noguru

But Q313829 exists in many languages: ...long list Petr Thanks for this list. In the dutch version there is a 4.72.3812.600 shell32.dll, exactly the same that I originally had on my system before I installed the 98SP1+98se shell32.dll fix. Only difference is that mine is dated 7-10-2004, because I got it from sesp2nl ver 1.6 (I never updated to 2.1, installed everything seperate from MDGX's site since then) However, if it's not possible to create a universal fix for all of these versions (I have no clue, I know almost nothing about programming) just like for instance KUP patches all file versions and language versions of kernel32.dll than we just have to live with the fact that there is only a US fixed shell32.dll. You can't ask anybody to fix them all seperate. I'm very happy with this fix anyway, also in english.

I hope that all the useless stuff was actually removed from your system Dotnet2 also left a lot of rubbish behind after de-installation.

In those days Norton was really Norton. Today it's Symantec....

You can reinstall IE from your cd but that's a very old version. WMP from your CD and the one installed bij IE is wmplayer2 ver6.4. This version cannot play audio cd's, really, it never could! I still have the mplayer2.exe on my system and there is no option to use .cda. (just checking...) You have a cdplayer.exe for that (also on win98 CD, add/remove programs -> windows setup) I would upgrade to WMP9.0 or use another mediaplayer like Mediaplayer Classic. But something is wrong/broken if you don't have IE6.0 SP1 in add/remove programs and you should reinstall IE first.

Yeah! could be. but why I´ll buy a Sempron64 if I can buy a Intel Core Duo with this price? That's true. But a laptop with a cheaper Sempron will probably have some other features for that $700,- like more memory or a bigger harddisk or whatever. What is best for you depends on your needs. That's why a question like "What is the best buy for my money" is so difficult to answer.

As I've said before, it is not recommended to patch older files, which do not contain newer fixes, because system file patches are [and should be] cumulative. Patching older files with just 1 fix and ignoring all others defeats the purpose of having a fully-patched OS.But if you want the older file patched only for experimenting on your computer(s), that's an entirely different matter. I'll mention your request to the anonymous author. HTH With original file I mean the shell32.dll that's already on the system. This fix replaces the shell.dll file with a, in my case, different language version. Is it possible to fix the existing shell32.dll instead of replacing it?

Very nice Thanks for posting this. I used the IE 5.5 browsxxx files trick before because this error troubled me a lot!. I reregistered the the default IE6.0 ones before applying this fix. Unfortunately I could not reproduce the "file-delete" error anymore with 300+ jpg's to see if this fix really works but I know that if it does not the error will come up sooner or later again. So we will see but for now it looks very good, explorer windows including the recyclebin are opening much faster now. That's already a big improvement. I copied 500+ jpg's and deleted them tru recyclebin very smooth. I removed the shortcut-overlay a long time ago with Xtec-Xsetup and it still works with exception from shortcut's to MS-DOS programs. This is the most annoying bug in Win98se if you ask me. Lets hope that this is ended now. Cheers to the author ! edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might.

Both writer.exe and pbrush.exe are only 20 kb in size, too small to be true. They just launch wordpad and paint for backwards compatibility with these older versions from win3.1. In win98 this is still the case. ( But on my Win98se system the internal fileversions are not the same) I guess you don't need this backwards compatibility so you can save 40kb diskspace by deleting them! link: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/148494/en-us

Interesting point. Would it be possible to rebuild it with only the needed VXDs (and put the other VXDs that normally aren't in it) and decrease bootup time even further? If you want to decrease boottime you have to add vxd's that your sytem needs but are not in vmm32.vxd. Reading the artikel provided in this topic confirmed my feelings that the startpost is based on a misunderstanding of how vmm32.vxd works.

I'm afraid that there a enough dll's running constantly to keep your memory defragmented. I suppose that because of this the so-called memory defragmenters won't work too.

Hmmm. Strange...I just accessed the original Tclock site: http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclock/ and worked ok. Sorry, my mistake, I have not been clear. I can reach the site too, but the downloads (all) don't work.

http://www.mdgx.com/newtip16.htm#RSB Link to TClock is broken. Site seems to be gone, I get a 404 error. I found this mirror for who likes to try it. http://www.brothersoft.com/desktop_utiliti...clock_7739.html

The method I'd mentioned is for those who experience problems with running more than 1gb of ram. Whereas they'd normally have to set maxphsypage to cap the ram no higher than 1gb (thus making as if anything over never existed). Which would be a last resort if even vcache adjustments didn't help. A swap file in effect is just emulated ram once your ram runs out. Which is normally a file on your hard disk. Paging to a hard disk is only as fast as the disk itself (slow) whereas ram is much faster. Putting the swap file into a ram disk is the same as using the ram itself. So we basically use the ram above 1gb to turn that emulated ram into real ram again with such a workaround through the use of a ramdisk. I know what a swapfile is and how it works My point is that if a system is not swapping, because 1gig is huge for Win98, the ramdisk is not used. This ram is just sitting there. There is no real effective difference with capping the mem with maxphyspage. It's only usefull when you run a dualboot with a os that can handle 1gig better.

I have "just" 384 MB ram. I use the "conservative swapfile" setting and with this amount of ram my system barely uses the swapfile. Suppose I have >1gig, what extra performance gain will a fast swapfile on a ramdrive give me?

Copyright does not expire! But I'm sure that somebody will have a abandoned original Win98se CD for her. Or Ebay.

Yes, this hotix fixes a issue in the Windows software renderer so if your card supports hardware OpenGL you should not have problems that really need this fix. My guess is that there is something wrong with your 3D card drivers. Try (re)installing proper drivers. Using the Q240896 hotfix will probably help your crashing problem but won't make your 3D card run like it should.

Same here. Trust procesexplorer not System Monitor. Lots of tools like this tell you bogus. Also with temp. and voltage readouts. System Monitor might not detect your processor correctly.

Yes, absolutely Depends on your system, if it's fast enough to handle DX9 I would choose a card that supports that. 7000 series does not. I have a Duron 1200 with 384 megs RAM together with a Radeon 9600pro. The processor is just (not) able to keep up with this card. Anything faster is a waste of money. Should work fine, but make sure that the card supports 1.5V before you buy. However, almost all do. Difference between 4x and 8x is nothing to worry about.

It is strange yes. Explorer will only use the 5.5 versions of the files when these are regsrv32'd. You can simply see this in a taskmanager. Funny thing is that with IE both fileversions will show up. Perhaps because explorer is a "part" of IE (in this case "integrated" would be a wrong word, it's co-existing) . I have no idea which of the file versions is actually used bij IE but they seem to co-exist fine without issues. The question is why IE behaves this way. I mean, why does it not use the registered file only? More important, do we still benefit from the increased security from the newer files because of this IE behaviour? If so then it's a good thing to leave things as they are now. All I'm sure about is that explorer uses the 5.5 versions only and will keep doing that even when newer files are installed by updates, that's what this workaround is about. When you replace the files in windows/system/ by the 5.5 versions they will be overwritten when you apply a update containing these files. If you then feel the need to replace them again you're basically back at the point where this all started.

I would suggest to give more information. What kind of network? What does the BSOD exactly say? Hardware? OS? Things like that

ZERT also made a patch for Win98/2Ksp3/XPsp0 http://isotf.org/zert/download.htm

AVGfree, not known for it's perfect trojan detection, allows download of the zip-file but reports the trojan if you try to unpack it. Good enough for me.

Well you can simply rename or delete it, also when Windows+IE is running. A registry checker will find it missing, so the unregistering failed indeed, but that's all I have noticed so far. Perhaps that a infected site can crash a browser because of this but that's better than downloading trojans. The test on the ZERT site says I am not vulnerable now after renaming vgx.dll, before that it didn't do anything on my system with the Maxton browser (based on IE engine), no crash just a blank page. I must say that I expected much more response in this topic because this vulnerability is a nasty one. Just visiting a wrong site can get you into trouble. No user interference needed! The number of bad sites is rising: http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/193004128 Microsoft denies that it is this serious but is considering to release a patch outside the normal patch-cycle anyway

Anyone tried this workaround advised by Microsoft? regsvr32 -u "%ProgramFiles%\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\VGX\vgx.dll Doesn't work on my fully updated Win98se+IE6.0 SP1. I get a loadlibrary failed error.

Don't worry, it's supposed to do that. The official Ms patch works the same way.