eidenk

He posted it in another thread saying it was too beta to be posted here or something along this line if I recall correctly.

Why not try Soporific's Autopatcher guys ? It's meant for updating everything on a 98SE system under one interface as far as I understand.

@benoitren : Yeah when I posted I hadn't installed them yet. Just had looked at their types in the excellent (and now free) Font Explorer. I agree most of them don't look too good (if not ugly as you say) at low res (apart from Calibri) but I maintain that they are otherwise very nice and should prove excellent for printing. They are more readable and elegant than most if not all the fonts they are meant to replace IMO. @marxo : Can't you download this PPV 2007 and extract them yourself ? As for what they are, I suggest you google for Vista Web Fonts.

They are really nice and they are part of Power Point Viewer 2007. Power Point Viewer 2007 cannot be installed but is easy to unpack with 7-Zip. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

I don't notice a visible speed penalty using webview or not really. Granted I use classic.htt instead of folder.htt as the default webview so there is no left pane stuff to load for most folders. (Trying to find a way to use a system wide background image for folders.) And for the folders I have that have a custom (and heavy) htt, I almost don't see any difference in load speed to be honest. AthlonXP 2600, 7200RPM drives and IE 5.5 (maybe it's faster than IE6).

According to one of those references: "the malware installs the wincom32 service" How can it install a service on a system running Win-9x ??? Also: "The e-mails, many of them otherwise empty, contain a link to a compromised Web site where machines are infected with a generic downloader." So the exploit is hosted on a web server, with the e-mail serving as just a pointer to the exploit. My question - what is the exploit being leveraged by the generic downloader? The last reference says this: "The Storm email worm may drop the the file 'wincom32.exe' into the Windows system directory (typically, C:\Windows\System under Windows 95/98/ME, C:\Winnt\System32 under Windows NT/2000, and C:\Windows\System32 under Windows XP." It's unclear whether the wincom32.exe file is actually part of the storm e-mail, or if that file is referenced in a web-link that is visible in the e-mail. If the wincom32.exe is an attachment to the e-mail, then it's not likely that it would be executed by OE or Outlook (the most common e-mail apps) because of how they handle attachments like .exe's. If wincom32.exe is remotely hosted, then again there is missing information as to how a browser is tripped up into downloading and executing it. Your html email only contains a hidden link (iframe of size zero or something like that probably) to a web page on which the download and execute exploit (scripting exploit) is hosted as I understand it. The malware itself may be located on another server. That type of exploit does not require any user interaction apart from viewing the initial webpage or html email I think because the iframe page uses the javascript onload event which can automatically execute a script on page load which means that opening your mail is probably enough to get infected. BEST THING ANYWAY IS TO NOT USE OE OR OUTLOOK OR ANY EMAIL CLIENT USING THE IE RENDERING ENGINE TO DISPLAY HTML.

Regseeker can break Add & Remove... Create a .reg file with the following: REGEDIT4 [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.htc] "Content Type"="text/x-component" [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.hta] @="htafile" "Content Type"="application/hta" and enter the above into your registry... Reboot and you should be fine... I don't have have a .htc entry in my registry and I also deleted (temporarily as I use hta a lot ATM) the .hta entry and it does not seem to break the Add/Remove Programs/Windows Setup on my Windows ME system. Is the above valid ? If yes for which systems ? BTW if I asked computerwizkid whther he was using ME or 98SE2ME, it is because most registry cleaners break that applet on those systems by deleting invalid paths in the VARLDID registry key. It only happens if some MS programs that are installed with Windows, such as Outlook Express, have been deleted from disk. That's the fix for it in case anyone needs it : REGEDIT4 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\VarLDID] "28700"="C:\\PROGRA~1" "28701"="C:\\Program Files" "28702"="C:\\PROGRA~1" "28710"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\ACCESS~1" "28720"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\ACCESS~1\\HYPERT~1" "28730"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1" "28732"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1" "28740"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1\\MICROS~1" "28742"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1\\MICROS~1" "29000"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1" "29001"="C:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer" "29002"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1" "29400"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1\\CONNEC~1" "29401"="C:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\Connection Wizard" "29402"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1\\CONNEC~1" "30100"="C:\\WINDOWS\\system" "30400"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\Plus!\\Themes" "30800"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\WINDOW~1" "30801"="C:\\Program Files\\Windows Media Player" "30802"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\WINDOW~1" "30900"="C:\\WINDOWS\\APPLIC~1" "30901"="C:\\WINDOWS\\Application Data" "30902"="C:\\WINDOWS\\APPLIC~1" "30910"="C:\\WINDOWS\\APPLIC~1\\MICROS~1" "30911"="C:\\WINDOWS\\Application Data\\Microsoft" "30912"="C:\\WINDOWS\\APPLIC~1\\MICROS~1" "30000"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\OUTLOO~1" "30001"="C:\\Program Files\\Outlook Express" "30002"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\OUTLOO~1" "30811"="C:\\Program Files\\Movie Maker" "30812"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\MOVIEM~1" "30810"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\MOVIEM~1" "30602"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\MESSEN~1" "30601"="C:\\Program Files\\Messenger" "30600"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\MESSEN~1" "29802"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\NETMEE~1" "29801"="C:\\Program Files\\NetMeeting" "29800"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\NETMEE~1" Copy and paste in notepad, (adding a blank line at the end otherwise it won't work), save as VARLDIDFix.reg for example and double click on it to merge it to the registry and reboot (Won't be fixed before the computer is rebooted).

If anybody actually admits to using Windows ME, they should read this wonderful comic: http://xkcd.com/323/ I do admit using WinMe. Should I be ashamed of it or something ? All this because of the stupid infantilizing video one is forced to watch on first boot after install I think. Still there is no little dog coming out when you use the search as there is one on XP.

I believe most of this could be achieved quite easily using policies and webview.

I go by the information relating to benchmark tests performed MS-MVPs Mike Burgess, Alex Nichol, and other MS-MVP colleagues and my own experience of it over the years. Perhaps as you are using winme your results are consistant with Mike Burgess tests under winme in which no performance difference was noted with or without its use. On my system using this setting degradates performance badly. Absolute no go. Can't say anything else.

You are using WinME or 98SE2ME and you used a registry cleaning engine. Yes/No ?

You must delete it on boot to shrink it I think. You can use wininit.exe and wininit.ini for that. Create a wininit.ini file in your windows dir and write the following line in it (adjusting the path if necessary of course) : NULL=C:\Windows\WIN386.SWP Then wininit.exe should delete it on reboot and windows will create a fresh one of small size. Mine is of fixed size (500MB) with 1.75GB of RAM (WinME) so it never shrink or grows. The advantage of using a swap file of fixed size, especially if it is located on the system drive is that it avoids it becoming (heavily) fragmented when it grows and affect performance. I never found that ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 was a good setting for optimal performance btw.

You've posted in the wrong forum it seems. It's all about Win9x here not XP.

Thanks for your kind words Eck. I don't think I deserve them actually as besides hanging around and insult someone from time to time I haven't done that much if anything at all really. I think you forgot to mention three very important contributors, Petr, erpdude and the_guy, who are all in the top ten IMO. A big round of applause to everyone.

Broken : Filezilla, Python 2.5, Media Coder, all open source stuff that is using pango libs.

They do actually.

You are boring with that BenoitRen.

That is the one that appears to work properly on 9x currently : http://ffdshow-tryout.sourceforge.net/ It provides support for many audio and video multimedia codecs in Windows Media Player or any of its clones. Loads of options plus filters, etc.. A must. Able to decode the following video formats for example : H264, X264, VSSH (incomplete), DAVC, PAVC, AVC1 XVID, XVIX DIVX, DX50, BLZ0, DXGM MP4V, 3IVX, 3IV1, 3IV2, MP4S, M4S2, RMP4, DM4V, WV1F DIV3, DIV4, DIV5, DIV6, AP41, COL1, DVX3, MPG3 ffdshow and ffvfw internal FOURCCs MP43 MP42, DIV2 MP41, MPG4, DIV1 H263, L263, M263, U263, X263, S263 (in 3gp files) Flash Video (FLV1) Theora Video (THEO) VP3 Video (VP31) VP5 Video (VP50) VP6 Video (VP60, VP61, VP62) VP6F Video (VP6F, FLV4) MPEG1 codec MPEG2 codec MPEG, MPG1, MPG2, 1001, 1002 EM2V, MMES Windows Media Video 7 (WMV1) Windows Media Video 8 (WMV2) Windows Media Video 9 Simple & Main Profiles (WMV3) Windows Media Video 9 Advanced Profile (WVC1) Windows Media Video 9 Image (WMVP, WVP2) Windows Screen Codecs (MSS1, MSS2) H261, M261 Huffyuv codec for libavcodec (HFYU, FFVH) MJPG, LJPG (lossless) AVRN, MJPA Sorenson Video (SVQ1) Sorenson Video (SVQ3) Quicktime Planar RGB Video (8BPS) Quicktime Animation Video (QTRLE) Quicktime Video Video (QRPZA) FFV1 codec for libavcodec (FFV1) dvsd, DVSD, dv25, DV25, dv50, DV50 CDVC, CDV5, DVIS, PDVC CamStudio Video (CSCD) CorePNG (PNG1, MPNG) LOCO Video (LOCO) LCL LossLess Codec Library (MSZH) TechSmith Camtasia (TSCC) ZLIB LossLess Codec Library (ZLIB) Zip Motion Blocks Video (ZMBV) Autodesc RLE (AASC) ASUS V1/V2 (ASV1, ASV2) ATI (VCR1) Cinepak (CVID) Chinese AVS video (AVS1-P2, JiZhun profile) Creative YUV Video (CYUV) Intel Indeo 2 (RT21) Intel Indeo 3 (IV31, IV32) Fraps v0, v1, v2 & v4 (FPS1) Miro VideoXL (VIXL) MS Video-1 (CRAM) MS RLE Video (MRLE) Q-Team (QPEG, Q1.0, Q1.1) Real Video (RV10, RV20, incomplete) Doesn't support 24-bit compression. IBM Ultimotion Video (ULTI) Winnov WNV1 Video (WNV1) experimental AVIS (AviSynth AVI files)

Many have already asked but I don't think there is one. There is English, Italian, French, German and Czech so far I think.

Well I have installed this patch in a virtual machine and there is nothing wrong with it. According to me it CANNOT do what you claim it does (the computer turned itself the power off). Here is the inf file of this patch : ; Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME U891711 Fix [Version] Signature=$CHICAGO$ AdvancedINF=2.0 [DefaultInstall] AddReg=2R CopyFiles=2I,2S RunPostSetupCommands=2N Reboot=1 [2N] "NOTEPAD.EXE %11%\KB891711\U891711.TXT" [DefaultUninstall] DelReg=2R DelFiles=2I,2S DelDirs=2D UpdateInis=2X Reboot=1 [DestinationDirs] 2X=10 2I=17 2S=11,KB891711 [2I] U891711.INF [2S] Q891711.DLL KB891711.EXE U891711.TXT [2R] HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices","U891711",,%11%\KB891711\KB891711.EXE" HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\U891711",,, HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\U891711",DisplayName,,"· Uninstall Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME U891711 Fix" HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\U891711",UninstallString,,"RUNDLL32.EXE %11%\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection %17%\U891711.INF,DefaultUninstall" [2D] "%11%\KB891711" [2X] WININIT.INI,Rename,,"DIRNUL=%11%\KB891711" [SourceDisksNames] 1=,,0 It is meant to backup (used for uninstall) and replace user.exe and user32.dll and it works as expected : First stage of the install copies the patched versions of user.exe (as user.001) and user32.dll (as user32.001) to the system dir : And creates a wininit.ini file in which we can see that on the next reboot the original files are going to be backed up as user.098 and user32.098 before being replaced by the new versions : And thist is exactly what it does. System check after reboot : You can see that the original files have appeared and have been replaced by the patched ones. No can you please tell me what in this installer, if it would fail for a reason or another, would yeld the symptoms you report ? According to me it CANNOT yeld all the symptoms you report. It is impossible. OK there is a warning it is incompatible with RP. A few months ago MDGx wrote about previous versions of this patch: With all respect due to MDGx, most of those warnings are plain nonsense IMO, especially the first one : Indeed, the first phase of install consist only into copying two files (+ an inf file to the inf folder) and creating a wininit.ini file so that user.exe and user32.dll can be backed up and replaced on reboot. There is no risk of any lock up whatsoever here. The second warning makes more sense as reinstalling the patch without having uninstalled it first will lead to have back up files for uninstall that are not the original ones but the patched ones as well. No risks of lockup either here. Frankly, with no pun intended, your apparent lack of grasp of the most basic mechanisms of Windows is sometimes appaling. Especially when considering the fact that you appear to be an experienced user who even writes complex VB scripts for checking system integrity.

So how many variants of 891711 exist ? The official MS one. U891711 which appears to be a hack of the MS one by anonymous. Both of those are only adding files. And Tihy's one and the one finally posted by Fredledingue in the other thread, both of which replacing user32.dll and user.exe. So it seems there are 4 different ones. No you should not find them there in fact as I wrongly believed that 98SE's wininit.exe was automatically backing up files it deletes or replace as it does on Win ME.

So you are certainly speaking about TI891711 and not about U891711 as the latter does not replace user.exe and user32.dll. You should find your original user.exe and user32.dll in your your sysbckup folder if I am not mistaken.

I don't see how this patch could screw your system to the point you report. But maybe we are not speaking about the same thing as you haven't provided a link to the installer you claim creates such problems, if I am not mistaken.

2: If you don't use IE (or any of it's clones) as your internet browser nor Outlook as your email client and have folder sharing disabled in network properties you should be 99.9% safe I think. You should still beware of downloaded html help files (*.chm) because they could eventually contain javascript exploit code and, as they use the IE runtime, could eventually download malicious stuff on your machine. Best defence for this potential but quite unlikely scenario is to have a firewall whose rule does not allow HH.exe to go automatically on the network. I think that this is all but it does apply to all MS OSes up to Vista really. Just in the case of 2K-XP and Vista there is apparently loads more stuff to disable to be safe. 4:Latest Opera, Firefox and K-Meleon (Not sure if the latest of those are still compatible), Off-By-One if you are paranoid.

Maybe you could start explaining the problems you experience.