bristols

The installation of the 916528 MDAC update gave me multiple "Setup had trouble copying a file" errors. Otherwise, great stack of updates. Thanks a lot to all concerned.

i thought the other updates was obselete http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=525191 I thought that too. Also, the official 918547 installs a TSR (which of course you can always remove via msconfig.exe, but still), meaning that installing the unofficial fix, I thought, was even more preferable. But the applying the official fix before the unofficial fix is best, is it?

Sounds great, Fred. I wish you the best of luck with it, and look forward to trying it out.

Good question. Unless you have concerns about being able to uninstall the pack (I believe that the uninstall INF files contains errors - or have I dreamt that up?) - but why would you want to do that? - and just as long as you don't find it too much trouble to keep up with and apply the updates listed at the 9x updates thread, then USP 2.1a is great, and continues to serve you well. Personal opinion alert: I tend to think that Gape will not finish a new USP. I'm guessing that with other things going on in his life, keeping up with the project and giving it his full dedication is becoming harder and harder. Again, I don't know this, but it's my guess. This is not to say that I think that a new version will never appear. I think it will. But I think that it won't be completed by Gape. By the way, I hope I'm proved wrong - it would be great to see Gape deliver a new version. But in a way, it doesn't matter who delivers it, as long as a new version is delivered that meets the high standards that Gape has reached with 2.1a. And as I said above, USP 2.1a can still continue to meet our needs, up to a point.

annian, There is an unofficial pack. More information: http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=43605 Direct Downloads: http://www.mdgx.com/spx/NUSB23E.EXE (install first) http://www.mdgx.com/spx/NUSB24.EXE (small update)

After installing the unofficial DCOM98 Full Update ( http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#COM ) and using SFC to check the updated files, I noticed discrepancies between replaced files with the same build number. All these files were replaced by files from DCOM98UP.EXE with the same build number, but with an earlier date: dllhost.exe (build 4.71.3328) went from 08/06/00 to 29/03/99 comcat.dll (build 5.0) went from 08/06/00 to 28/03/99 compobj.dll (build 2.3.2) went from 08/06/00 to 28/03/99 iprop.dll (build 4.00) went from 08/06/00 to 18/11/99 ole2.dll (build 2.3.2) went from 08/06/00 to 28/03/99 olecnv32.dll (build 4.71.3328) went from 08/06/00 to 28/03/99 olethk32.dll (build 4.71.3328) went from 08/06/00 to 28/03/99 rpcltccm.dll (build 4.71.3328) went from 08/09/99 to 08/09/99 rpcltscm.dll (build 4.71.3400) went from 07/02/02 to 07/02/02 storage.dll (build 2.3.2) went from 08/06/00 to 28/03/99 ole32.dll (build 4.71.3328) went from 08/06/00 to 29/03/99 Although the files in DCOM98UP.EXE share the same build number with those installed by 98SE2ME, they are often quite smaller than the ME files (and again, are older). The files from DCOM98UP.EXE are clearly not the same as the files they replace. Does anyone have any ideas about which Of the two sets of files I should prefer to have installed? If not the DCOM98UP.EXE files, then should DCOM98UP.EXE be updated with the newer files, perhaps? (Thanks.)

Thanks for the heads-up, erpdude. I really hope this project happens. CLASYS had been talking about a BAT file of his that installs all IE 6-related updates (rebooting after running each successive update), which similarly I was really looking forward to. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have ever surfaced. Hopefully this project will have a better chance of realisation.

Two more files for you (not included in your list): MSPATCHA.DLL, build 5.2.9354.0, from 883939 (direct download link) MSTASK.DLL, build 4.71.1979.1, from 841874 (direct download link) (for NT 4.0 SP6A, but contains 98 INF files and works with 9x) Did you overlook these?

Hi the_guy, Regarding your list of files here, the only one of those that I can better is DHTMLED.OCX. I use build 6.01.9232 from Windows 2k SP4 Update Rollup 1 (v2) (direct download link).

Hi winxpi, Did you replace the buggy URLMON.DLL noted by the_guy here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=546666 and add the missing files to the update noted by erpdude8 here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=545700 ? (Thank you for your work so far.)

Hi MDGx, Regarding 98SE2XP.EXE: Having running the installer, Explorer opened itself upon reboot at this directory seemingly created by 98SE2XP: C:\Program\Windows This directory contained the following archives: MPVIS.001 WMPBAND.001 WMPNS.001 MPLAYER2.001 WMPLAYER.001 The files they respectively contained had all failed to install. So I extracted the files, gave them their correct extension (they all had no extension) and installed them by hand into the proper directories. My Program Files directory is: C:\Program Files The directory "Program" and its subdirectory "Windows" didn't exist before I installed 98SE2XP.

really? I'll get it ASAP. let bristols know about the newer build of msvcrt.dll file in your ME SP. Hmm. I've just downloaded Beta 5 of your SP from here: http://www.mdgx.com/spx/MESP202B5V2.EXE and the msvcrt.dll version in Sp2.cab is 6.1.9844.0. Maybe 6.1.9846.0 will be in Beta 6?

nah, changed my mind. I'll use msvcrt.dll version 6.1.9844.0 from win2k sp4 and put it in beta 4 of 98fe sp2 instead. that file worked ok under my winme computer; i'll test it out under all editions of win98. same with msvcp60.dll version 6.2.3104.0 from winxp sp2. i've removed the TTF font files in beta 3. Hi erpdude, Not strictly relevant, but just FYI, I've been using MSVCRT.DLL version 6.1.9844.0 from win2k sp4 with 98 SE for a while now. So far there have been no problems, and there is in fact one example of a benefit I can give. I'm not sure of the connection or the details, but since I started using this version of MSVCRT.DLL, the CPU usage level reported by Codestuff Starter has dropped to what I consider to be more accurate levels. Previously, it was reporting on average 60+% when the system was idle. Since using 6.1.9844.0, low levels are reported.

I have: asfsipc.dll 1.1.00.3917 npwmsdrm.dll 4.1.00.3917 but I'm not sure at this point about where they came from. Let me know if you would like them.

Wow, thanks fella! What a generous guy! Say hello and good luck to all those in the XP & Vista forums from us here, will you? Thanks! Ah, I love it when we all share the love.

FWIW, I too vote for this method of numbering LLXX's patch. Of all the schemes suggested so far, it is the least presumptuous, the least complicated and the least confusing, given the number of versions ESDI_506.PDR being patched and renumbered (when I say the "least presumptuous", I mean that if an official 4.10.2227 did show up [not likely, I know], then this method easily deals with it and avoids replicated numbering). At the same time, this method clearly sets apart LLXX's patches from the official versions, but also produces no uncertainty about which patch corresponds to which official version. As Petr again pointed out, maybe the string type field can be used by LLXX to add some kind of identification for his patches, too. LLXX - thanks, I can't wait to try it. You've done 9x a great turn.

Untrue. You also threw and continue to throw abuse at the OS in this forum, labelling 9x a POS (which, I understand, is a euphemistic acronym for Piece of Sh*t) not once or twice, but three times in what is (at the time of writing) your rather pathetic, hate-filled signature. Your signature, full of abuse, shows up each time you post. You constantly use the expression 'POS' in relation to 9x whenever you post anywhere on MSFN, let alone the 9x forums. The intention behind that thread is totally regrettable. It has nothing to do with the point of these forums. Somehow appropriate for you, in that case. Stay there and post there to your snivelling heart's content, or better, leave these forums alone. Untrue. You are not merely stating your opinion.You are constantly throwing abuse. And when you do state your opinion, it's almost always besides the point of the topic/post in hand. The point of this post is to recruit skilled volunteers to maintain Firefox for 9x. The point of the other post you refer to is to see how much interest there is amongst 9x users in mounting an email campaign asking MS to continue supporting 9x. Neither of these post require, are contributed to or informed by your sulking hating and ultimately self-pitying posts. You contribute nothing. Whatever you are doing here, you're doing the exact same thing constantly. Constantly. No doubt people here will speculate on your mental state, such is the undying intensity of your hate, and the doggedness with which you pursue its expression. You're like a broken machine, unable to adapt, fixed in a loop of hateful but ultimately pointless behaviour, forever. Stop, Link21. What can you do? There's nothing you can do. We and millions of others continue to use 9x. We don't care about your opinion - as if that was ever in question! - but we're tired of your foul abuse. You stink the place out man. You would never have got this far were you to have aimed your tirades over the past months (years even!) at XP users in their forums. Moderators would have picked up on you way before now. You are the only one I know of who has made it his mission to sidetrack, lampoon and hijack the posts in the 9x forums, for the sake of your own really rather stupid grievances. Even diehard XP users are embarrassed by your fanaticism. The sun comes up and goes down. Life goes on. Accept it, and go away, finally.

CLASYS, Do you have these (haven't tested them, and at least with the first two, I'm not sure if they're for IE6 or IE6 SP1)?: 323759: http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...-US/q323759.exe 318089: http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...US/vbs56men.exe 328676 (OE hotfix): http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE6...-US/q328676.exe 813502 (OE hotfix): http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/2...4c9/q813502.exe Hope someone can help with your DOS BATCH problems (beyond me I'm afraid).

My answer to the question posed here depends on the hardware available to me. On slower computers, it has to be Opera. No contest. In my experience, it's at least twice as fast as Firefox (FF without any extensions installed). And apart from that, it's a fine, fantastically designed Windows browser that puts IE6 to shame. In fact, next to Opera, I'm embarrassed for IE6. Opera is a pleasure to use. Firefox feels clunkier than Opera, is much much slower to start/initialise. But it is far more extensible. I make web pages, and there are some extensions available for FF that save me so much time in development that I'd be a fool not to use FF just for those. Whereas FF saves my time, IE is just a maddening time-wasting barrier, because of its relatively poor CSS support, and a range of serious rendering bugs (hair-tearing stuff).

That's what I've guessed too (assuming it's not dead, as you say). Perhaps the end of 98 SE support will coincide with Gape's summer break from university too, allowing him more time to spend on the next (and maybe 'final') release.

Here are 3 more variations on the 'gold' theme for a Start menu banner. I've saved these at larger sizes, so boot screens/desktops are a possibility. Sorry everyone - I promise that this is the last time I pursue this 'gold logo' stuff. How about adjusting the existing logo to read "98SE2ME Killer Replacements", using the same font (various weights of Franklin Gothic) so that we keep the original style? Maybe I'll attach efforts in that direction, when I have a bit more time. How exciting is that? PS - these files have 16 colours each, and all have the same dimensions: 21 x 233 pixels (in line with the specs that MDGx gave). 98se2me_banners_gold.zip

I thought I'd chip in regarding a new banner for 98SE2ME. Someone mentioned that they'd like to see gold lettering (maybe PROBLEMCHYLD?). I thought that would be a giggle, so I tried. I've attached the result with this post. This is only a quick job just so that any who is interested can get ideas. If anyone likes the idea, I'll do my best to produce something better, working within the constraints. I'm sure that, with attention, a better job can be made. The font incidently is Franklin Gothic Demi. 157.bmp

Hello CLASYS, I understood the 329919 update recently posted by MDGx not to be for 98 SE, but for ME and beyond only: Since there is no mention of 98 or 98 SE, I assumed that for some reason this update wasn't suitable them. Could anyone put me right on this? BTW, if you've been through all the forums here, and have similarly used a fine-toothed comb on MDGx's site, then I don't think I can offer you any updates that you don't already have. I too don't have 300234 (mentioned in another thread) for example. Edit: Although I understand that this is maybe irrelevant to your own project CLASYS, the latest IE Cumulative Update (912812) contains a later version of IEPEERS.DLL than the one 329919 installs: 329919 installs build 6.0.2800.1132 912812 installs build 6.00.2800.1535 (with QFECHECK installed; otherwise 1534).

Again, thanks Gape. And MDGx (and all those concerned) - many many thanks for steady stream of recent updates - fantastic!

Hi Eck and noguru, Thanks for the feedback regarding the error message I received when installing MDDAC 1.1 - helpful to know that MDDAC installed without problems for the both of you. I think I've narrowed down my problem to a handful of files, after getting an idea from another forum member. I haven't got any further than that in terms of troubleshooting the issue, just yet. Anyway, the updated MDDAC files did all seem to install (insofar as they actually replaced older files). I tried installing MDDAC 1.1 on another 98 SE box, different in a few ways from the box on which I received the above kernel error. The attempted installation on this other box was successful - MDDAC 1.1 installed just fine, with the updated KERNEL32.DLL from Kernel Update Project. So yes noguru, it seems that the KUP can't be the cause of the problem. The box with the kernel error has files from MDGx's 98SE2XP installation scripts (the IE files only, not the WMP files), and a handful of 2003 replacement files (that the successful-install box doesn't have). The successful-install box has 98SE2ME Option 2 installed, the kernel-error box doesn't. So, perhaps the culprit(s) is one of those 98SE2XP files, or one of the handful of 2003 replacements. I will post again once I have a definitive answer.