bristols

Same here. It created a directory - c:\program - and left npdsplay.dll there, except the file didn't have its .dll extension.

Hi patchworks, have you tried this on Win9x? I thought it was XP only.

Thanks Petr. Hope the QFEInstalled reg fix is included in the next service pack.

I had PNGFILT.DLL build 6.00.2800.1506, dated 27 April 2005 17:50:00, in my System directory. This seems to be the build included in the 883939 IE CU. The latest IE Cumulative Update, 905915, contains PNGFILT.DLL build 6.00.2800.1505, dated 27 April 2005 09:53:06. So 905915 contains an earlier version of PNGFILT.DLL than 883939. Strange (isn't it?). Can anyone please confirm this? And if so, any ideas as to why this is?

Hi emarkay, Thanks for putting the effort into documenting all this. I just have to query something though. On the bottom of the page you link to on your website, you've got the 912919 WMF vulnerability patch listed. But the file details you've listed there are for the Windows 2000 release (I believe). MS didn't release this patch for Windows 9x. The 912919 patch for 9x is unofficial, and can be found on this page here in the forum: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581 It patches gdi32.dll to build 4.10.2226. As far as I know, it doesn't touch mf3216.dll.

Link21, you don't seem to understand the difference between 'facts' and 'judgements'. Examples of Facts: Windows 9x uses the FAT32 file system. Windows 2000/XP uses the NT file system. Win 2000 prior to SP3 did not support drives larger than 137 GB. Examples of judgements: "I think Windows 9X is awful" "I think any Microsoft OS prior to Windows 2000 was awfully bad" "...they think Windows 2000 and XP are both decent respectable opertaing systems from a technical standpoint" (sic) "...(they) htink Windows 9X is horrible junk" (sic). They are not the same. "Windows 9X is horrible junk" is neither a technical fact nor a fact of any kind. Sorry to come over all philosophical, but: i) I would expect a person with such a firm grip on technical matters as yourself to understand this : and ii) you haven't managed to make adequate replies to the reasonable points put forward by other 9xers here (and an XPer or two too - e.g., Atomizer) - you're not really achieving much so far in your personal crusade. So I thought you might not refuse a bit of help. But keep going Link21. NT will win for you - glory will be yours ("glory" as you define it in the OS world).

This thread has produced some good stuff though, aside from the 9x bashing and "obsessives" jibes. In contrast to the bashing, I think the obsessives here have in fact responded with mostly reasonable, well-argued and (in the case of LLXX for example, below) excellent reasons for their choice to use 9x. You have to hand it to the 9x users here who continue to experiment, document, and share what they learn. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to be impressed by their resourcefulness, knowledge and willingness to share. On a personal note: Link21, don't make assumptions. Until fairly recently I fell into the latter group of users. It wasn't long ago that an upgrade to XP was ruled out for me simply because of my old hardware (and, of course, by financial straits). The efforts of members of this forum to improve 9x have helped my computing experience immeasureably (witness the fact that I can hardly hold back from saying "THANKS!" every time I leave a comment here ). I am in a position now where I can upgrade - but I've no intention of using XP outside of forced situations (e.g., work). It just so happens that your views about 9x are the ones of which Microsoft approves. Whether that means you're biased towards MS is a different matter (and you say you prefer Linux... ok). But anyway. As a side note, someone else here (I think... apologies, I'm not sure who) compared MS and Apple in terms of their support for older OS. Apple probably would have abandoned support for an OS as old as 98 SE way before now. I'm sadly not too familiar with Apple, so I'm sure there are mitigating factors of which I'm not aware (although most obviously, one is that Apple has a smaller and, traditionally, narrower userbase than MS). But the point that MS is still releasing (critical) patches for 9x systems, in comparison to Apple's support for its older OS, seemed to me a point well made in MS's defence.

Link21, you've claimed in this thread several times that people who use 9x systems are "obsessives". Ironically, you seem to be just as obsessed yourself with 9x - indeed, you're just repeating yourself now. Let it go. 9x systems are being supported by fewer and fewer manufacturers. You ardent desire and burning wish has become true. It seems you've had years of pain at the hands of the 9x obsessives, but surely now your pain is subsiding? Let it go. You can't change the past. Step away from the Windows 95/98/98SE/ME forums. Re-enter your modern XPworld, and merely pity us 9x-obsessed luddites, instead of poring your MS-sanctioned scorn on us.

There's also the GRC patch to consider. They now claim that they will produce one:

Maybe Windows 2000 SP4 is finally a good OS (stable and everything such as large hard drives support introduced only in SP3) but not Windows 2000. It has benefited from 4 massive service packs in 4 years to give it stability while the latest 9x declination, Windows ME, published the same year as Windows 2000 benefited from none at all which is scandalous especially as far as support for 128GB+ drives is concerned. It's just all a matter of policy. Absolutely. This helps put into context the fantastic efforts of members of this forum to improve 9x systems, via the various and growing number of Unofficial Service Packs and modifications available here. They offer an idea of the possibilities had 9x continued to be developed officially.

Gibson says: and: but also: Although the latter might be more up-to-date info, this is not clear on the above page (to me at least). Whether 9x systems are vulnerable or not (there seem to be contradictory statements about this; is 9x vulnerable at least in principle?), it still remains to be seen whether they will be patched in the next MS update. I thought critical security flaws were to continue to be patched until June 2006. Not so, according to The Register: I wonder why unregistering the shell image viewer .dll "was never correct on these platforms"? Elsewhere, I guess this won't be the first time in the coming months that this sort of advice will appear: Edit: according to Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at F-Secure (reported by ZDNet)

What a lot of bluster and balderdash. But I will try to reply and ignore the overblown and indignant language. Have you tried Windows 98 or 98 SE with their respective Unofficial Service Packs (courtesy of Gape and Petr and other MSFN members)? Or 98 SE with MDGx's 98SE2ME modifications? Or Maximus-Decim's Native USB Drivers? With respect, unless you have any experience of Windows 98 SE with these update and modification packs installed, then to many of the users of the 9x forums your kind of opinion (which differs not in the slightest from current Microsoft propaganda, frankly ) is irrelevant. Because it is simply out-of-date. I do (try to) say that with respect. If you have Windows 98 but especially 98 SE, please try these packs out, and hopefully your opinion will benefit from less obsolete experience. Well, I often hear this. But I have never heard nor read any clear evidence for this. It may be true, but I remain to be convinced. It seems to me that blaming the task of supporting Windows 9x as the cause of all software/hardware problems benefits everyone except 9x users, who are a convenient scapegoat. Please supply us with clear evidence that supporting 9x has directly caused in any way hardware or software to break or be inferior for the users of other Windows systems. If you have any.

Do you mean nusb221es.exe ? As far as I know, no file associated with this project is called nusb22es.exe . The latest English version is nusb22e.exe. There's also an additional update of the USBSTOR.INF file to download as a .zip package and install afterwards, called nusb221e_upd.zip. Petr has put together a version for Windows 98 SE Spanish, after someone here requested one, called nusb221es.exe. Is this the version you installed? If you did, then hopefully you intended to install this Spanish version (because your OS is a Spanish version, I would presume). From what I understand, USB has often been problematic for several well-known hardware manufacturers. An updated Windows 98 SE should be able to handle USB 2.0, providing you have the correct drivers from your motherboard manufacturer (in addition to these 'native' USB drivers for USB devices). So, if you know what make and model your motherboard is and you haven't already done this, go to the manufacturer's website and download the latest USB driver. I guess you would have to re-install these nUSB drivers after updating your motherboard's USB drivers. It's well worth taking a look at the USBMan website for help (although some parts of it may be a little bit out of date), particularly if you have a VIA chipset/motherboard. Hope this helps. Maybe someone more experienced with matters USB will chip in and help you out some more if needed.

Seems that no NVidia PCI-E card has driver support for 98/ME. Perhaps this thread could be used to document cards/chipsets that do have 98/ME driver support. With this in mind and without further ado, here's a list of ATI chipsets that apparently qualify, via the use of the Catalyst Version 5.9 driver (for both 98/ME, although please note, support for these cards is specified as being beta only): Radeon Xpress 200 series Radeon X300 series Radeon X550 series Radeon X600 series Radeon X700 series Radeon X800 series Radeon X850 series The above list was taken from this ATI page (Referrer Logging needs to be switched on to load it). By the way, does anyone know if any of the unofficial NVidia drivers provide support for PCI-E on 9x? Hope to see more contributions to the above list.

The black version is fantastic, thanks very much. I've posted on the Unofficial Service Pack board to let everyone there know about your logos. I also mentioned that you may do individual logos as per request, but I did point out that this would be only if you have the time (I didn't mean to commit you to anything!). So blame me of course if you have to turn anyone down.

Just to let everyone here know, an MSFN member (bobthenob) has kindly rendered a couple of logos for the Unofficial Service Pack, should anyone wish to use them: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=63215&st=0 If he has the time, he might provide you with your own customised version! http://www.members.aol.com/robinbrownmarti...logo/win984.png http://www.members.aol.com/robinbrownmarti...logo/win983.png These versions are rendered in Franklin Gothic (which I believe is the correct font for the Windows logo). I asked for the particular wording on these logos. Gape, Petr or anyone else concerned, if you would like to correct or change it in any way, let me or bobthenob know (and hopefully he will have the time to make the changes). Petr, if you like the logos, I'm sure bobthenob won't mind doing a "98 Gold"/"98 Final Edition" version. Sorry for not asking for this originally.

Great, thanks! One thing: would it be possible to do the logos in either the font you used for your previous Windows 2000 logo, or in Franklin Gothic (I'm not sure which weight - Book, Medium, Bold), which I believe is the font used in the original Windows logo? If not, no worries.

Wow, great work, and very generous of you too. Would it be possible for you to do one to accompany the Windows 98 SE Unofficial Service Pack? The service pack is at version 2.1a. If you'll do it, could you leave out the version number, so that it's good for future versions? So that it reads just like your Windows 2000 Unofficial Service Pack 5, except without the version number, thus: Microsoft® Windows 98 Second Edition™ Unofficial Service Pack OR Microsoft® Windows 98 SE™ Unofficial Service Pack (the first one is strictly correct, but the second one would be fine if it is easier for you!) If you do it, I'll let Gape and Petr (the guys behind the Unofficial SP) and everyone on the forums know about your fine work. Thanks for the offer, and Happy New Year.

Season's Greetings to all (especially those taking the opportunity presented by their holidays to reinstall or otherwise tinker with their OS!). My thanks and best wishes for the New Year to all the contributors here.

CLASYS, You've got so much interesting stuff to say. But personally I wish you would simplify your English a tad for those of us not as proficient in the language as yourself! Shorter sentences with fewer clauses than the above sentence, please! This would help many of us get involved in discussing the points you are making. Hopefully, speaking just for myself anyway, it would help me understand better the peculiar workings of IE updates. Without meaning to overlook or downplay the importance of any other points you make, much of what you say seems to turn on this: that many of the updates issued by Microsoft for IE, said to be cumulative, are not actually cumulative. So, without realising it, many of us are missing out from having the best, most patched system that we could have. I come to all this fairly late - I am still learning a lot about how to make 98 SE better. But the whole issue of cumulative updates has always been troublesome for me. I have always doubted whether they really contain the equivalent of all previously released updates. Now that I know more about some of the strange behaviour of MS hotfixes and updates, I have all the more reason to be unsure about what to install, and in what order, to ensure that I have the most patched system that I can have (with the components and add-ons that I choose to install). Yes, I have a better idea now than before, but still I am unclear. So, what does anyone else think about CLASYS' points above? Is the latest cumulative update for IE providing us with everything that we would get if we installed every single update released for IE (in the correct order, of course)? And should the next Unofficial Service Pack definitely support IE6 SP1?

Perhaps you could name a few. I would call a component that uses 90%+ of system resources on the 9x systems of what does seem to be a worrying number of people who make mention of WMI to indicate that WMI has problems running correctly on 9x systems. Or, perhaps this is all in order, and WMI is supposed to use resources like this? You tell me. I will bow to your greater knowledge on the matter. Also, although from what I have read, problems are less frequent on NT-based systems, the same kind of problem (resource-hogging) is still sometimes reported. Go ahead and Google - I'm not making this up. This is what people tend to say about WMI for 9x.Let's be clear: I'm sure that this spiralling-out-of-control CPU usage isn't how it is for everyone. But I just want to chip in here to let people here know what I have found both from personal experience and from seeking the reports of others. That's all. Please erpdude8, if you do know how to configure WMI correctly to prevent the way it gobbles-up resources, do the community a favour (to add to those you've done it in the past) and let us all know. I truly would be grateful for this information, man - I spent long enough trying to find out. 100% agreed. But as you say, this is a question for Gape and Petr, not me. I would guess that, like other components of SP2.1a, Q282949 and Q285895 are there just in case you have a specific component installed (in this case, WMI v.1.5). If you have WMI v.1.5 installed, then hey - here are two updates for that. If not, then so be it. It doesn't mean that Gape or Petr are necessarily endorsing WMI v.1.5 as a great thing to have for 98 SE (but please consult Gape and Petr for their own actual opinions - what do I know? ). This relates to a question I want to ask actually - what would a person have to have installed before installing SP2.1a to get the full benefit of it? Clearly, for example, I won't get IE5.5-only updates from SP2.1a if I have IE6 SP1 installed prior. I would love to see some kind of list detailing an 'optimum pre-SP2.1a software/OS environment'.

Perhaps WMI 1.5 shouldn't be a part of the the next Service Pack. WMI/WBEM is not only a resource hog, but it would seem from almost all accounts that it is a buggy resource hog. Accounts about its excessive use of CPU are not hard to find. It has very specific and in almost all cases, it seems, unnecessary functionality, as far as 9x systems go. Please contradict this with any evidence to the contrary. I have tried to find out myself the benefits of installing WMI v.1.5 on 98 SE. It would be great to find a good reason for having it, or any reason for why it is needed, provided that its resource-hogging bugs can be addressed. If included, its installation ought to be optional.

at this time, no. maybe in January 2006 if I determine the benefits of Q276602 pci.vxd fix for ME outweigh the risks. Isn't it usually best to let several people test components out, so that testing gets the benefit of a greater variety of setups?

Ah, I didn't know this. So, I guess it remains to be determined whether the DHTMLED.OCX from the 2000 fix (build 6.01.9232) is in any way superior to the 98 SE version (assuming, of course that they both have the same functionality on 98 SE systems and that it's ok to install 6.01.9232 on them), because if it had been judged superior, it would be in the SP2.1a... Is that right? The policy of including files from other OS is sometimes followed by SP2.1a, is it not? Anyway, not to worry, just curious. Thank you. The simple answers are sometimes the best.

I wonder if there is any reason why SP2.1a contains DHTMLED.OCX build 6.01.9231, instead of DHTMLED.OCX build 6.01.9232? When MDGx suggested this file he referenced the later build from Win 2000 SP4 Update Rollup 1. As I understand it, SP4 UR1 was revised because of specific problems that many people were experiencing with it. So, in full, the update is now called SP4 UR1 v.2 (I think). Could it be that the DHTMLED.OCX build in SP2.1a is from the original SP4 UR1, and that v.2 contains the later build? Anyway, thanks to anyone who offers an explanation of the different build numbers. Also, does anyone know the source of Vredir.vxd build 4.10.2231 in SP2.1a? The latest build of this file I am able to find is 4.10.2230, in Q293793. Again, thanks.