Petr

So what version is OK and what not? Windows 2000 SP4 version (4522 - included in SE SP 2.01) is OK and Windows 2000 post SP4 KB886765 hotfix (4526) not? Od do you use IE6SP1 version (4518)? Is there any easy way how to reproduce the wrong behavior? For example links to your plugins? Petr

Hi MDGx, How do you actually extract manually the files from Q886765.EXE ? Extracting from the exe is OK. But after, how do you convert the _sfx_xxxx._p files into the Oleaut runtime ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Windows2000-KB886765-v2-x86-ENU.EXE /extract But it works on W2K/WXP system only. Petr

It is no problem to use hex editor, but the version number has to be edited twice - the first is binary and the second is in ASCII. Sometimes even Microsoft has different binary and ASCII version. Thank you, I've got this hotfix already from Microsoft when I asked for Windows2000-KB886765-v2-x86-ENU.EXE hotfix and just to be sure, I have asked for all missing fixes too. No other fixes were available, I was told thath they are no more available. Do you have any idea how to verify that the OLE automation files version "4526" from this KB886765 work well with Windows 98? At present, SESP (and FESP) contains files version "4522" from W2K SP4, so it sould be OK I think. Petr

What about to add newer OLE automation files - KB886765 ?

Is this what you mean? (info is from the link you provided) Release Notes July 16, 2004: Updated kit to add support for International Languages Unified drivers with support for nForce, nForce2, and nForce3 products. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, It looks I'm blind... Petr

No, as I already mentioned, this patch test the IE version and will install for IE 5.01 SP3 too. This is Microsoft engineer's intention. Petr

There are no nforce 4 win98 drivers there, or anywhere else AFAIK. BTW, what hardware is supported by Windows 98/ME - Unified Driver? I've found no information on this page.

These two files are EXACTLY the same. Exactly the same file is used for all IE versions with BROWSEUI.DLL versions 5.0.3502.1000 to 6.0.2899.0, i.e. for Internet Explorer 5.01 SP3 to 6.0 SP1. No surprise - it adds only one key to the registry. Petr

So I've got probably official information from Microsoft: Even in the Microsoft internal database, there is no idocumentation for IExpress. Strange. The only possibility is to find the coder who writes IExpress then. Petr

My bad then. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is incorrectly written in MS05-037. Petr

No, this time there is download available: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...&displaylang=en In fact, this update tests the version of IE: 1=#S\BROWSEUI.DLL:5.0.3502.1000-6.0.2899.0:%Warn1%:ok it means that all IE versions between IE 5.01 SP3 and 6.0 SP1 are supported. Petr

You are right, I was confused by the date of all files.... And even newer version is in Server 2003 SP1 - 6.00.3790.1830 (srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447). Unfortunately there is no changelog. Petr

I've found the newest set of iexpress and other tools here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/D...AEA77/mpedp.exe There is also nice tool for displaying version numbers filever.exe, this is its output for all executables in this package: W32i DLL ENU 6.0.2900.2172 shp 99,840 06-17-2005 advpack.dll W32i APP ENU 5.1.2600.2172 shp 85,504 06-17-2005 makecab.exe W32i APP ENU 6.0.2900.2172 shp 114,688 06-17-2005 iexpress.exe W32i APP ENU 6.0.2900.2172 shp 65,536 06-17-2005 wextract.exe W16 DLL ENU 4.71.704.0 shp 2,272 06-17-2005 w95inf16.dll W32i APP ENU 4.71.16.0 shp 4,608 06-17-2005 w95inf32.dll W32i APP - 1.50.2421.1 shp 50,688 06-17-2005 msiinfo.exe W32i APP ENU 5.0.2195.1 shp 45,056 06-17-2005 uuidgen.exe W32i - - - - 12,288 06-17-2005 wixgen.exe W32i - - - - 53,248 06-17-2005 snapreg.exe W32i - - - - 172,032 06-17-2005 mpedp.exe W32i - - - - 12,656 06-17-2005 rebootchk.exe W32i APP ENU 5.0.2090.1 shp 4,880 06-17-2005 sleep.exe W32i APP ENU 5.2.3754.0 shp 14,336 06-17-2005 filever.exe W32i APP ENU 6.0.2600.0 shp 130,048 06-17-2005 nullvis.exe Petr

Not tested, but it should be the same. Petr

Hard to say, I had very similar problem with crosslinked files some time ago and it was caused by some bad contact - re-inserting of IDE cable helped. Other possibilities: - RAM error - I'd try http://www.memtest86.com/ - the HDD is going to die (HDD Diagnostic utility) - overclocking? For backup of files with long filenames under DOS you can use also Symantec/Norton Ghost - in fact full paritions are copied to one file. Regarding the problem with not responsive scandisk - sometimes the check for cross-linked files is very long, I think I saw even several hours. Petr

One question regarding GDI+ detection tool. In WUINFO.INF, there is a line: ; gditool HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\GdiDetectionTool","GDITool",0x00010001,0x1 This prevents displaying the 873374 in the list of critical updates. But how we can be sure that it is not needed to run the GDI+ detection tool? I think this is not correctand we should let the GDI+ detection tool to run, either inside or outside the sesp. In sesp., it would mean to add files 4 small files and run msiutil2.exe /cif gdidet.cif /extended gdidet.xml /log command. It would be also possible to update to the new GDI+ DLL 5.1.3102.1360 but Microsoft does not recommend to install it into the system folder - and really, it may be on various places, like C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v1.1.4322\gdiplus.dll Petr

Some additional observations reagrding iexpress SED files: Extended syntax for Taget OS check: TargetWin9xVersion=4.10.1999-4.10.2222:%OSWarn%:YesNo %OSWarn% is text that is displayed The last parameter may be OK, YesNo or OKCancel, it describes the behavior in case of error: OK: just OK button is shown and install will not start. OKCancel: Cancel is selected by default, OK will start the installation YesNo: No is selected by default, Yes will start the installation Example: TargetWin9xVersion=4.10.2222:%OSWarn%:OK [Strings] OSWarn="This Service Pack is for Windows 98 Second Edition Only!" The same can be used for TargetFileVersion. The syntax seems to be: For one file: TargetFileVersion=#A\IEXPLORE.EXE:4.72.3110.0:%BrowserWarn%:OK For more files: TargetFileVersion=@FileSectionList [FileSectionList] 1=#S\BROWSEUI.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3537.700:%BrowserWarn%:OK 2=#S\INSENG.DLL:5.0.3314.2101-5.0.3533.2600:%BrowserWarn%:OK 3=#S\MSHTML.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3541.2700:%BrowserWarn%:OK 4=#S\MSRATING.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3539.2200:%BrowserWarn%:OK 5=#S\PNGFILT.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3541.2700:%BrowserWarn%:OK 6=#S\SHDOCVW.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3537.700:%BrowserWarn%:OK 7=#S\SHLWAPI.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3900.7033:%BrowserWarn%:OK 8=#S\URLMON.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3537.700:%BrowserWarn%:OK 9=#S\WININET.DLL:5.0.3314.2100-5.0.3539.1800:%BrowserWarn%:OK #W = %windir% #S = %windir%\SYSTEM #A = Application, full patch is checked If not found, search is repeated with .DLL suffix added. Two examples for SE SP: TargetFileVersion=#A\IEXPLORE.EXE:6.0.2800.1106:%BrowserWarn%:OKCancel [Strings] BrowserWarn="Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 should be installed before SESP!" TargetFileVersion=#S\VERSION.DLL:4.90.0.3000:%MEWarn%:YesNo [Strings] MEWarn="98SE2ME seems to be installed, do you want to continue?" Both may be combined. Other possible directives in [Options] section, not used in SESP SED file: PackageInstallSpace(KB)=10000 - self-explanatory KeepCabinet=1 - do not delete the CAB file after package creation MultiInstanceCheck=1 - not tested yet CheckAdminRights=1 - probably for NT only Here I don't know the purpose: VersionInfo=VersionSection [VersionSection] ProductName=%ProductName% and also not tested wher and how to use: AppErrorCheck AlwaysPropogateCmdExitCode PropogateCmdExitCode UpdateAdvDlls PlatformDir It seems I should really ask Microsoft if there is any detail specification of SED/CDF files. And something about iexpress packages. They are created by adding resources to WEXTRACT.EXE, so any resource editor can be used check what the package contains and what it does. It can be used for checking unknown packages or testing if everyting is correct for newly built package before distributing. The resource type is RCData and there are the following resources, some of them are optional: ADMQCMD - AdminQuietInstCmd CABINET - full cabinet file, generated by iexpress EXTRACTOPT - HideExtractAnimation FILESIZES - generated by iexpress FINISHMSG - FinishMessage INSTANCECHECK - MultiInstanceCheck LICENSE - DisplayLicense PACKINSTSPACE - PackageInstallSpace(KB) POSTRUNPROGRAM - PostInstallCmd REBOOT - RebootMode RUNPROGRAM - AppLaunched SHOWWINDOW - ShowInstallProgramWindow TITLE - FriendlyName UPROMPT - InstallPrompt USRQCMD - UserQuietInstCmd VERCHECK - TargetNTVersion, TargetWin9xVersion, TargetFileVersion So any coder could easily write small utility that would re-create SED file from existing iexpress package and/or display all the settings. Petr

Here is the result of my HTML Help 1.41 compatibility test: Links in .CHM files does not appear if the mshtml.dll file is too old: IE 5.01 NOT OK: <= 5.0.3513.900, OK: >= 5.0.3516.2800 (Q813489 and newer) IE 5.5 NOT OK: <= 5.50.4922.900, OK: >= 5.50.4923.2500 (Q810487 and newer) IE 6.0 NOT OK: <= 6.0.2722.900, OK: >= 6.0.2723.2500 (Q810487 and newer) IE 6.0 SP1: all versions OK So neither 4.01SP1 (in FE) nor 5.0 (in SE) can work with new HTML Help. Should we install HTML Help 1.41 if incompatible IE version is present? How to test the version of mshtml.dll file for conditional installing? Does anybody know any other incompatibility? Petr

Total Commander internal unpacker is OK, I suppose any zip unpacker will be able to handle it. You've already managed to install all this + use it and assess its quality ? I took a look and it looks weird - files from MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 95 OSR2.5, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP..... probably hard work but I don't see the reason why to do it. And of course, Gape should close this thread. Petr

So I have created two small inf files for enabling and disabling of Microsoft Local Troubleshooter functinality. Hello erpdude8, it looks like much easier than your inf at http://erpman1.tripod.com/current/98tshoot.html - missed I something? Hello Gape, what about to add these files to Windows INF directory just for user's use? Petr tshoot_enable.inf tshoot_disable.inf

Hi eidenk, thanks for your observation. I just tried to find out how it is with updated html help, IE versions and updates, and html troubleshooter. 1. New HTML Help (1.41) from KB896358 causes disappearing links if IE4.01, IE5.0 and IE5.5 is installed. For example in C:\WINDOWS\HELP\ACCESS.CHM 2. Latest patch for IE 5.5 KB883939 corrects the behavior and links are visible now. (this patch is for ME only but works well if you change the TargetWin9xVersion minimum value, from 04,00,00,00,5A,00,00,00 (4.90) to 04,00,00,00,0A,00,00,00 (4.10) by any hex editor, it is near the end of the file) 3. This patch breaks the Microsoft Local Troubleshooter. The easy solution is here: http://forums.techarena.in/archive/index.php/t-10394.html - post by PCR on 10-10-2004, 01:09 AM. Just installing TSHOOT.INF and removing the KillBit by, for example: REGEDIT4 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{4B106874-DD36-11D0-8B44-00A024DD9EFF}] "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000000 The same it is for IE 6.0SP1. It would be interesting to find out what in the KB883939 exactly cause the functionality of links in chm files - maybe it would work wit lower IE versions too? Added: These are responsible lines in Q883939_d.inf file: [User.AddReg] HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{4B106874-DD36-11D0-8B44-00A024DD9EFF}","Compatibility Flags",0x00010001,0x400 [User.delreg] HKCR,"CLSID\{4B106874-DD36-11D0-8B44-00A024DD9EFF}" Petr

{16E349E0-702C-11CF-A3A9-00A0C9034920} is mentioned here: Q231452 {06A7EC63-4E21-11D0-A112-00A0C90543AA} is mentioned here: MS99-032 {00000566-0000-0010-8000-00AA006D2EA4} is mentioned here: KB870669 but I don't know exact meaming of these registry entries. Petr

The KillBit seems to be described here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/240797 Petr

Does anybody know what exactly mean "KillBit"? There are several similar patches: ; 231452 (ie4) HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{16E349E0-702C-11CF-A3A9-00A0C9034920}","Compatibility Flags",0x10001,00,04,00,00 ; 240308 HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{06A7EC63-4E21-11D0-A112-00A0C90543AA}","Compatibility Flags",0x10001,00,04,00,00 ; Windows Update - [AddRegKillBitWUV3IS] ?? HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{CEBC955E-58AF-11D2-A30A-00A0C903492B}","Compatibility Flags",0x00010001,0x00000400 ;870669 HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{00000566-0000-0010-8000-00AA006D2EA4}","Compatibility Flags",0x00010001,0x400 It seems that KB870669 patch is just one key in the registry - therefore it could be easily added to the SESP. Plus appropriate entries to tell Windows Update that the patch was installed. Could there be any problem with this? I'm not sure, is "00,04,00,00", "0x00000400" and "0x400" the same value? Petr

And do you know what does this patch? In your readme is written: "patch IO.SYS for change of the order of assignment of letters to hard disks" - but what change? Anyway, it seems there are more patches: 1. This "Patch IO.SYS from Windiws 98SE for change about layout of disks v1.1" 000016A4: FE E8 000016A5: C2 EF 000016A6: FE 08 000016A7: CE FE 000016A8: 75 C2 000016A9: E1 FE 000016AA: E8 CE 000016AB: DE 75 000016AC: 08 DE 00001FC1: FE C3 2. Patch used long time in SESP, also Tihiy's IO.SYS with logo removed is patched this way. Unknown function. 000136C2: 04 03 000136D5: 74 90 000136D6: EE 90 3. IOPATCH v1.4, ©1999 by Gary Tong, g.t@mailcity.com (mentioned by MDGx above): 0000AD48: 8A F5 0000AD49: 00 FF 0000E5AB: B4 90 0000E5AC: 4B E8 0000E5AD: CD 83 0000E5AE: 21 29 00010AC0: "Starting Windows 98" changed to "FAT32 CD-ROM Boot... " 00010FA2: 20 0D 00010FA3: 20 0A 00010FA4: CD 24 00010FA5: CD 00 00010FA6: CD B4 00010FA7: CD 4B 00010FA8: CD 52 00010FA9: CD 50 00010FAB: CD 21 00010FAC: CD 58 00010FAD: CD 5A 00010FAE: CD 72 00010FAF: CD F8 00010FB0: CD C3 So there are three different patches, the third for CD-ROMs only, the first almost undocumented but at least we know that it changes drive letters by some way. The second patch, that had been in SESP v 1.2 to 2.0rc2 is mysterious - nobody knows what it does. Petr