awkduck

I'm still wondering which version of SP3. For example 3.65 or 3.66. But... I think I may have noticed something similar to this, once before. It almost seemed like the system needed to revert first (uninstall the updates), reconfigure the network with the needed change, and then re-install the updates. This was just a passing thought I had once, when dealing with a Win98SE system (post SP3.66 update). I can't remember the exact issue; but I vaguely remember it seeming like the files needed could not be installed (original cab files), because their reference had been lost. However, it could have very well been, that some new file(s) were preventing other components from functioning correctly. I didn't mess with Win98SE for very long, so my memory is fuzzy on it. If it was original files not being referenced, in the update's newer system and or .INF files, then one might be able to examine pre-update system INFs for the missing references. But I'm not entirely sure the INFs control everything. Sometimes, when installing a driver, it looks for files that the INF says it needs. However, depending on the version of that/those file, the following files called for (through out the rest of the installation) may be different. It must be detected linked dependencies that are being requested? So there is a chance that newer system files are not linked to older system files, needed for system reconfiguration. Or some near variation of that last sentence. It could just be some other trigger that doesn't get called. It would still help to know which update option was causing it. It's probably the "Main Updates/System Core Files" option. Another questions, do you get any errors or strange behavior, while installing the update? Are you saying you copy the "broken" install over to a new system and the issue is still present; or that you are overwriting the broken install, with a working install, and the issue is still present. I think you are saying the first, and that would make sense; since nothing, with the core system, has really changed. I can't remember, does SP3 have an uninstall option? If it does, can you test that? Can you back up one of your working VMs and test if just the "Main Updates/System Core Files" option causes your/the issue? It would be nice to know, if focusing on just that one update is enough.

What version of the Unofficial SP3 are you using? What Update options are your selecting? I couldn't make out for sure, if you had ever had a machine with working networking after the update. It seemed like it was only some machines that had the issue. If that is true, of the machines that do have the issue, do they always have the issue (after the SP3 install); or is it erratic? You can copy the service pack to a temporary folder, and extract it with 7-zip. "INFEX.INI" is the core of the service pack. You can examine it to get a grasp of the over all process. But for individual updates, you need to examine the ".INF" file, that correlates to the update. Also, you may need to examine the correlating ".BAT" files. This will tell you what files are being replaced, and what registry settings are being added/changed. The file you probably want is "SPUPDATE.INF", unless you are also installing Internet Connection Sharing "ICS.INF". You could try a fresh install, just installing "Main Updates/System Core Files (SPUPDATE.INF)". If you end up with the same networking issue as before, you could then eliminate, for certain, all the other "less likely" causes. If "Main Updates/System Core Files" isn't causing the issue, then you can "one by one" install each update (that you normally use from the service pack) until you find the one that creates the error. Unfortunately, you are the only one that can debug this, unless it is duplicated somewhere else. After each change you make, to the new install, restart and test the network. The you can at least isolate, to some degree of certainty, that it is the service pack (and a specific update) causing your issue.

Yes, I've extracted it from both explorer versions (5.5 and 6.0). Shell32.dll, from ME, isn't happy with either. You get the nice white box message and grey ok button, about needing to reinstall Windows. There are two Shlwapi.dll files included with both IE versions. I've never gotten the one intended for Win98SE (and ME) to work for me (without errors). The other one, I think, is meant for Win95 and Win98FE. It's the one dependency walker says I support. Likewise, I can't use the one that comes stock from Win98SE (without errors). So when I say Shell32.dll (from ME) isn't happy with either, I means that it isn't happy unless it is a Shlwapi.dll version that isn't fully compatible with my system.

So with Tracktion 3, the issue goes beyond shell32. Oh, well. But, the orphaned "Application Data/Program Data" was fixed. For Win98SE, a person can just use the shell update, from 98SE2ME. I'm on Win98FE, so I only did this temporarily. The most updated Win98FE shlwapi.dll isn't new enough for ME's shell32.dll. But I can used ME's shlwapi.dll, just long enough to test things (it would eventually cause errors). I admit, I don't know 100% what you can get away with here. On Win98SE, you may have to update beyond just ME's shell, for stable operation. Sadly, Tracktion 3 did not accept or reject it's key file. I manually edited the settings file, with the key file data. The application recognized the registration name/email, but it cannot process the key string. I may end up looking at things in Olly or something. I have Tracktion 2 to cross examine with; it has a similar "key string/key file" activation and works fine. That's a different topic, for a different forum.

With no alterations, WinME installation places the "settings" file in "C:\Windows\All Users\Application Data\Tracktion 3". There was no orphaned folder in root "C:\". It found no need to seek out a ProgramData folder. I was unable to test functionality further, as I couldn't get Tracktion to run. I imagine that the install, of WinMe, needs updated files. It only had KernelEx installed, with basically original system files. I'm using Win98FE, updated as far as it can be, and Tracktion 3 runs great (activation aside); so an updated ME should run it. Yes, Tracktion was not meant to run on any Win9x.

The only thing that has remotely worked, is setting the key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\explorer\User Shell Folders\Common AppData". But that only fools the installer. The application will access the orphaned ProgramData\Tracktion 3 folder (in this case F:\Tracktion 3), but only for certain things. It never finds what has been installed to "C:\Windows\All Users\Application Data"; or where ever I have redirected it to, with the registry entry above. Sounds like my best attempt would be to patch the appliction to use a different CSIDL, if that is even possible.

Well, I was wrong again. It is accessing the folder, it drops at the root directory. The issue is specific to Tracktion 3's activation code and being used on Win98. Note: Earlier I deleted two images, attached to my original post, in this thread. I did not attach those images; so have no idea how they got there. They were images of a LCD monitor, with Win98 running on it.

Well, I was wrong. The issue is with the ProgramData folder, not a user profile folder. I edited the thread title, as best I could. If your machine code is the same (same machine), between different Windows installs, your old key will work. Ever since the Mackie service went down, I haven't been able to generate new keys (for a different machine). There is a way, but that should not be discussed here. When a key is invalid (from different machine), a "Invalid Key" notice will pop up. When a key is valid, a notice will inform you that the application in unlocked. In this case, no access to Tracktion settings file, nothing happens. The key is examined, but cannot be stored in the settings file; typically found in "C:\ProgramData\Tracktion 3". So you do not get the "Invalid Key" notice; but instead get no notice at all.

Dxirc (as an example) had an issue, but could be easily patched. Mackie Tracktion 3, as a better example, is not so easily patched; and it has not responded to environmental variables. It is also the last version to work well, with a single core. It is a great example of Shareware, without the user profile folder to save the key. And of course, it cannot save any settings either. Did you have to set registry key values, as well?

Some applications use user profile folders to store settings. Windows 9x has limited support for this; and that support is often completely ignored, by newer applications. It is usually not the end of the world, if applications can't access these folders. A common outcome is that you may not be able to save application specific settings. The application might make a folder (intended for your profile folder) on your root directory; but it most likely won't be able to use it. They seem to just land there, when an NT style profile is not found. There are times when this is a more significant issue. A hand full of applications save their license key, in the user folder. Without access to that information, the application may be unusable or trial ware. I've been able to patch some applications, to treat the application's folder as the user profile folder. But some require patching beyond my current skill. I've also tried creating profile environment variables, and executing the application under them. But that hasn't ever worked for me. Has anyone worked this out?

You could try this out. I don't know what DLLs it comes with; so you may still have to copy those over.

Tried with Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000 and MS LifeCam VX-500. Win98FE. I have a digital camera to test with, when I find the cable. "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loaders(s) for this device could not load the device driver. (code 2.)"

NCH Debut Sceen/Webcam Cature works okay too.

@Omores That is a pretty neat camera; but I think the aim of the post is for USB 2.0 :) Many older digital cameras, in the 4 to 12 megapixel era/range, offered software discs or downloads (drivers). They often allowed you to use your camera as a webcam. As long as it wasn't a terrible interpolating camera, you could probably beat the pants off of any Win9x compatible webcam. Just searching now, it didn't take me long to find some, with Win98 support.

I also have one of these. I am sure mine is not compatible, out of the box, with Win98. It is probably not compatible with any Win9x. Maybe not even Win2k (haven't tried). For sure XP is supported. Maybe it is a model number issue; mine is Model# 1357 This is an old thread. I'm just pointing this out, in case someone is hunting for a cam. It would be a powerful cam, for Win9x. But it seems unlikely to work.

@jumper I just used the images, from the same item on ebay.

Windows 95, 98, and probably ME (CD-ROM versions) come with a program called "Poledit (policy editor)". You could look into that, and see if it does what you need. Warning, do not run it on "your" user account. Run in on the account you wish to restrict. If you run it on your account, you could end up restricting access that you need. Here is a link describing use of the Policy Editor.

Providing the device hardware/vendor ID can help locate the driver. I have noticed Win98 listed as a supported operating system (back of packaging). Did your packaging provide a URL? I'm guessing windows found no driver for it. A newer drawing tablet, I bought a couple of years ago, found support. It installed about eight things; but it did work.

I know the following is hardly a contribution to the current subject. It would be better if I provided a detailed description, of what the things being discussed actually do, beyond the vague definitions I offer inside a link. The Internet does know about "/i". I should say, the Internet knew about "/i"; but the Internet is forgetful. If you bug it to remember, you can coax the info into surfacing. Here is a link to Windows 9x setup switches.

@MrMateczko I tested CamStudio, again (could not remember the exact video issue). With Xvid, the render is completely black. Microsoft Video 1 codec would stop recording, after a second, with error "Could not create AVI". If I lowed the quality it would render poorly with choppy capture. Default quality setting was fine, but with really bad quality render. Divx "Quality Based 100%" rendered good with modest enough CPU load. So, it was an Xvid problem there. VirtualDub, not so much. I couldn't even get raw video capture.

I should have been more clear. The issue is only in the captured video. The actual graphics are fine. Just the two mentioned screen capture applications render their output with such artifacts. Nothing seems to abate those issues (including your suggestions). Since other applications work fine, rendering capture, it must be a conflict between the driver, my chipset, and certain capture methods. I suspect that there is an issue with my shared video memory and Vbemp. If it is that, it is probably due to a poor BIOS implementation. This specific machine was not intended to support Win98. But I haven't really looked in to it.

That one has not worked for me. There is a more recent release of that application, under a different name . It also does not work for me. Likewise, I have issues with VirtualDub's screen capture. The mouse leaves black square trailers (where ever it goes), or the screen is black and only the mouse is seen (leaving mouse icon trailers). It could be due to using Vbemp. Maybe not everyone, using Vbemp, has this issue. But I am one of the unfortunate cases, where loading a DoxBox causes the screen to go berserk (must be launched fullscreen). Camtasia, Free Screen Recorder, and LICEcap are the only ones that have worked, thus far.

Tracktion Software - Traction v5, works with KernelEx. ASIO4ALL didn't work well with it, on my machine. But my USB ASIO driver was fine. DirectSound works well. Adjust the samples as low as you system can handle it, before clipping audio. Newer versions may work, but I haven't tested them.

That is for screenshots. I've never used Snag-it. It seems to have some nice options. LICEcap's LCF format is not near RAW. So file size is not a problem. It does seem like it records live to disk (maybe?). Cockos mentions that you should probably have at least a Gig of ram, when using LCF. It can't quite do fullscreen. At 1024x768, it can do 1014x717 maximum. That isn't horrible. Reaper can render it to some other format, using it's cut down FFmpeg. I choose a WEBM container with VP8 and Vorbis (vorbis, only if audio is included). There where other options, but not a ton. The Video played fine. I used LICEcap v1.32. There may be a slight decrease is CPU usage, when using LICEcap over "Free Screen Recorder" (paired with the Xvid codec). The LCF codec is maybe a little less CPU intensive. But you could also use a less compressed format, with "Free Screen Recorder". In my opinion, they are both simple and usable. If the last version of FFmpeg "to work on Win9x" supported LCF video, you could skip Reaper. That would make it another free option.

@defuser I was thinking about full desktop capture (full color). But LICEcap is an interesting application. It has a lossless format (LCF), which can be opened in Reaper. That can then be edited (basic editing and a handful of FX/Transition filters) and converted to something else. With KernelEx, I have had Reaper v6 working (minor quirks and workarounds with VSTi UIs). So, potentially this could be a more professional approach. I haven't tried it. But LCF supports full color. The issue would be memory, as lossless probably takes up a bit of space; and LICEcap doesn't apear to have a "live" record to disk option. If lossless is close to raw, then "live" to disk might not be a likely option. At least not on my system :) I'll look into that.