[Driver for Micro Cruzer flashdrive for Win98FE]

Have you tried the driver detailed here?:

http://toastytech.com/files/cruzerwin95.html

Although explicitly for Windows 95, 98 is mentioned under "Requirements".

[Skype 1.4.x ... with video ?]

... not hijacking the "last versions" thread...

Skype 1.4.x* - - - free - (Newer versions work without Video. 3.2.0.175 tested and verified!)

Does this mean that 1.4 works in 98se with video ? Or just that newer version has video but not under 9x (which I confirm) ?

Skype didn't have video functionality until version 2x - 2.5x I believe. Skype 1.4 is certainly without it.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

@ bristols: which version of usp10.dll do you have installed? I have 1.0471.4030.0, together with riched20.dll 5.30.23.1221 (I know about .1228 but dont' have it around) - the other richedit versions don't work correctly with SpellChecker in Miranda - and I have no such problem. Also, please specify which messaging plug-in you're using (SRMM, Scriver, tabSRMM, nConvers), and if that error comes up with any of the aforementioned (switch them in Options > Plugins, if you got them installed; make sure you install the appropriate, compatible versions).

Hi Drugwash, apologies if I was too vague.

The version of USP10.DLL that (for me) causes Miranda problems is 1.0626.5756.0 (from the latest revision of MDGx's RICHED9X.EXE, as noted by blackwire in the post above). Like blackwire, I reverted to version 1.0420.2600.2180, which has cleared up the problem.

As for plugins, I have added none. I'm using a vanilla install (being still a Miranda newbie).

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

I have been dutiful, MDGx. I have an issue to report concerning a DLL from the RICHED9X.EXE update. Using Miranda (the current ANSI version - 0.7.1), I get the following message when I click on a contact from my contacts list (in order to open a message window):

The specified module could not be found (USP10.dll)

The message appears only on the first occasion that I do this - not subsequently. The message window opens as normal after I dismiss the message, and I can continue without problem (at least I haven't discovered a problem yet).

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Welcome back MDGx, and thanks as always for the updates.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Even moderators need holidays!

That might explain why the latest unofficial 9x IE6 and OE6 updates haven't shown up?

They've probably already been compiled, but haven't been posted anywhere...

Afterall, MDGx is the updates collector man!

I noticed and decided to post about the fact that MDGx continues to update his own site with new and revised hotfixes:

- check bottom of the home page: "Site UPDATED October 23 2007"

- check the dates next to the first three updates under the heading "Free Updates + Patches" on the home page, which include the latest unofficial IE6 Cumulative Update for 98/98SE.

I'm not sure whether or not he wants the information posted here (otherwise why not post it himself?). I can only guess that he is not against us downloading the updates, because he has taken the trouble of compiling them and making them available on his own site.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

MDGx is strangely absent. He hasn't logged in for over 2 weeks (according to his profile).

It seems strange to me, since he's a moderator, and is usually so prompt when dealing with enquiries and posting new and revised updates.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Thanks erpdude8 - I re-registered WMP.DLL with your command and WMP works fine now.

Also, did you reboot before trying to use WMP after installing this update?

the_guy

I certainly did. I reboot after applying any patch or hotfix as a matter of course (unless there is some instruction included with the update that says I shouldn't for whatever reason).

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Same MSE 5.7 problem here. First refused to install, said that I already had ver5.7. That is not true. I had ver 5.6. I installed manually by rightclicking on .inf. Same result as Tihiy, files in windows/system, but I haven't noticed anything broken.

Same here, exactly.

After installing wmp.dll WMP9 stopped working on my machine. Said that I have incorrect version of wmp.dll.

Again, same here.

The file wmp.dll has a version number 9.0.0.3354 where 9.0.0.3349 was expected.  Windows Media Player is not installed properly and must be reinstalled.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Hi MDGX.

I get an error message during the installation of the 938127 (VML/VGX) fix:

An error occurred while renaming a file: "Cannot create a file when that file already exists" (error #183).

Current file name C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Vgx\vgx.dll

At this point I chose to cancel the setup.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Perhaps there's something about my method of installing Windows 95 that causes SFC to report the DCOM files corrupt, or causes problems for the installation of DCOM. I'll download the OSR2 Update Rollup again in case my first download was incomplete in some way.

Please download my OSR2 Update Rollup pack again, bristols. It's now beta 6 and you can get it here:

http://www.usaupload.net/d/9axq0j28l15

Thanks erpdude8 - I downloaded and ran the beta 6 Pack. SFC didn't report the DCOM files as corrupt this time.

The Pack updated the following system files:

- ASYCFILT.DLL 2.40.4528 > 2.40.4530

- OLEPRO32.DLL 5.0.4528 > 5.0.4530

- OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4522 > 2.40.4519

- VIDX16.DLL

- MCIQTZ.DRV 4.00.96.072 > 4.00.96.072

DCOM95 files:

- RPCLTCCM.DLL 4.71.3328 > 4.71.3328

Thanks for testing those newer OLE files. But could you tell me why OLEAUT32.DLL was downgraded?

[My OSR2x is fully-patched as far as I am aware.]

[98 SE SP 3.32]

Thanks for the feedback. Now, we know that at least 4 different computers have problems with 2226. So, I am planning to replace 2226 with 2224 in uSP.

If anybody has 2225, please post it.

Make that 5. And thumbs up for Xeno for noticing that this file causes this problem.

Make that 6. 2224 seems to have solved the same problem for me too.

[AutoSYSTEMini v0.56 beta (english, italian & french only)]

Hi soporific,

Are you still working on this great little tweaker as an independent utility apart from Auto-Patcher?

I tried using it some months back on Windows 95 OSR2x. I'm happy to report that it worked fine, apart from an error that occurred during the reboot routine (it failed to reboot, with an error). I had to reboot manually for the changes to take effect.

Sorry that this feedback is somewhat vague. I didn't make a note of the error specifically.

Anyway, any word on the future of this?

Thanks.

[98SE2ME = Killer Replacements: ME -> 98 SE]

I recently installed CutePDF Writer (the freeware version):

http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp

on a fully-patched 98SE2ME (option 2) system, and found that the installation updated two system files to WinME versions:

PSMON.DLL: 4.10.1998 to 4.90.3000

PSCRIPT.DRV: 4.10.2222 to 4.90.3000

Both CutePDF and these files seem to be working fine, so far. Is there any reason you know for why these ME files are not included in 98SE2ME?

TIA.

[98SE2ME = Killer Replacements: ME -> 98 SE]

I have removed GDI*.* 4.90.3003 from 98SE2ME and reverted back to GDI*.* 4.90.3002 because of this problem [from UPDATES.TXT, the 8-22-2006 update]:

* Options 1 + 2: replaced newer WinME GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3003 from

unofficial WinME Q918547 MS06-026 security fix with older GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE

4.90.3002 from unofficial WinME Q912919 hotfix:

http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#MEU

to avoid power management errors. [thank you PROBLEMCHYLD]

But if you determine that those files [4.90.3003] work ok on your Win98 SE computer, please feel free to install them any way you want.

I have added those "extremely important" warnings because I was notified by soporific that some people try to install an update twice [i have no idea why], without rebooting after the 1st install. So with some updates [exe installers created with iexpress] that actually deletes the original files, effectively locking up the OS after reboot, because those updates rename the original system file(s) in order to back them up, but fail to install the new ones 2nd time over.

I've also added a reboot message that pops up at end of install, for same purpose.

Thanks for this explanation MDGx. I was being over-cautious in my concern about the consequences of replacing the GDI files via DOS.

As it happens, I did replace (via DOS) the 4.90.3002 versions of those files with the 4.90.3003 versions. So far I have experienced no problems, but I'll bear in mind the power management issues PROBLEMCHYLD experienced.

You are right, there are no USER*.* files to protect you from the vulnerabilities addressed by 891711, if using WinME.

I am waiting to see if the anonymous author decides to fix those WinME files, that's why I haven't removed them yet from 98SE2ME.

Here's hoping he does. Is the anonymous author still around? More to the point, is he still interested in 9x? Haven't seen any word from him on these boards for a while.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Yes. I extracted the files using 7Zip, right-clicked each INF file and chose "Install". The only noticeable update/file copying occured when I clicked one INF file that copied several PNG (image) files to %windir%\System\DirectX\Dinput . I then rebooted and ran SFC. No files were updated from the previous DirectX version (8.0a).

Before the most recent time I tried this, I had installed Erpman's OSR2 Update Rollup Pack 1 (Beta 3). Several of the DCOM files installed were reported by SFC to be corrupt (this also occured with the Alpha 4 version of his pack). Do you think it could be that the DirectX setup program cannot detect that DCOM 1.3 is installed, and so will not install for that reason?

DirectX 8.1 and higher are TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with Win95 OSes, bristols. That also includes the BDA files from DX 8.1 (and the BDA addon for DX 8.0a) which really require Win98/ME. Latest working version of DirectX for Win95 SR2 is 8.0a. The DX 8.0a package does not include the BDA files.

Look here:

http://www.indigorose.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5034

Quote from the DirectX 8.1 download page:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...30-69f3e5ecdede

DirectX 8.1 will not run on Windows 95.

Really, MDGx, DX 8.1 and higher do NOT work under Win95. So bristols has to use either DX 8.0a or he should upgrade to Win98 or WinME.

Plus the Dcom95 files from the Unofficial OSR2 Update Rollup pack are FINE. I found nothing wrong with them. It's just that the Win95 core system files are incapable of handling DirectX 8.1 which is why version 8.1 and higher needs at least Win98. Updating the Win95 files from the OSR2 Update Rollup will NOT make DX 8.1 run under Win95.

Thanks for supplying that information, erpdude8. A shame that 8.1 is a no-go. Ah well.

Perhaps there's something about my method of installing Windows 95 that causes SFC to report the DCOM files corrupt, or causes problems for the installation of DCOM. I'll download the OSR2 Update Rollup again in case my first download was incomplete in some way.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

I've tried several times to install DirectX 8.1 (from the file to which you link) on different Windows 95B/C installations. Each time it has failed to install. I receive the following message:

This version of DirectX is not compatible with the version of Windows installed. Press OK to exit

Any help regarding how to install DirectX 8.1 on Windows 95 would be greatly appreciated.

Have you tried to extract the files from the EXE and install manually, eventually by right-clicking the INF files?

Yes. I extracted the files using 7Zip, right-clicked each INF file and chose "Install". The only noticeable update/file copying occured when I clicked one INF file that copied several PNG (image) files to %windir%\System\DirectX\Dinput . I then rebooted and ran SFC. No files were updated from the previous DirectX version (8.0a).

Before the most recent time I tried this, I had installed Erpman's OSR2 Update Rollup Pack 1 (Beta 3). Several of the DCOM files installed were reported by SFC to be corrupt (this also occured with the Alpha 4 version of his pack). Do you think it could be that the DirectX setup program cannot detect that DCOM 1.3 is installed, and so will not install for that reason?

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

I have posted links to DirectX 8.1 for all Win95 editions + WinNT4:

http://www.mdgx.com/dx.htm#DX8

* Microsoft Windows 95/OSR1/OSR2/NT4 DirectX 8.1 Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) + Drivers accelerate 2D/3D Video/Movie/Animation/TV, 3D Audio/Surround Sound/Music + local/network Play/Voice/Chat directly in hardware (English):

- DX 8.1 Redist Full for Windows 95/OSR1/OSR2 [11.5 MB]:

http://store.netacademia.net/MSHU/DIRECTX/...X81/DX81eng.exe

- DX 8.1 Redist Full for Windows NT4 [7.56 MB]:

http://store.netacademia.net/MSHU/DIRECTX/...1/DX81NTeng.exe

Please test DirectX 8.1 on your 95/NT4 computer(s) to see if these installers work properly.

Then please post here your results afterwards.

Thanks.

I've tried several times to install DirectX 8.1 (from the file to which you link) on different Windows 95B/C installations. Each time it has failed to install. I receive the following message:

This version of DirectX is not compatible with the version of Windows installed. Press OK to exit

Any help regarding how to install DirectX 8.1 on Windows 95 would be greatly appreciated.

[98SE2ME = Killer Replacements: ME -> 98 SE]

MDGX,

Could you please spell out the options available to someone who has installed 98SE2ME (with Option 2/the system files) and who wants to update GDI32.DLL and GDI.EXE to the latest available version (e.g., 4.90.3003, as found in the latest 918547 unofficial hotfix for ME)? Can these files be safely replaced by hand/DOS? I ask this in the light of the "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT" message in 918547.txt about the need for a reboot.

Also, am I right in thinking that to be protected from the vulnerabilities addressed by 891711, I must keep the temporary fix version (U891711, with the running KB891711 process) because there's no unofficial update for the ME versions of USER32.DLL and USER.EXE (which I have as a result of using Option 2 in 98SE2ME)?

TIA.

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Theoretically the roots update should install on all Win9x editions with MS IE 4/5/6 installed, including Win95, but I don't have any of those OSes installed anymore, so I can't test.

If anyone has Windows 95, 95a OSR1, 95B OSR 2.0/2.1 or 95C OSR 2.5 please test and post here results.

Thanks.

Thanks for your reply MDGx.

The latest Root Certificate Update (RCU) seems to install on win95 OSR2.1 with IE5.5.

Before applying the RCU I exported the whole registry and noted the size. After applying the update, I again exported the registry, and the size had increased (in this case by 22.1 KB).

[98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes]

Is the Root Certificates Update good for IE5x on Win95 (OSR2)?

Here in this thread it's specified as being for IE5/6/7 on 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME, and on MDGx's site for 98 and upwards, while erpdude's site specifies the previous update as being for 9x, 2000, ME & NT4.

The crucial component is that a version of IE 5/6/7 is present, so that the update should be OK for IE5x on Win95. Is that right?

(Thanks)

[Service pack for Windows 98 Standard (First, Gold)]

MDGx & erpdude,

I downloaded and used erp's OSR2 Unofficial Rollup Pack 1 (URP1) Alpha 4 from your site the other day. MDGx, you linked to the earlier Alpha 3, but I haven't seen mention of this version 4 in the forums. Also erpdude, I couldn't see a link to the pack on your site. Any reason for that?

I'm new to Windows 95 (having been a user of 98 SE for years, I guess I'm not that "new"), but decided to try it out on an old box after someone gave me their OSR2 disc. The truth is that it's actually quite cool for me to have access to IE5.5, so that I can test how it displays web stuff that I develop. Anyone who develops websites according to web standards will know how bad Internet Explorer's implementation of CSS 2.1 is (for example), so I need (want) to know how my stuff looks in that old browser. erpdude, your pack is extremely handy. While I'm not too qualified to say how successful it was, it does seem so far to have done just the job I was hoping it would. Thanks man!

Perhaps if/when the 98 Gold and OSR2 URP1 packs reach maturity (have they not already? Why is URP1 still alpha? Surely the Alpha 4 is Beta-ready...?), they could each get a sticky like Gape's USP2? In a way, they are more deserving of sticky status now than USP2, since the latter is... well... frozen and (seemingly) practically dead in terms of future development, if not actually *dead*. I'm not suggesting that USP2 be unstickied - not at all! Just that these two projects are equally (if not more) deserving of stickification, since they are far more active and up-to-date (same goes for Auto-patcher... can't wait until it's on a dialup-friendly server).

[98 (FE), 98 SP1, 98 SE + ME SHELL32.DLL fix]

Two points:

The problems I had (previously mentioned in this thread) with connecting to servers via webdav, which had seemingly been introduced by the Anonymous Author's shell32 update, have disappeared with the latest 634 build. I have no idea why this is - at least nothing to my knowledge has changed to affect things at the server I connect to. But the problems trouble me no more. So, thanks, Anonymous Author, if you brought about this positive result.

Secondly though, I do find your response to erpdude here somewhat petty, if I may say so. I don't think that a dispute regarding file-dating and build-numbering logic with one MSFN member, regardless of the rights or wrongs, has to mean that you withdraw your support from the whole community, which in general has been extremely grateful to you for your work and interest.

[Driver Compatibility]

I can confirm that GeForce FX5500 is compatible with 98 SE. I use it with a VIA board (VT8237 southbridge). As mentioned in relation to 5700, bad drivers will probably be your main issue. I don't specifically remember with which driver version, but I experienced gamma-related problems during video playback with at least one of the later Nvidia 9x driver versions. Take Offler's advice and use a 50x driver version for that card (a driver archive is available on the Nvidia site; alternatively, try one of the unofficial Omega Nvidia drivers).

[98 (FE), 98 SP1, 98 SE + ME SHELL32.DLL fix]

Thanks guys.

I hope what follows will suffice in place of screenshots - I've reproduced the error messages I receive verbatim.

Novell Netdrive is the WebDAV client I tend to use. When connection is achieved (usually after a pause of between 5 to 10 seconds), Explorer.exe automatically opens with the mounted drive showing. My process explorer shows that Novell Netdrive uses its own WebDAV DLLs, not the Windows ones.

If I try to connect to a server via WebDAV (let's say I'm trying to connect to http://www.blahblahblahblah.com/webdav/), using version 634, these are the error messages I get (according to the client I use):

Error messages

From Novell Netdrive client (I get one or the other each time I try):

- Can't connect to http://www.blahblahblahblah.com/webdav/ = No HTTP Response Code found

- Can't resolve http://www.blahblahblahblah.com/webdav/, Error 11001

From Windows Native WebDAV client ('webfolders'):

- Can't connect to the Web server http://www.blahblahblahblah.com/webdav. The server could not be located, or may be too busy to respond. Please check your typing or check to make sure the Web server is available.

Pause before the display of error messages

- With the Novell Client, there is a pause of between 20 and 30 seconds (occasionally longer but never less than).

- With Windows webfolders, the delay is more like 3-5 seconds.

Using SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.620

Even when this version is installed, connecting to a server via WebDAV is somewhat flaky, sometimes giving this Novell Netdrive error (as above with SHELL32.DLL version 634):

- Can't resolve http://www.blahblahblahblah.com/webdav/, Error 11001

and this Windows webfolders error:

- Can't connect to the Web server http://www.blahblahblahblah.com/webdav. The server could not be located, or may be too busy to respond. Please check your typing or check to make sure the Web server is available.

but, with 620, I never get the other above 'No HTTP' error experienced with 634.

In any case, with SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.620 installed, a couple of tries is usually enough to connect. Connection always comes eventually - more than 3 tries is unheard of. However, using 634, connection is never achieved.

Hope this helps; please let me know if I can be of further help.