justacruzr2

Sure . But the problem (which is anyway EXTREMELY rare) would not exist and the cure wouldn't be needed at all, if you use the "right" approach which is "use a FTP client for FTP access". Pre-preventative medicine. jaclaz Here's part of what Microsoft Support has to say about that problem: Your Account Is Locked Out When You View an FTP Server with Internet Explorer 6 SYMPTOMS When you are using Internet Explorer to view an FTP server that has many levels of folders and you view folders that are five or more levels deep, your account may be locked out. This symptom only occurs on an FTP server that does not allow anonymous logons. CAUSE After the first logon, a new logon attempt is made when you connect to another folder. Because Internet Explorer does not keep the password, a blank password is sent, and a logon that is not valid is recorded. If an account is set to lock out after three failed logons, the account is locked out when you go five levels deep in the folder structure. So I would agree that it's EXTREMELY rare. And it's similar to the problem of accessing a file 8 folders deep on a CD. So what do you suggest for a FTP client keeping in mind that I would like it to be compatible with 98SE, ME & XP (if that's possible)?

Yes. Hi dencorso. I found the problem with the Q326728 update and it was indirectly related to SP1. I actually have 2 IE6setup.exe packages. One installs IE6 version 6.0.2600.0000 and the other installs IE6 version 6.0.2800.1106. I had installed the latter one (before I ever started doing the MS updates) since it was the highest and the last version of IE6 released by Microsoft. Here's what I found when I opened up the verinst.exe file, from the Q326728 package, in my hex editor. I found a line of code in it that looks at the value "MinorVersion" in the registry key HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings and expects to find a "0" (zero). What was in that value was "SP1;q313829". So it seems that the last version of IE6 already had SP1 rolled into it and I didn't know that. And the q313829 was one of the updates I had applied. Didn't know that SP1 was included in the IE6 version I installed and that q313829 affected that entry in the registry and that the verinst.exe file from the Q326728 package was looking at "THAT" value to determine whether IE6 was installed or not. Seems kind of backasswards to me. Why Microsoft doesn't just look at the "Version" value in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer is a mystery. Guess they had their reasons. Anyway, didn't think that anything I had done so far had affected IE6. It's the kind of thing nobody would probably know offhand until they did some serious investigating. So the cure was to copy that current value out, save it, put a "0" (zero) in its place, rerun the Q326728 update again and then re-enter the "SP1;q313829" value back into the reg. So thanks for that thought about SP1. It's what prompted me to do some deeper investigating.

I have done every official update on that list, up to the end of 2002, which is where I am at now, obsolete or not. The purpose I have in mind is so that when I am finished with that list I can go to Windows Update and let it give me a once over. That way I won't get a mile long list of recommended updates. This very thing was suggested in the complete list for Q242975 (the USB update) so as to trick Windows Update into believing it had already been done. This suggestion can really be applied to all the updates. When I actually do visit Windows Update I expect little to nothing in the way of suggested updates. This way I can be sure I did everything there was to do. Why does it bother you so much how I reconstruct my system that your every reply is some jab at me?

Yes I have used IE to access FTP sites with ME and XP. It's one of the few things that IE 6 and 8 can still do. That is until I try the IE9 spoof in the registry. that was mentioned in a different article here - tips and tweeks is something I will look at at the very end of this reconstruction. And no I haven't experienced it to date. But I had already done this update in ME and XP. I haven't gone anywhere yet with 98 and will not until I am finished with the updates. 98 is only 1 of 3 operating systems I have, ME and XP being the other 2, and is not needed as my primary OS. It's more of a fallback should anything nasty happen to my other 2. Since this problem is known to exist in IE6 why wait until it does happen when there is a cure? Preventative medicine.

Thanks for your reply dencorso. It's the first straightforward answer I've received. So far all I've done regarding Internet Explorer is install the IE6setup.exe standalone package. The install was over IE5.5 which is what the Win98SE setup puts on the computer initially. There is no provision to uninstall IE5.5 before doing the IE6 setup. Trust you know how that works if you have no previous version. I have not applied any of the updates, patches or cumulative fixes that Microsoft provided yet. I am almost to that point in the list of updates I have. That list is the complete list from this website. All I did was put it in date order and proceeded from the beginning. Currently I am at the end of 2002. I believe the first cumulative patch is the Feb 2003 one which will be coming up soon. Do you think I should wait until I apply that before trying the q326728 patch again?

Why do you want to install something that has a replacement/newer? Yes I saw that but I haven't gotten that far yet. I've been doing the updates in date order. Still doesn't answer my question why q326728 thinks I don't have IE6 installed when in fact I do.

"M-kay". Had to Google that. Although I used to watch South Park back in the day I forgot about that joke about Mr Mackey. Now I remember it M-kay? So, if I am not running on a network (LAN/WAN) and I am just using my computer as a stand alone at home then I should not have to bother with the following updates: 1). q314941 (12/17/2001) - 223kb - Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play can Lead to System Compromise for Windows 98. (changed my mind on this one. If it's only for computers on a network then why bother). 2). q315575 (4/17/2002) - 1.3mb - DCOM Program Hangs After Server Reboot Creating DCOM Object. 3). q323455 (9/30/2002) - 2.96mb - Directory Services Client Update for Windows 98. Re: Conexant You're right about that. I found that out too. I have a couple different Conexant modem driver packages. One is the SoftK56 version and the other is the SoftV92 version. Currently I have the SoftK56 installed on my 98 system because when I tried updating it to the SoftV92 it didn't work. Yet I had the SoftK56 originally on my ME system and updated it to the SoftV92 version (same package as I used on 98) and it worked just fine. Hmmmmmmm........ New Question/Problem: q326728 (7/26/2002) - 219kb - Your Account Is Locked Out When You View an FTP Server with Internet Explorer 6. When I ran this update I received a message box stating that I needed to have IE6 installed to run this update. IE6 "IS" installed on my system. Version number :6.0.2800.1106. What's up with that?

Hi Submix8c. Thanks for your reply. I was about to post an addendum to my previous post when I saw that you replied. Um...NO! "q314941" may have those versions, but it is SPECIFICALLY for Win98!From the INF - Quote So, it had a "problem" and you're ignoring stuff by simply looking at Versions of the files. No...what I am doing is investigating when I run into a problem. The setup file is a good place to start. Additionally yesterday when I had a little extra time I pulled the q314941 update out of the AutoPatcher utility and saw that it had been modified. This was not the version of 314941 that I ran. Most of the updates I obtained from the links in the "Monster List" that were still good. The remaining few that I didn't have came from the AutoPatcher utility. This is probably what happened with the q314941 update....it came from the link in the "Monster List". I also now have the original Microsoft q314941 update since that is still available from Microsoft on the KB314941 support web page. Part of what I do when I prepare to run an update is check to see if the files to be updated exist on my 98 system. This is to avoid wasting time running an update that will do nothing if you don't already have existing files. Found that out from a previous update that is mentioned above in one of my posts. What I found was that they didn't and it occurred to me that 98 didn't come with UPnP. The kb314941 web page at Microsoft's Support website confirmed this. Here is an excerpt from that page: "Computers can use the Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) service to discover and use network-based devices. Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me) and Microsoft Windows XP include UPnP services, but Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition do not. However, the UPnP service can be installed on a Windows 98-based or Windows 98 Second Edition-based computer by installing the Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) client that is included with Windows XP." Further "Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition There is no built-in UPnP support for these operating systems. Windows 98-based or Windows 98 Second Edition-based computers would only be affected if the ICS client from Windows XP had been installed on the computer. If you do not have the Windows XP ICS client installed on your Windows 98 or Windows 98 Second Edition computer, you receive the following error message when you attempt to apply this patch: This update is not designed for your version of Windows. Windows 98-based or Windows 98 Second Edition-based computers that have installed the ICS client from a Windows XP-based computer that has already applied this patch are not vulnerable." So it seems that to properly run this update (the original MS one), one needs to install the Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) client that is included with Windows XP. I realize that the setup inf for this update was modified to bypass that and will work but I am also thinking why not install the ICS from XP and do it that way as well. Of Course, if you're not on a network you really don't need UPnP as per above Microsoft statement. Re: HARDWARE Yes. But I didn't know exactly what you were talking about. Since we were discussing refreshing the CATMAST and HASMAST files I assumed you were talking about the HWINFO.DAT, DRVDATA and DRVIDX files. Re: DUN14 I had already realized that and mentioned that in a previous post (see above): "However, I was also mistaken about DUN14. It is something different than a modem update." I will try running that again late after I backup what I've already done. Didn't know about this: "There's even a Topic about MS' stupid version schema that "fools" you, even to the point of having an older Version# for a NEWER file!" Re: 1003775 "Side note: Here, also, is that HSF Modem CAB file for WinME. " According to the text file included in the cab by Conexant, those drivers are general purpose and should work with any modem.

This is just a follow up to my last post 1). This is quoted from the website that I found some possible info on how to refresh the CATMAST and HASHMAST files: "Incidentally I still don't think we have entirely solved the problem and that the real solution, rather than renaming the catroot folder, is to establish how to regenerate the catmast and hashmast files contained in the catroot folder. This is probably done by running sucatreg.exe It could then be as simple as deleting the damaged cat file and regenerating the catmast and hashmast files. A little more experimentation is still required." However, upon further investigation, I don't think that is the answer. I used a hex editor program and loaded up a Csetup.exe file from one of the updates. Almost all of them have one. Here is part of what I found: ÿÿÿÿw.@.Ž.@.....CAT File registration program...j.ÿ.ìP@.hP5@.j.j.ÿ.èP@.…Àt.ÿ.ä and .............SimpleMindedCSetup..*.cat...CryptCATAdminReleaseContext.CryptCATAdminReleaseCatalogContext.. CryptCATCatalogInfoFromContext..CryptCATAdminAddCatalog.CryptCATAdminAcquireContext.MSCAT32.DLL...........@.runtime error.. It looks as though, from this, that CSETUP is what handles the catalog registration using, at least, MSCAT32.DLL for assistance. It may be possible to use this by listing all the catalogs in CATROOT in the setup INF file and tricking CSETUP into thinking that all those catalogs are part of the update. It's an interesting idea that I will try some time. 2). q285189 (5/10/2001) - 459kb - Windows 98SE Dial-Up Networking Upgrade v1.4. All the files in this update are dated 4/23/99 and are the same exact size as all the same files that come with 98se and are already on my computer from the initial install so this update must be for 98fe. 3). The ME modem update I mentioned above is Windows update 1003775 which I have. It's a cab file and in it is the familiar Microsoft self extracting executable signed by Microsoft. If anyone would like a copy of this, for perhaps inclusion in a ME update package, just let me know. 3). Somebody changed the "Q" number on the q314941 update. It's just q314757 for ME in disguise. When you run it you get the "This update is intended for a different version of Windows" message and the update aborts. Opened it up in WinZip and extracted it and found that all the files have version 4.90.3003 on them. Then looked at my collection of ME updates and found that it was the same as q314757. As it is, it will not install on anything but WinME. 4). This is a new question. If you are not running on a network then it's not necessary to install the q315575 DCOM update correct?

First I need to correct my statement above. It didn't come to me in a dream...it came to me as I was waking up. Bad choice of words. However, I was also mistaken about DUN14. It is something different than a modem update. I did some further checking in the registry and found that Windows had created a second subkey in Enum\USB for one of the flash drives that are on my system. That was why it was crashing on startup. Why it did that I'm not sure but it may have done that as a result of the many USB updates that Win98se gets and something about DUN14 triggered it to start complaining about it. Anyway, with that key deleted it now starts up fine. And I will try reinstalling the DUN14 update again. And I also did some checking on the web for an answer to how to refresh the CATMAST and HASHMAST files. Didn't find an exact answer but may have found a possibility. Seems that there are many who have asked this question as it is even more critical when you get into XP and above with Windows Authentication. With 98se and ME it's more a matter of SFC and SFP. Anyway, many felt that SUCATREG.EXE is probably the module that does this maintenance with the catalogs in CATROOT. I did some checking of the setup INF's for the updates that put a catalog out there in CATROOT and saw no call to SUCATREG.EXE, or any other module, to update the CATMAST and HASHMAST files. Yet the install reports shows that the CATMAST and HASHMAST files have been updated during the install if a new catalog is placed in CATROOT. So I'm thinking that as part of the way the operating system is written, SUCATREG.EXE (or another module) is loaded into memory at startup and monitors activity in the CATROOT folder. So it seems that it might be possible to refresh those files by moving them to another location along with the catalogs and then moving the catalogs back again one at a time. I'm going to test this theory when I get some extra time to fiddle around.

Because I had an update that went badly the CATMAST and HASHMAST files now included catalogs that are no longer out there. Plus a few updates put 2 catalogs out there; 1 for Gold and 1 for SE and I deleted the Gold catalogs. Just didn't want a problem in the future when something goes out to check for a catalog and it's not there. If that isn't a problem then OK. The update that went badly was the Dial-Up Networking update (DUN14). It just completely duplicated everything I already had including registry entries and everytime I would restart the computer I would get the Windows has found new hardware message and it would refresh the DRVDATA and DRVIDX files and blow up. The reason for this problem came to me in a dream last night (seriously). I had already done that update but it is under a different file number (not a "Q" number). My first PC came with WinME and one of the times I was at the Windows Update website I clicked on the "Other Updates" link and downloaded a Microsoft approved modem update that was made by Conexant. One of the first things I did after installing WinSE was to get all the hardware squared away so that was one of the updates I did. Since my modem is a Conexant modem and the update applied to all 9x series systems I just did it without any thought about it. Seems as though Microsoft also issued this same update under their own "Q" numbering system so I didn't make the connection. I thought it was for something other than a modem driver update. So basically DUN14 is just a modem driver update. Now for "HARDWARE". If your talking about the DRVDATA and DRVIDX files, they are completely refreshed everytime there's a change in what's in Windows\Inf so they will always only contain what is currently in Inf. If your talking about HWINFO.EXE, HWINFO.DAT is completely refreshed everytime you run System Information from the Control Panel. So those 2 should always contain the most current and correct info. I originally thought that CATMAST and HASHMAST operated the same way but apparently not. Thought maybe there was a way to completely refresh them too.

New Question: Is there a way to trigger a complete re-read of the security catalogs in System\Catroot. I've noticed that when an update puts a new security catalog in Catroot, that catalog is added to CATMAST and HASHMAST but can a complete re-read of all the catalogs currently in Catroot be done? I had to back out of 1 update because it didn't work but uninstalling it does not remove the catalog entry in CATMAST and HASHMAST. Just curious.

You must probably be confusing Lemmy (of later Motorhead fame) with Bob Calvert here. Lemmy leaves after the fifth studio album and Bob Calvert joins for the next four ones. Sorry but you do not pass your degree in hawkwindology... Yeah I do like them a lot, my collection of Hawkwind and solo/spin-off recordings counts in the hundreds of pieces... (I must be mad ) Sorry for drifting off topic that much guys... Yea, you're right. I was thinking of Bob Calvert. He did leave the group for 2 albums if I'm not mistaken. LOL on the hawkwindology degree. Am I bad? Didn't realize they produced so many pieces. And my apologies for drifting off too. We should probably stop now before we get reprimanded. You're welcome to continue this discussion in private messages. @ Drugwash Thanks for your help and comments.

I use ZDoom mostly, sometimes GZDoom or Zandronum for level sets that specifically require either of them. I know nothing about running Doom95 on either 98 or ME, there is no point to it IMO with all the modern engines that are out there. Speaking of avatars, I am assuming you must be into Hawkwind music quite a bit.... Re: Doom. Thanks....I'll figure it out some day. Don't understand why it should play fine on 95 & ME but not 98. Hmmmmmm..... As for Hawkwind, The first time I heard it was back in the mid 70's. I had a friend who liked to go thru the import section at the record store (remember those?). Do you like them too? I'm not really "into" them any more or less than any other bands that I like but I do like them. My favorite albums are the first 5 they made with the 2nd, 3rd & fourth being the ones I like best. After the 5th album they changed because they lost the guy who really gave them their sound. Can't remember his name right now. He also made an album on his own called Captain Lockheed & the Starfighters. Have that one too. The avatar is from the album cover of In Search of Space which is a pretty cool album cover and probably the album I like the best with Doremi Fasol Latido 2nd. If you remember the song Spacelord by Monster Magnet, he admitted that song is heavily influenced by Hawkwind.

Saw that too as the default value of the typelib key for riched20.dll. Thought that was funny until I read your reply and see that it's related to a COM interface.

As long as I've got you here, I'm assuming your avatar is because you have/play Doom95. Do you have it on a 98se system? And if so what did you have to do to get sound from it? Mine runs but has no sound even after doing the Windows Audio uodates (Kmixer, wdmaud, etc). Runs and has sound in my ME system and I'm using the same Config file in both since they (98se & ME) share the same motherboard. I see that others have had this same problem as well but none of the advice has made a difference.

Too late. I already did it. I put back the original files and It finally worked. But after reading loblo's comment Ii looks like it isn't necessary. Offhand I can't remember the exact registry key where I saw it but I think it was in TypeLib. And I have to retract ,my "The one on the system must match the one in the registry" comment. The setup inf doesn't touch that key so I'm thinking that no matter which version is on your system the TypeLib key remains the same (it was one of those entries like "{8CC497C9-A1DF-11CE-8098-00AA0047BE5D}"). Appreciate your help.

Rather than move them, I just re-named them in place so it would look, to the update, that they weren't there. Well that method didn't work either so it may be as you say "if any of the target files are missing". So what I'm going to do instead is copy those 2 files onto another drive and re-install the originals and if that still doesn't work I'm going to extract the ver1200.exe and run it separately. ver153.exe installs riched20.dll v2.0 whereas ver1200.exe installs riched20.dll v3.0. Both executables have all 3 files. And if that doesn't work then I will just do it manually. The setup inf has all the info to make the registry entries for HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components and HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Setup\Updates. And I will have to check the registry since I did see that, as you say, "Of them all, only riched20.dll appears to be an ActiveX control which needs to be registered. The current version on my system is registered but I see that both versions of the riched20.dll (v2.0 & v3.0) have different GUID's. The one on the system must match the one in the registry so I may have to edit that registry key too. So far I haven't run into any other update that is so stubborn.

Thanks for the additional input. Basically, the only reason to do this update is the Denial of Service vulnerability issue with opening emails in Outlook. Rather than delete those 2 files (Usp10.dll and Riched20.dll), I'm just going to move them to another drive and keep them for a while until I'm sure everything is working OK. That way Riched32.dll will get updated (I hope). I'll find out tonight when I do it.

@ MrMateczko: The purpose of the ver153.exe and ver1200.exe is now understood if you look at the 2 version numbers of the Riched20.dll files in the update. 11/23/99 5.0.153.0 286,208 Riched20.dll -or- 12/14/99 5.30.23.1200 431,376 Riched20.dll Apparently the update decides which version should be put on your system. Maybe one is for Win95 and the other for Win98. @ Submix8c: Scratch the extract idea above. I did some more checking last night and here is what I found: Here's what's on my system right now: Date Version Size File name -------------------------------------------------------------- 4/23/1999 4.0.834.839 188,416 Riched32.dll 1/26/2002 1.325.2180.1 314,906 Usp10.dll 1/26/2002 5.30.23.1200 431,133 Riched20.dll I checked what's in my original Win98se cabs to verify that I didn't download a patched version of Win98SE and they are all the original versions with dates of 4/23/99 so now only the Riched32.dll is the original. Since I've only gotten into the updates from 2000 there's no way some other earlier update would have replaced the originals. I reviewed all the previous install reports to confirm this. That leaves only one conclusion. Some other type of program I installed on my system, before I started the updates, put newer versions on my system. I have seen this happen before with some 3rd party applications where they will update your system to newer versions of Windows components that they will use. That's why it did nothing. It checks what you already have and if the version number is the same or higher it doesn't touch them. But why it didn't at least replace the Riched32.dll is a mystery. So I guess I should delete those 2 updated files (Usp10.dll and Riched20.dll) so that the update will work. Their version number is right but their size doesn't match the Microsoft size for the files. It's probably the only way the update will also replace the Riched32.dll and if this update had been done before whatever 3rd party application graciously did it beforehand, it would have seen that the version number was already where it needed it to be and would have done nothing so I think no harm will be done.

@ MrMateczko: Thanks for going a step further and opening up those other 2 executables. Read reply to Submix8c below. @ Submix8c: According to the Microsoft Support link you provided here are the files For Windows 98: Date Version File name ---------------------------------------------------------- 12/13/99 5.0.1461.82 203,024 Riched32.dll 11/30/99 1.0325.2180.1 315,152 Usp10.dll 11/23/99 5.0.153.0 286,208 Riched20.dll -or- 12-14-99 5.30.23.1200 431,376 Riched20.dll Which according to MrMateczko, are in the ver153.exe and ver1200.exe's. So in order to run this update properly am I to extract those 2 (ver153.exe and ver1200.exe) files out of the update and then run them seperately?

New question. Was running the following update: q249973 (1/10/2000) - 818kb - Default RTF File Viewer Interrupts Normal Program Processing. I was monitoring the install with an install tracker and the report showed that no registry entries were created, modified or deleted and that no files were created, modified or deleted. So essentially this update did nothing on my system. I brought the 249973usa8.exe file into WinZip to see what the contents were and there are only some executables and no setup inf's. I realize it's possible that one of those executables checks my system to see if certain conditions are present that would require the update and if they don't exist then it does nothing. Thought I should check with someone here first to see if this might be the case. I have downloaded this update from 2 other sources and the file contents are the same so I don't think the file is corrupt.

OK I'll check them out. Sounds like a good place to start. Thanks.

Thanks. I'll try this when I have a little extra time and get back you.

Did anyone ever produce a "Monster List" of updates for Win ME like what was done for Win 98? If so, could you point me in the right direction? Re-doing my 98SE system from scratch inspired me to do the same for my ME system.