilligent about this, but only up to last summer. Newer updates are likely, and some additional older ones may surface as well. Can KBAlertz be manipulated into dumping out only IE updates? A separate implementation question regarding the CURRENT release of SP 2.x: In prior releases [back before I "disappeared"] there was an IE hotfix called Q240308 [eeyedog and bubble-boy] that applies only to IE versions prior to IE 6.0. However, due to a bug in the SP, the hotfix was erroneously applied to IE 6.0 and IE 6.0 SP1 as well. Was this ever fixed? Clearly it needs to rectified so that if the current version of IE is installed as 6.0 or higher, this fix must be avoided. Thus, if this bug has been repaired, it can be argued that there already is the seeds of support for IE 6.0 and IE 6.0 SP1 [and for the more fanatic, I guess this also includes IE 6.0 beta!]. cjl

All relevant updates can be downloaded here: http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog Petr: Do you really believe that? The central reason for this forum is the total futility of MS's update methods being relevant. Has Windows Update precluded your need to spearhead a movement for a Windows FE SP analogous to the one here for SE?I realy don't want to go into a clearly off-topic discussion of MS' shortcomings, but that would be the appropriate response to your post. Perhaps you can summarize with merely a numeric percentage of just how many updates for 98FE you obtained from there. I do know that for 98SE it's a rather small number. But sticking to the narrow topic you quoted from me AND put back into the context of the question: Perhaps the LATEST updates to IE 6.0 SP1 are contained there, but that's not quite the question asked, which is, other than KB896688, what are ALL of the updates that pertain to either Outlook Express or Internet Explorer that exist since KB896727 was released some months ago. [Read the previous post for a clear explanation of what a qualifying update is.] Sufficient time has passed that there might be others. Can you explain to me how to query Windows Update's catalog to find out if an update is missing? I don't see how it can tell you what it might NOT have! [seriously, does Windows Update install confidence in ANY member of this forum as to it having a COMPLETE list of updates?] All Internet Explorer critical updates are here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical I don't see it. I believe you have mistaken the latest presumed cumulative update as an equivalent to all other updates for this purpose. In any case, Microsoft's definition of "critical" has changed in recent years as to have been rendered worthless. Every time there is a new security bulletin, the language of it seems expressly designed to justify why 98, 98SE, and ME are NOT going to get the benefit of an update that will be applied elsewhere. One particular security bulletin uses deliberate illogic to justify this. [sorry, don't remember the bulletin number.]: The bulletin gathered up something like 4 unrelated security problems and created a fantasy rating essentially the percentage of what's on the list that pertains to each MS operating system that would be a candidate for criticality. All other systems needed 3 or 4 of the updates while 9x only needed one of them. That each item is arguably critical in its own right was deflected with this loopy argument based merely on the notion that if MS insists on rolling up the 4 updates into one package, it wasn't "critical" ENOUGH to warrant making a 9x version. One of the many things MGDX and others do is to attempt to use files earmarked for other Windows [including XP SP2] redeploying these files by any means possible to be useful to 9x systems. I am certain that some of this is already in the SP2.x as I do recall that the SP2 was documented as updating 98SE with elements of fairly recent updates presented as I describe above. Simply put, there is NO way to apply the fix described in the security bulletin as a critical update for 98, 98SE, or ME. Yet, due to his efforts, Gape successfully added the update anyway, since MGDX provided a way to accomplish this readily from the more powerful vantage point of the SP2 mechanism, as opposed to rigged MS installs designed to only install on an excessively narrowly focused list of OSes. [i believe it was KB828026 which as I recall is an update for Media Player that pertains to 98FE, 98SE, and ME. However, the updates provided only installed in NT 4.0 in one case, and in the other only in ME. But thanks to the work of people on this forum and elsewhere, that update and updates analogous to it CAN be applied to 98SE and 98FE, and more importantly, have now become an integral part of the SP 2.x.] All Internet Explorer updates are here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads No, that is just plain wrong. Show me at least 37 updates for IE 6.0 SP1 documented here. Such a list is not available on an MS websitel never has, never will. Our purpose is NOT to document all of the AVAILABLE TODAY FROM MS updates, rather it is to document and deal with ALL of the updates, which is dramatically different. Btw, some of the IE updates NEVER were considered "critical" since MS never rates PROGRAM BUGS as "critical". And clearly updates OTHER than "critical" aren't even candidates for cumulative security updates; you need each one separately, other than the off chance that one of them perhaps replaces another. But even in the miminum form of this issue, there would ALWAYS be the need for an update outside of the latest-and-greatest cumulative security bulletin-related update. If we used what would be suggested by this incorrect notion of ONLY security-driven updates as our standard for implementation, there NEVER would have been an SP2.x for 98SE at all! Security bulletins related to specific product can be searched here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx Hopefully, this will shed SOME light on the topic. Unfortunately, not all updates are security-driven. In the latest incarnation of Windows Update for XP, there are listings of Outlook Express updates [can't vouch for today, let's just say that several have appeared within the last 2-3 months. This is one of the areas I have been "distracted" into, etc.] that aren't even deemed "critical" but fall instead into the category of "recommended" updates. All this means is that there is no security bulletin to reference them, and that these are the latest of perhaps even more which possibly replace previous versions, expressly for XP. Since each update, regardless of MS's purposes for XP, becomes a potential target of opportunity, we mustn't ignore them merely because there is a still-newer one for XP. Unless we can account for the update with an available 9x-ready version, each and every one must be known so that potentially we can exploit relevant files for 9x systems' purposes. MGDX seems to be the leader here; I know he has had to be selective about what can and what cannot be added, not merely blindly taking MS's latest XP offerings, etc. Thus, unless there is an alternate list of all UPDATES released for some version of IE or OE, we cannot rely on a security bulletin-driven model, since clearly MS themselves doesn't. To summarize just this point: 1) Are there MS updates for either IE or OE that cannot be derived from security bulletins that aren't presented in a form geared to 9x systems' installation? [perhaps; actually likely.] 2) If so, can someone name them for potential inclusion using a method analogous to what MGDX and other have used, and ultimately for inclusion in some variant of the SP 2.x for 98SE? [i have been distracted from Windows Update in general and specifically for 9x for months. All I can notice is what's offered NOW. Perhaps someone has had the time to be dilligent; I simply haven't had the time to provide anything like that recently, although in the past I certainly did, as did others since that's how parts of the SP 2.x got formed at all!] But with Internet Explorer we are off-topic here, I think new thread should be opened. I don't see how an already introduced topic [not quite a year ago, and also not by me] can be off-topic. Perhaps you can enlighten me on just what you conclude would be ON-topic. Petr cjl

Someone already has, I believe (not me, I hasten to add): http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581 I don't have time myself at this moment to make an easy-to-read list of all updates that pertain to 98SE, but to the best of my knowledge all updates (including unofficial ones) since August 2005 can be found at the above URL. Thanks for the tip. I checked the entire thread out, looking for recent updates past this last summer, and did find a recent DirectX 9.0c update and a recent update I have tentatively titled:37) Q896688 - MS05-052: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer Can it be true that this is the only IE 6.0 SP1-related update since: 36) Q896727 - MS05-038: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer which is the last one on my last install list. I believe I have seen updates specifically for XP, likely SP2 only, but the question is: Are there any others for 98SE? To qualify for this list, the update has to be either for IE 6.0 SP1 or the related Outlook Express [OE] 6 that installs with it. Additionally, it will appear as an update when you reference help/about within the running IE 6.0 SP1. Note that curiously, if you install Q313829 for 98SE, which updates SHELL32.DLL, this reporting mechanism also appies! [The reporting mechanism is NOT supported by the SP 2.x, but the underlying file update is performed. Additionally, any new IE installation cancels the mechanism as well.] As an aside, WinXP SP1 [NOT SP2!] originally had the same mechanism, but after about 24 updates, they switched over to the mechanism used in SP2, thus updates can only be reported by Q272824 QFECHECK or equivalent, since the update is considered an OS update instead, etc. Thus, you cannot get a total handle on what's present there, etc. and need a composite reading of both programs, etc. In SP2, only QFECHECK can indicate updates. cjl