justacruzr2

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.

if you aim for such weak system, you're better off with Opera 10 but before 10.5 (then it became heavy) as Unity and more crap was added as for Firefox, why not use 3.6 ? version 4 and onwards are basically version 4.x (and bloat) I agree regarding Opera. I tried Opera 10.10 on my XP system and it was way too slow. Was trying it because FireFox 8x has a problem entering text on certain webpages like when posting a reply. Also has a problem with Captcha's. Tried FireFox 27x to see if that made any difference but it didn't...and it too is bloated. Would also agree that all versions since 4x are basically 4x with more bloat. Don't understand why Mozilla decided to release a new version every month when there doesn't seem to be much difference between the newest version and the previous version. And many times something that worked fine in the previous version now doesn't work in the new version. Also don't know why FireFox continually tries to update itself when every version I've tried I have checked the Manually Update box and it tries to do it anyway. FireFox 3.6 is what I use in my 98SE and ME systems and it works quite well thanks to KernelEx. FireFox 8x works also but it will not save any bookmarks...a big drawback.

All right. Then I guess this will remain a mystery until some as yet unknown person comes forward with an answer...if there is one.

Well, at least deleting the files in the \Srchasst folder didn't have anything to do with it. One thought that occurred to me yesterday was that I wonder if you have to be logged in as Administrator to have the change be permanent unless XP assumes that the default user is the Administrator.

Prego. And for your suggestion (Mowser.com) that I will try....Grazie, amico mio.

Rather than use the Heading Bar, open My Computer, click “Search” then click “All files and folders” and enter a search term, then: View / Choose Details… The columns can be ordered there as well. If you mean right click on the My Computer icon on the desktop and then left click on Search, I just tried that and it behaves the same way as when It left click My Computer on the desktop and left click on the Search button on the toolbar (the normal way I do it). Same default columns and headings and changing them is not saved when I close Explorer and then re-open it. And like Dave-H, the “Remember each folder’s view settings” box is checked. The only thing that is remembered is that I want my search results displayed in detail view. There are 2 other things I did when I first installed XP which I don't think would affect this but who knows? One thing I did in response to a "tweek" I read was to delete all the files in the folder Windows\Srchasst. This would get rid of the annoying (to me) little doggie with the rolling eyes and wagging tail which seemed to be more aimed at a novice user, and give me the more familiar and useful search pane as in Millenium and 2000. The other is that I have XP set to Classic View like the 9x series of Windows since I also run 98SE and Millenium and it makes it more familiar to me when I bounce back and forth between them. Even though we don't have an answer yet (and maybe there isn't one), it's comforting to see that others have experienced this "annoyance" as well and it's not because I haven't applied any Windows Updates yet (I'm assuming you have and they had no effect on this). When I first posted this I thought there would probably be someone who had a slick registry trick that would fix this so that settings could and would be saved.

There is an alternative way to browse that some may be unaware of. Paste this into your browser: http://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL= and then type the domain name after the equal sign. For instance: http://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=google.com I have found this useful for the really "overweight" websites since I only have dial-up. This method will only give you the text...no pictures or videos etc.

In Windows Explorer (aka "My Computer") when doing a search of files and folders using the "detail" view, there are default columns supplied initially. Every time I try to change the columns (the headings) Explorer changes them back to the defaults after I close the window. Currently the columns are configured as follows (default columns): Name In Folder Relevance Size Type =============================== This is how I want it to be: Name In Folder Size Type Date Modified ================================== Every time I right click on the Heading Bar, I uncheck the Relevance column heading and check the Date Modified heading and it works fine for that session. If I close Explorer and then come back to it later the columns are back to the original. Thought these would be permanently saved settings as in 98 or ME. Anyone know the fix? I'm guessing this has been asked before and there is an answer. One note to mention....I have not done any MS updates to XP (straight off the install CD) so I don't know if MS ever addressed this issue. My version is XP Pro with SP2 Retail Version. This is a later release (2004) of the retail version which came bundled with SP2.

I did see that in the Monster List of updates however I am a little leery of installing unofficial updates. I have tried a few and they didn't seem to work. For instance, in my ME system, I do have the problem (more of an annoyance) of the erratic mouse pointer. The problem occurs when there is animation going on (like when you deal the cards in Spider Solitaire). I downloaded 2 different unofficial fixes for this problem but neither of them corrected the problem. Also tried another unofficial fix for the multiple file lockup problem in Explorer but it did nothing either to fix the problem. I do understand that sometimes the complex interaction between M$ official updates and unofficial updates may be the cause of this so I am in no way faulting the authors of the unofficial updates. Also I did download the Service Pack from ProblemChyld but it did not look as if the individual updates could be pulled from it. There is a reason I prefer to do them individually. I use Install Control 5 (InCtrl5) for all installs so I can see what has been done. Frequently I tweak the folder locations and/or registry entries to suit the way I want my systems setup. Running them all at once would produce a report that would mix them all together making it nearly impossible to determine what each individual one did. I know it seems a bit anal and it's more work but I don't mind. This file is NOT included in SP3 because it breaks Virtual Private Network (VPN). You need to take into consideration, that many Official updates broke certain things on systems is why some files were not added. Sorry, but there is no one size fits all. OK, didn't know that so I'll just skip doing that one. And yes, I am aware that some M$ updates negatively impacted other functions. The most noticeable ones to me is the KB891711 and the KB918547 updates. Not sure which one did it but after I installed them I was no longer able to save my Username or Password for my Internet Connection. Each and every time I log on to the network I have to retype them. That's annoying. Didn't notice that? (IOW, irrelevant. Get latest Netmeeting) (Side note: Since several of us were directly involved with AP98SE, I have nearly (if not all) all of them archived.) There's NO POINT in gathering every single one when another may supercede it, thus making having a certain one a moot point (will be overlayed anyway). Ref: http://xdot.tk to understand that (see change log). Heed the above posters' warnings. OK. The reason I am doing it this way is to start at the beginning with the earliest update and then do them in timeline order. I have noticed that some updates make registry entries as well as add/replace files and later updates that supercede these previous updates may only add/replace files and leave the registry entries as is. In that case I don't want to "hop" over something which may cause a problem. Although my purpose is not to be historical and collect them, I would like to have them available if I ever have this problem again. I am going to burn them onto a CD (along with the AutoPatcher and ProblemChyld's SP) so I won't have to go thru finding them again. And as noted above "The reason I am doing it this way is to start at the beginning with the earliest update and then do them in timeline order." and for the reasons in my reply to DrugWash. Thanks everyone for your replies. They've been helpful.

Downloaded and opened "Auto-Patcher_for_Win98se_June2007sp2_Full" but I didn't see the update: Q329128 - Windows 98 and Windows Millennium Edition transmit multicast packets that have a TTL setting of 0 (zero) Date Time Version Size File name Platform -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21-Mar-2002 08:27 4.10.0.2001 157,909 NDIS.vxd Windows 98 (x86) 01-Aug-2002 09:51 4.10.0.2003 235,605 PPPMAC.vxd Windows 98 (x86) 01-Aug-2002 12:15 4.10.0.2004 75,581 VIP.386 Windows 98 (x86) 21-Mar-2002 08:51 4.10.0.2226 166,053 NDIS.vxd Windows 98 Second Edition (x86) 01-Aug-2002 13:19 4.10.0.2223 235,605 PPPMAC.vxd Windows 98 Second Edition (x86) 01-Aug-2002 12:27 4.10.0.2228 80,409 VIP.386 Windows 98 Second Edition (x86) I noticed in another related discussion that at that time it was being searched for. Was it ever found or does a subsequent update supercede it? Also, the kb835732 update wasn't there (as an executable). But there was a reg entry file in the registry entries folder with that name. Was that all that kb835732 did for 98SE...just a registry tweak?

Just adding my 2 cents into this. I found the same thing out a few years ago with IE6. One day I just simply got the same message from Google and Yahoo. Figured that was the day they stopped supporting IE6. On other web pages I would get a message like "Upgrade your browser to a newer version" which always made me laugh since on 98/ME IE6 is as far as you can go. So I thought that was stupid of them since they could have also queried the registry to find out the version of the operating system and realize that I could not update to a newer version and offer some kind of different message. I have a triple boot system with 98/ME/XP and just this past spring the same thing started happening with IE8 on XP. So IE8 is now in the same boat as IE6. Fortunately I have FireFox in all 3 systems and can still access any website that way from any of my OS's. However Firefox does not have the seamless interaction between Windows Media Player or Outlook Express that Internet Explorer does. Also Firefox does not offer a "Save Target As" option when you right click on something you want to download like IE does. Really like that option in IE. It's a trade-off. And thanks for the additional info on tweaks. I'll try it and see.

Thanks for the additional info.

Thanks. Don't know why I missed those since I was using my browsers "Find On This Page" function.

Can you please list the actual files that are NOT present from you list please? Some files were not included for specific purposes. Hi PROBLEMCHYLD. From my list of updates I'm looking for, these 4 were in the list of files in the Unofficial Service Pack: * q254660 * q257821 * q269388 * q277628 These are the ones that weren't: q269239 q323455 kb835732 kb883586 kb918144 kb913296 This is the link to the Service Pack I was looking at which may not have been yours. There seems to be a couple different versions out there. http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/unofficial_windows98_se_service_pack.html

One more thought occurred to me after I posted this. The original "Windows ME Preview" also relied on the flash player that was installed on ME originally which I think was Shockwave Flash 6 or 6.5. Most everyone would have upgraded by now to at least Adobe Flash 9. That's another reason the Preview won't work. And that's part of what I had to modify also. Windows Media Player 9 uses different GUID's than all the other players before it. And it changed, and increased the number of, callable functions. And Adobe Flash Player 9 also uses different GUID's than Shockwave Flash. This updated file will play the preview as originally released...in a small box centered in the middle of the web page. I am also working on a version that plays it in full screen mode.