bristols

I wonder: does anyone have any opinion about how worthwhile it is to install the latest 9x version of Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) on a standalone system? What I know about it (I think ): it provides a kind of subsystem that helps 'manage' (control) Windows remotely - on a network for example. ME/NT/2K/XP all have the latest usable version (conforming to a standard, I think: WBEM - Windows-Based Enterprise Management?) pre-installed. The 98SE CD installs v1.1. 1.5 is the latest available version for Windows 9x. For a non-networked user, who doesn't require his/her system to be controlled from another computer, is there any scenario in which he/she might gain from installing WMI v1.5? Why would he/she need it? Does it help with any kind of internet connectivity for non-networked users? Does it contain certain system enhancements with which individual users' systems benefit? Are there any other add-ons or popular programs for Win 9x that need or benefit from it, or some component from it? I've also read about problems with WMI. ME users (and some XP users) have reported that WMI/WBEM processes can hog an immense amount of system resources. Anyone know about this? Does it ultimately count against installing v1.5, do you think? Because it allows remote control of Windows, does it present inherent security risks that most of us can do without? Apparently, after v1.2, Microsoft made WMI uninstallable. There are ways around this of course, but this alone is enough to make me nervous about installing WMI. Any information or opinions whatsoever would be gratefully received.

Excellent stuff erpdude8. Your investigations prompted me to do some searching too. Maybe you've seen or know this already, but there's something interesting about KB828028 (and about requesting hotfixes from M$ generally) in this thread. According to the poster (who is lamenting M$'s support for 9x): So, just to get this straight, if someone were to request a patch (like this one) in such a way, would it be unlawful to redistribute it in patchers such as Gape's SE SP2? Does anyone know?

Hey guys, Thanks to you all (eidenk, MDGx, erpdude8 and the patch's author) for your input regarding my BSODs in ctpci9x.vxd. The link provided by the patch's author in his response is interesting, because my own setup is in a few respects the same or similar to that mentioned there (the Diamond SupraSST modem, for example). Thanks erpdude for the help regarding drivers. I did reinstall the soundcard drivers and so far, I'm happy to report, haven't suffered any BSODs since. Thus, FWIW, it seems like I'm giving U891711 a thumbs-up too. Hope my thanks can be passed on to the patch's author.

Hello erpdude. Although not wanting to encourage the thread to stray off-topic, I will still reply, just briefly, since you don't understand why. I installed Winamp 2.81 Lite rather than the latest version because, unless I am mistaken, the older version uses fewer system resources than the newer one. This particular setup is using quite old hardware (a 233 Mhz CPU, with only 128 MB of RAM) so the minimal use of resources is a pressing concern, I'm afraid (the Ampesizer skin is an indulgence ). I wanted to try out the MAD plugin using Winamp (I know that there are other media players with small memory footprints), and honestly I can't say that the old Winamp sounds any worse than the newer version (having tried it). I'm aware that subsequent versions of Winamp benefit from security fixes, but fortunately I don't use Winamp to play any Internet-based/streamed content or files that have not been previously virus-scanned, so the security issues are not a concern at the moment. Back on-topic: eidenk, that's good to hear, insofar as it's a point for U891711. The BSODs I experience are sporadic (say, 1 in 3 times), and usually happen at the same time as a file is being played.

Hi MDGX, After installing U891711 with 98KRNLUP a week ago on a very old Intel CPU and board (as part of a fresh install that included the installation of the ME options in 98SE2ME - wow, thanks!), I can now report an issue which may or may not be related (people more qualified to make the judgement no doubt will ). I've experienced quite frequent BSODs while using Winamp v.2.81 Lite (with the Ampesizer skin found here at Radified and the MAD MP3 decoder plugin). They usually occur when clicking Winamp's OPEN icon that opens the file-browsing window. The BSODs have reported OEs at 0028:C16AE309 in VXD ctpci9x(01) + 00055D9 called from 0028:C16B11FC in VXD ctpci9X(01) + 000583CC, and have reported fatal ODs at 0028C0003ABD in VXD VMM(01) + 00002ABD. Again, I have no idea if this relates specifically to the U891711 patch, and so really no idea if this is helpful or not. But there you go.

Thanks for your response MDGX. Every time I have tried to install KB870669, it has been after installing IE6.0 SP1 and the Windows Scripting Update 5.6.0.8825. I've followed Maximus Decim's installation instructions to the letter. I've also tried three variations: i) I've installed the above, then Windows Script Control (sct10en.exe), then Windows Scripting Documentation (scrdoc56en.exe). ii) I've installed the above, Windows Script Control (sct10en.exe), Windows Scripting Documentation (scrdoc56en.exe), then MDAC 2.8 SP1. iii) I've installed the above, then MDAC 2.8 SP1 (no sct10en and scrdoc56en). At least, I think I've tried the installation without sct10en and scrdoc56en. Do you think either of these could be the problem? I think I will definitely make sure to try the installation without these next time. In the meantime, I did indeed apply the manual reg fix on your site (thanks again).

Hello, My apologies if this has been spoken about before. Following the installation instructions included in this Update closely, I am unable to install KB870669. Instead, I receive an alertbox saying "The update cannot be installed on this system" (or something like that). I have downloaded the file on more than one occasion, to make sure that I didn't have a corrupt download. I noticed on MDGX's site the note that this update "...requires MDAC v2.5 or newer already installed!". So I tried installing MDAC version 2.8 SP1 before KB870669. Still, I was unable to install the update. Someone else recently remarked on the same problem they were having, while trying to install the update via soporific's Seven Years Later project. Anyone else experienced this? Has anyone been able to install the update manually? Thanks guys.

Hi MDGX, I'm currently reinstalling my OS from scratch, and I want to try out U891711. I will install 98SE2ME, with the ME options (hooray!). Just a question about the recommended installation order: would the following order be more or less ok?: - all Win 98SE updates - SE SP2.02 - U891711 - 98SE2ME - RPLite3 (perhaps) - 98KRNLUP - 98UPDSYS (for Intel CPU) Hope this is fairly straightforward. Thanks for any suggestions.

A while back, I did actually install that 2.40.4526 version in Windows 98SE, and suffered all kinds of runtime errors when trying to open any file whatsoever, as I remember. Needless to say I reverted back to 2.40.4522 pretty sharpish. I recall this just in order to reinforce your advice erpdude8.

Yep, my first question was confusing. Anyway, good to hear that WMP is not integral to Win 9x's security.

Thanks for the reply eidenk, particularly for the info about the WMP runtime files. What I want to do, of course, is uninstall WMP, but in doing so, not cause myself any security-related issues by removing some file important to the security of the OS. I didn't understand these two answers (from my reading, they seem to contradict each other): Yes. No.You seem to say that yes, Windows is less secure without WMP, but then no, removing WMP does not harm the OS's security. Maybe my first question wasn't clear. Take out the part in parentheses - "a fully patched" - to see what I mean. For example, I don't mean "Is WMP more secure if it is fully patched?" Of course the answer is yes (if the patches are high quality). I do mean "Does Windows need WMP for security reasons?" But I guess you've answered my questions.

Hello all. My question for today: is Windows (specifically 9x) less secure without (a fully patched) Windows Media Player? For example, if WMP is removed from Win 9x, does this cause security problems, or leave the operating system more vulnerable in any way? I ask this because I know that WMP's is tightly integrated with the OS (at least I think it is as far as XP/XP SP2 goes), and I wonder if any OS security holes that are patched by WMP player code are left open when the player is removed. I am well aware that WMP itself can, in some situations, be a security risk. Maybe the answer is not straightforward, but... any ideas? (Thanks. )

This is great! But when you say that your PowerPack contains various patches, etc., can you say what it doesn't include? For example, if someone wanted all official and unofficial Win98SE patches and updates, what would they be missing, what would they have to get in addition to your pack?

Thanks MDGX. I had some suspicion that the OLE file in the cabs folder was a remnant of a previously installed component and that it didn't matter (I've only got some vague idea that .cab files are some kind of compressed files used in unpacking .exes). When I get the chance, I think I'll try posting about a suggested installation order for an installation that uses all the various packs available here. Such things may be obvious to the more experienced people here, but I guess that I'm not alone amongst less advanced users in being confused about it. The TweakBIOS tips are handy, thank you. I only have the freeware version (which, I thought, loses settings at reboot, doesn't it?).

Hello all. I recently found that I had two versions of OLEAUT32.DLL in my Win 98SE installation: version 2.40.4522 in c:\windows\system, and version 2.40.4518 in c:\windows\options\cabs I really just want to know whether this is OK or not, but more, whether it is desirable or not. Should I really have two different versions there? I read on MDGX's site that 2.40.4518 is installed by IE6 SP1 (only if a much older version exists in the OS prior to it). Should I now replace this older version in the cabs folder with 2.40.4522? As a side note, after playing with TweakBIOS, having the OS lock up, and having to power down, Windows no longer boots. Explorer fails to start, and instead reports an error with OLEAUT32.DLL. In DOS, Scandisk reports a long filename, which of course it cannot repair. Because Explorer won't start, I can't do anything about it (it seems). A bit of background info about this installation (behind which lies several hours of head-scratching over the best installation order to use): this installation was a recent one, which included IE6 SP1, Gape's SE SP 2.02, MDGX's 98SE2ME (without the ME options), Maximus Decim's native USB & Cumulative Update projects, as well as all the applicable updates I could find with the help of MDGX's site and his 98/SE/ME patches & updates thread, ERPMan's Win 98/ME updates page, and other sources too. I had looked at all the different installation guides on these forums to try to get an idea about the order in which all these components should be installed. None of these guides follow the exact same order, as many of you will have seen (mainly because not all of the various service packs here are included in every installation guide here). Through educated guesswork and some beginner's ignorance (or luck), I had seemed to have been able to make an ordered list from all these various guides, and had breathed new life into old Intel 430TX board with MMX CPU. Not that much life, but wow! - it was very satisfying to see the old beast doing so well. Probably all this head-scratching about the installation order was unnecessary, even though, after being a lurker on these boards for a couple of months, it still does seem an uncertain point. Maybe the OLE discrepancy is the result of the installation order I used. If anyone knows something I don't, please let me know! I'm wandering off the point of this post, but one last thing. This is an excellent community, and I have it (and the generous work of several members of it in particular) to thank for making life with Windows 9x so much better.