Petr

Does anybody know what is the problem with preserve mechanism in setupx.dll 4.10.2222? I have found the following: but I don't know the context. Petr

Yes, there are really many versions: iexpress.exe ieak6: 6.00.2800.1106 win xp: 6.00.2600.0000 (xpclient.010817-1148) win xp sp2: 6.00.2900.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158) win 2003: 6.00.3790.0 (srv03_rtm.030324-2048) win 2003 sp1: 6.00.3790.1830 (srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447) wextract.exe ieak6: 6.00.2800.1106 win xp: 6.00.2600.0000 (xpclient.010817-1148) win xp sp2: 6.00.2900.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158) win 2003: 6.00.3790.0 (srv03_rtm.030324-2048) win 2003 sp1: unchanged advpack.dll ieak6: 5.1.2600.1106 win xp: 6.00.2600.0000 (xpclient.010817-1148) win xp sp2: 6.00.2900.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158) win 2003: 6.00.3790.0 (srv03_rtm.030324-2048) win 2003 sp1: 6.00.3790.1830 (srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447) makecab.exe ieak6: 5.1.2600.1106 win xp: 5.1.2600.0 (xpclient.010817-1148) win xp sp2: 5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158) win 2003: 5.2.3790.0 (srv03_rtm.030324-2048) win 2003 sp1: unchanged extrac32.exe ieak6: 4.11.0603.3 win xp: 5.1.2600.0 (xpclient.010817-1148) win xp sp2: 5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-2158) win 2003: 5.2.3790.0 (srv03_rtm.030324-2048) win 2003 sp1: unchanged Appareatly all versions works fine on Windows 98. I was not able to locate any difference in resources - ut ther must be raeson for so many versions? Petr

Hi Gape, one idea regarding the buld environment. To enable easier work on different computers with different drives and directory structure, it would be good not to use absolute paths in DDF and SED files. I propose this structure, description is based on existing sesp201en.exe package + SED+DDF files: Main folder (any name on any drive) containing: - 20sp2.ddf - 20supp.ddf - sesp201en.sed - sesp201en.exe - reports sub-folder (will contain *.rpt files) - files sub-folder files sub-folder containing: - unpacked sesp201en.exe, i.e. all files - sp2 and supp sub-folders, containig unpacked sp2.cab and supp.cab Also I see no reason not to create SLAYOUT1.INF and SLAYOUT2.INF directly. 20sp2.ddf then may look like: .Set CabinetNameTemplate=files\sp2.cab .Set Compress=on .Set CompressionType=LZX .Set CompressionLevel=7 .Set CompressionMemory=21 .Set RptFileName=reports\sp2.rpt .Set MaxDiskSize=CDROM .Set ReservePerCabinetSize=0 .Set DiskDirectoryTemplate= .Set Cabinet=ON .Set MaxCabinetSize=999999999 .Set InfFileName=files\Slayout1.inf .Set InfHeader= .Set InfDiskHeader=";Auto generated file - do not edit!" .Set InfDiskHeader1=[Version] .Set InfDiskHeader2=Signature="$CHICAGO$" .Set InfDiskHeader3=SetupClass=BASE .Set InfDiskLineFormat= .Set InfCabinetHeader=[sourceDisksNames] .Set InfCabinetLineFormat=*cab#*="Unofficial Windows98E SP","SP2.CAB",0 .Set InfFileHeader= .Set InfFileHeader1=[sourceDisksFiles] .Set InfFileLineFormat=*file*=*cab#*,,*size* .Set InfFooter= .Set SourceDir=files\sp2 ACCWIZ.EXE ......... XENROLL.DLL This would have the following advantages: - location anywhere on the computer - files folder would contain only distribution files, no files used for package development only - no need to edit slayout*.inf files What do you think? Petr

Hi Gape, I know there were some discussins about it, but I think that adding Q282949 and Q314941 is absolutely harmless - it can only improve things if unpatched WBEM 1.5 or original XP ICS client is installed, and will does nothing if these are not installed. It could be implemented like this: Q314941 In SPUPDATE.INF [Copy.System] ; --- 314941 ssdpapi.dll,,,1056 ssdpsrv.exe,,,1056 upnp.dll,,,1056 Q282949 In RUNPOST.BAT getver %winbootdir%\system\WBEM\WBEMPROX.DLL | find /i "1.50.1085.1">NUL if not errorlevel 1 start /w rundll32 %winbootdir%\system\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection 282949up.inf,DefaultInstall New 282949up.inf [Version] Signature = $CHICAGO$ LayoutFile = Slayout2.inf [DefaultInstall] SmartReboot = N CopyFiles = Copy.WBEM AddReg = AddReg.WBEM [DestinationDirs] Copy.WBEM = 11,WBEM [Copy.WBEM] Wbemprox.dll [AddReg.WBEM] HKLM,Software\Microsoft\Updates\WMI\Q282949,"Description",,"wbemprox.dll" All necessary files have 88 KB packed, it is 0,5% of the SESP2.0 size. What do you think? Petr

Does anybody have detail description of the SED (Self Extraction Directive) files used by IEXPRESS? Several thing are unclear to me. For example, how to set the target OS to both Windows 98 first and second editions? I tried TargetWin9xVersion=4.10 recommended here, but it does not work. Then there is some possibility to test a version of specific file, I have found one example at http://www.lv.kernel.org/pub/recommended/l...tnew/latnet.sed : TargetFileVersion=#A\IEXPLORE.EXE:4.70.0.1155-:%BrowserWarn%:OK But what does this mean exactly? Does it work for more versions and more files? There is also CDFVersion=3 instead of regular SEDVersion=3 What this could mean? And other unclarities. Is there any decompiler of IEXPRESS packages that would extract the license, the messages and other settings, not just the files in the CAB inside? Regarding MAKECAB, I've found http://support.microsoft.com/?id=310618 (d/l at http://download.microsoft.com/download/pla...n-us/cabsdk.exe ) This is March 1997 version and it contains 33-page Makecab.doc documentation describing the DDF files too. No newer file was found. And regarding INF files, there are several sources like Windows 98 DDK http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/in...72ebb16.xml.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/in...b9d8dbb.xml.asp but it seems to be a bit driver oriented, I'm not sure if there is everything. Does anybody know any better description? Petr

Hi Gape, one addition: Q240896: opengl32.dll 4.1.1381.7035 (already sent by e-mail) and maybe one thing to remove - unicows.dll seems to be not intended to be part of the operating system, but part of the user application. Therefore unicows.exe unzip the files only, does no installing. Quote from http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/handson...u_announce.mspx MSLU actually consists of two parts. The first part is a dynamic-link library (DLL)— Unicows.dll—that is redistributed with the application that the user creates. Also the features list at http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html should be reviewed and either corrected or added functionality to SESP - the statement what packages are included may be misledaing because you just add some updated files, noth the whole packages. I'm now reviewing this for FESP so I don't know exact differences. Petr

Hi MDGx, really? I have read many times that new drivers are optimized for new video cards only and give worse results with older video cards and version like 45.32 are recommended. I never tried to investigate this topic in detail. Petr

I think this bug is not only cosmetic, probably it is cosmetic for 32G to 64G free disk space only, but for >64GB may cause crash. I have to verify this, I have no big free disk available at present, but I read this somewhere. Petr

Hi MDGx, one off-topic question - how you managed to use Tualatin processor on this mobo? Abit states at http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/bios.php?model=119 (Please mention: This board does not support Tualatin core P!!!/Celeron processors. I have several Intel 440BX based boards and I always thought that they don't support Tualation processor? Petr

Does anybody have a list of patches for Internet Explorer 4.01SP1 shipped with Windows 98 Standard Edition? It is probably not so important to incorporate them into the FESP but if it is easy why not? A part of Service pack 1 was Internet Explorer 4.01SP2, I don't suppose to add so many files to FESP - I think nobody is using IE4 now. I'm rather confused by versions, basic versins are: 4.72.3110.8 Internet Explorer 4.01 Service Pack 1 (Windows 98) 4.72.3612.1713 Internet Explorer 4.01 Service Pack 2 KB226325 Windows 98 (Internet Explorer 4.01 SP1/SP2) http://download.microsoft.com/msdownload/i.../en/mshtml4.exe Updated File Name Size (bytes) Date Version Mshtml.dll 2,422,544 4-13-99 4.72.3616.1301 Mshtmlwb.dll 55,872 4-14-99 4.72.3616.1400 i.e. version 4.72.3616, newer than SP2 is intended for SP1, but.... KB269368 http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-US/q269368.exe Internet Explorer 4.01 SP2 (Windows 95/98) File name Size Date Time Version --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mshtml.dll 2,424,592 8/04/00 2:31:38 PM 4.72.3720.4000 Wininet.dll 373,008 2/23/00 5:11:40 PM 4.72.3714.2300 version 4.72.3720 is for SP2 ONLY. Strange. Petr

I think this is bad idea beacuse EXTRACT.EXE from IE 6.0 SP1 (version 5.1.2600.1106) is Windows only application, while currect EXTRACT.EXE from Windows 98 SE (version 1.00.603.0) is DOS based application. EXTRACT.EXE is CAB extraction tool, sometimes it is necessary to repair Windows by extracting original files form the CD-ROM CAB files - in this situation Windows is not available. Petr

And what about new versions of converters mentioned in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...kb;EN-US;212265 article? In summary, there are the following converters in Windows 98 SE: HTML32.CNV 98100400 MSWRD632.WPC 97081200 MSWRD832.CNV 97081200 WRITE32.WPC 97031200 JPEGIM32.FLT 96091600 PCXIMP32.FLT 4.0 All of them are language dependent. MSCONV97.DLL 98012700 This one is language independent. oconvpck.exe contains newer versions:: MSWRD832.CNV 2003.1100.5510 JPEGIM32.FLT 2003.1100.5531 MSCONV97.DLL 2003.1100.5510 but it seems to be in English only. Latest versions in Office XP seems to be: MSWRD632.WPC 99080700 (Original CD-ROM) WRITE32.WPC 99080700 (Original CD-ROM) HTML32.CNV 2003.1100.5510 (KB832671 = SP3) MSWRD832.CNV 2003.1100.5510 (KB832671 = SP3) JPEGIM32.FLT 2003.1100.5510 (KB832671 = SP3) MSCONV97.DLL 2003.1100.6252 (KB873379) Latest versions in Office 2003 seems to be: HTML32.CNV 2003.1100.6252 (KB841532 = SP1) MSWRD832.CNV 2003.1100.6252 (KB841532 = SP1) MSCONV97.DLL 2003.1100.6252 (KB841532 = SP1, KB873378) HTML32.CNV and MSCONV97.DLL are alraedy contained in SE SP, so maybe MSWRD832.CNV 2003.1100.6252 (KB841532 = Office 2003 SP1) JPEGIM32.FLT 2003.1100.5531 (oconvpck.exe) could be added. Does anybody know how to verify the functionality? Petr

Word 2000 document should be opened using mswrd832.cnv and not by mswrd632.wpc, or not? At least this behavior is described in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/276337 article. Petr

This patch contains MSWRD632.WPC and Wordpad.exe, isn't possible that there is some dependance between them? BTW, MSWRD632.WPC in WNT and W2000 patch is 2004.10.21 version and are not exactly the same, WXP SP1 patch contains 2004.10.25 version.... again hard to guess what wersion will 100% reliable work on W98. Does anybody know how to test full MSWRD632.WPC funcionality? New version has the same exported functions as old W98 version, but much more imported functions. According to totalcmd fileinfo plugin, all references in WNT/WXP versions are successfully resolved on W98 system. Petr

Foxit? And why? It displays documents much worse than Adobe Reader, the text is often almost unreadable. And Foxit just caused total system crash due to unsufficient resources. No, thanks. Petr

It seems to be hard to guess what is the right version. There are too many different versions and big differences in file sizes. For example, for hhctrl.ocx, there are the following versions: Windows 98/SE: 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540) Windows ME: 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540) Windows 2000 SP3 & SP4: 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540) Windows XP SP1: 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.315 (srv03_gdr.050421-1728) Windows XP SP2: 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2453 (srv03_sp1_gdr.050525-1542) Windows XP SP2: 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2453 (srv03_sp1_qfe.050525-1536) Windows Server 2003: 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.315 (srv03_gdr.050421-1728) Windows Server 2003: 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.315 (srv03_qfe.050421-1726) Windows Server 2003 SP1: 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2427 (srv03_sp1_gdr.050421-1629) Windows Server 2003 SP1: 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2427 (srv03_sp1_qfe.050421-1625) In summary, there seems to be the following versions: 1. 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540) - for Windows 98, SE, ME, 2000 SP3 & SP4 2. 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.315 (srv03_qfe.050421-1726) - for Windows Server 2003 3. 519168 bytes, 5.2.3790.315 (srv03_gdr.050421-1728) - for Windows XP SP1 and Windows Server 2003 4. 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2427 (srv03_sp1_qfe.050421-1625) - for Windows Server 2003 5. 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2427 (srv03_sp1_gdr.050421-1629) - for Windows Server 2003 6. 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2453 (srv03_sp1_qfe.050525-1536) - for Windows XP SP2 7. 546304 bytes, 5.2.3790.2453 (srv03_sp1_gdr.050525-1542) - for Windows XP SP2 But, even the same vesrsion 5.2.3790.315 (srv03_gdr.050421-1728) and size does not mean that are the files identical. They differ. And even when hhctrl.ocx is the same, itircl.dl differ (Windows 98/SE/ME vs. Windows 2000 version). So finally, there are really 9 different versions! All of them were released by Microsoft at the same time. Threre must be some reason why not just only one file was released. Is it good idea to suppose that any of these files can be used with Windows 98 SE? Does anybody know what is the real difference? Petr

Yes, you are right. it is rather confusing but I should know it - this sometimes really happen. KB890923 = MS05-020 Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer, Issued: April 12, 2005 KB883939 = MS05-025 Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer, Issued: June 14, 2005 Petr

The size of my "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 6.0\Reader" and "C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 7.0\Reader" folders is almost the same, about 85 MB for full install. Adobe Reader 7.0.1 is much much faster than 6.0.3. It requires Windows 2000 SP2+ or Windows XP. Adobe Reader 6.0.3 works on Windows 98 FE fine, only the installer fails. There is very easy workaround - just copy kernel32.dll form SE to FE (surprisingly it works), then install and configure Adobe Reader 6, and then move back the original (FE) version of kernel32.dll. Petr

And why not to use the latest patch IE5.5sp2-KB890923-WindowsME-x86-ENU.exe ? Petr

This is for 2000/XP only?? And not a fix for existing dll? Petr

IE6SP2 have 6.0.2900 file versions. As for MS "xpsp2" tags for IE6SP1 - there was interesting article somewhere@msdnblogs. And browseui.dll was solved long time ago as MDGx says. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, you are right, I confused myself with IE6 (2600) version. There is nice overview at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164539 I thought MDGx wrote that it is necessary to use the browseui.dl file frox xpsp2? Petr

The files are available here: June update contains for Windows 98: MS05-026 KB896358 Windows98-KB896358-ENU.EXE contains files: HH.EXE HHCTRL.OCX ITIRCL.DLL ITSS.DLL HHSETUP.DLL version 5.2.3790.309 (srv03_gdr.050413-1540). It is apparently newer version than version 5.2.3790.1830 (srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447) contained in Windows 2003 Server SP1 and in MDGx's help update. It could be a problem to install lower version number (309) over higher (1830). MS05-025 KB883939 IE6.0sp1-KB883939-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU.exe Install files: BROWSEUI.DLL 6.00.2800.1622 (xpsp2.050218-1437) CDFVIEW.DLL 6.00.2800.1612 (xpsp2.041207-1145) IEPEERS.DLL 6.00.2800.1497 INSENG.DLL 6.00.2800.1475 MSHTML.DLL 6.00.2800.1506 MSRATING.DLL 6.00.2800.1623 (xpsp2.050222-1638) PNGFILT.DLL 6.00.2800.1506 SHDOCVW.DLL 6.00.2800.1658 (xpsp2.050427-1138) SHLWAPI.DLL 6.00.2800.1612 (xpsp2.041207-1145) URLMON.DLL 6.00.2800.1487 WININET.DLL 6.00.2800.1506 It is interesting that file versions are 6.0.2800, i.e. for IE6.0SP2. Maybe the BROWSEUI.DLL problem is solved?

I didn't have installed this file in my Win98SE. is this file installed in original Windows 98 installation? Why it's necessary have this file? or it's not necessary? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is part of VMM32.VXD, as many other VXDs. Petr

Unfortunately doesn't, and it is much better than 6.0.2. Maybe kernelXP project could help - there are only few simple functions not supported. Any progress with AR7 Tihiy? Petr

OK. And what do you expect from Service Pack? To retrieve the inforormation about the speed from CD-ROM, to detect the memory available and then calculate the suitable CD-ROM cache, and then ask if the default value should be overwritten? Do you really think that this should be the purpose of the Service Pack? I don't think so, maybe Gape does, he is the autor, this is just my opinion. Petr