On EXPLORER.EXE v.4.72.3612.1700 and its mods

[LoneCrusader]

@Prozactive and @submix8c:

Please do revise the newly split threads, taking care to check all links are working.

Comments and corrections are also quite welcome.

This post and the previous (if Prozactive is OK with it) one will be deleted as soon as we all agree the thread surgery has worked.

@dencorso

I split my last post in the other thread and moved the content that was relevant to this thread to my first post here.

It has Prozactive's original related post quoted, but we don't have the original post.

This can be removed once everything is arranged.

Edited December 22, 2011 by LoneCrusader

[dencorso]

Thanks, LoneCrusader!

You gave a great solution to the problem, because that Prozactive post belongs to both threads, and in providing the quote you provided that missing part of context.

One thing I cannot do is to duplicate a post, which would be of great help for thread surgery. But you've just made me realize we can even add non pre-existing quotes for context, where warranted. I hadn't thought of that, but it may be handy in the future, although I do hope I'll not need to do so many major thread surgeries next year.

[Prozactive]

Thanks dencorso! Of course you can remove my previous post.. actually I was kinda kidding after your massive thread surgery on the new Opera/KernelEx thread.

And thanks as well, LoneCrusader. I think I understand what you said but I need to go back and reread the previous discussions in the IO.SYS thread as my first impression was that perhaps a few additional posts should be moved here. I think this new EXPLORER.EXE thread is great, as it consolidates a good detailed separate technical discussion of a new topic.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Prozactive

[Arminius]

The time stamp aside is there any evidence that the IE401SP2 version of EXPLORER.EXE v. 4.72.3612.1700 is better than the slightly older one that later shipped with IE55SP1/2 ?

The thing is I think EXPLORER.EXE that came with IE401SP2 and the copy of SHELL32.DLL that accompanied it were meant for use with Win95. I no longer remember whether EXPLORER.EXE got upgraded on Win98FE by SP1, and IE401SP2 wasn't meant for 98SE in any case.

It has to be said that EXPLORER.EXE and SHELL32.DLL for NT 4.0 in IE4SHLNT.CAB underwent a similar "downgrade" to an older January release in IE55SP1/2. It makes me wonder whether the inclusion of the older versions was an oversight or by design.

[dencorso]

The time stamp aside is there any evidence that the IE401SP2 version of EXPLORER.EXE v. 4.72.3612.1700 is better than the slightly older one that later shipped with IE55SP1/2 ?

No. Same version number means equivalent files, but small corrections to the source might not warrant a version change, so it may be better (or worse, or equivalent).

The thing is I think EXPLORER.EXE that came with IE401SP2 and the copy of SHELL32.DLL that accompanied it were meant for use with Win95. I no longer remember whether EXPLORER.EXE got upgraded on Win98FE by SP1, and IE401SP2 wasn't meant for 98SE in any case.

No. They're meant to all of 9x (not ME). And anyone that actually had installed the one from IE401SP2 wouldn't have it replaced latter when applying IE55SP1/2, because both versions are the same version and MS usually doesn't "update" files to same version ones, unless there is a reason for it.

It has to be said that EXPLORER.EXE and SHELL32.DLL for NT 4.0 in IE4SHLNT.CAB underwent a similar "downgrade" to an older January release in IE55SP1/2. It makes me wonder whether the inclusion of the older versions was an oversight or by design.

Probably just an oversight, IMO. But we'll probably never know for sure.

[LoneCrusader]

Well, I finally have a bit of documentary evidence to contribute to the Duplicate Drives issue.

Today, while formatting & reinstalling 98SE on a system, I managed to get a screenshot of duplicated CD drives in EXPLORER.

I had mentioned earlier that the issue only occurs when loading and unloading discs - I was wrong or I didn't remember correctly before. This time it occurred while I was installing Office 2000. I had opened EXPLORER and launched the Office SETUP from inside, and left it open while the install was taking place. When the installer finished, I got this screenshot:

(image size reduced for the forum)

I was using my own modified version of EXPLORER.EXE (v. 4.72.3612.1700 Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13) with one byte changed for the 256-Color Tray Icons patch and some icons updated (not the Recycle Bin ones that I hate ).

Edited December 28, 2011 by LoneCrusader

[rloew]

Well, I finally have a bit of documentary evidence to contribute to the Duplicate Drives issue.

Today, while formatting & reinstalling 98SE on a system, I managed to get a screenshot of duplicated CD drives in EXPLORER.

I had mentioned earlier that the issue only occurs when loading and unloading discs - I was wrong or I didn't remember correctly before. This time it occurred while I was installing Office 2000. I had opened EXPLORER and launched the Office SETUP from inside, and left it open while the install was taking place. When the installer finished, I got this screenshot:

(image size reduced for the forum)

I was using my own modified version of EXPLORER.EXE (v. 4.72.3612.1700 Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13) with one byte changed for the 256-Color Tray Icons patch and some icons updated (not the Recycle Bin ones that I hate ).

They are not Phantom Drives as they have the same Drive Letter.

They appear to be Phantom Volumes, where Windows sees more than one Volume for a single Drive.

Did you turn off "Auto Insert Notification" for your CD/DVD Drive in Device Manager?

[dencorso]

Do either alias work equally normally?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

http://www.mdgx.com/98-2.htm

[LoneCrusader]

They are not Phantom Drives as they have the same Drive Letter.

They appear to be Phantom Volumes, where Windows sees more than one Volume for a single Drive.

Did you turn off "Auto Insert Notification" for your CD/DVD Drive in Device Manager?

No, Auto Insert Notification is checked in the Device Manager for that drive.

Do either alias work equally normally?

I didn't think to check at that moment, so I will have to attempt to reproduce the error again. If I remember correctly from previous experience, the first instance of the drive does not function.

[Prozactive]

My duplicate CD/DVD drives bug looks identical to LoneCrusader's. I have Auto Insert Notification turned off on my drives. I believe clicking either entry will allow access to the drive but one entry still remains after ejecting the disc, and that "phantom" drive gives an error when clicking it (obviously).

[rloew]

My duplicate CD/DVD drives bug looks identical to LoneCrusader's. I have Auto Insert Notification turned off on my drives. I believe clicking either entry will allow access to the drive but one entry still remains after ejecting the disc, and that "phantom" drive gives an error when clicking it (obviously).

When "Auto Insert Notifcation" is turned off, Windows often does not sense that a CD has been removed leaving part of it in cache. Putting a different CD in can crash as Windows wil not realize that it has been changed.

I also turn off "Auto Insert Notification" to avoid unwanted Autoruns, so I have to go through extra steps when changing CDs.

I am considering patching Windows to disable Autorun without disabling Auto Insert Notification.

[Prozactive]

Thanks rloew. I just checked and I was wrong. Auto Insert Notification is turned on for both of my optical drives (DVD and CD). I thought I had disabled AIN a long time ago but I was mistaken.

[Prozactive]

I finally was able to get a screenshot of the duplicate CD drives in Windows Explorer on my laptop. I thought the duplicate drives error/bug mostly occurred on my desktop PC but it obviously also occurs on my laptop. Clicking either entry for the Microsoft01 E: drive allows access to the CD-ROM but one of the entries still remains after ejecting the disc.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Prozactive

[LoneCrusader]

While not related to the original "Duplicated Drives" issue this thread originated from, I thought this "question" would fit best in this thread, rather than hijack the 98SE SP3 thread.

Some discussion was being made of replacing the Start Menu banner bitmaps contained in EXPLORER. Bitmap 157 is used for Windows 98, and Bitmap 161 is used for Windows 95. Quoted relevant posts below.

Resources and Deputy PSD "to edit it to taste" of the image of Start Menu

FYI Bitmap 161 is ONLY used by Windows 95. Remember that the same version of EXPLORER is used on both 98 and 95 with the Desktop Update installed. If 161 is changed, then if that version of Explorer is loaded in 95 then the Start Menu will say 98.

So Bitmap 161 should be a nice gray-to-black-to-gray Windows 95 banner.

So... we should use the original, unmodified, bitmap for 161, right?

No, it can be modified. I'm not opposed to making it look better. Just pointing out that it is only useful on 95. Also, I had considered changing it earlier myself, but I haven't managed to create a banner that I think looks very good.

More Info:

In 98, if the Start Menu grows longer (taller) than the bitmap banner, then the "space" above it will be auto-filled with the same blue color as in the original bitmap to prevent having it just "cut off."

EDIT: gerislamico is right below, 98 will autofill based on the color of the top of the bitmap.

In 95, this "auto fill" color is gray, not blue. So if the banner is changed from ending (at the top) with gray, then there will be a line wherever the banner ends and it will continue in gray to the top of the menu.

So, the 98 banner must end at the top in the same blue color as the original, and the 95 banner must end at the top in the same gray color unless someone knows what to edit to change the autofill colors.

EDIT:

Struck out incorrect information. The problem seems to only affect Windows 95. There must be some sort of "version check" in EXPLORER that causes Bitmap 161 to be used on 95, and Bitmap 161 is not extended based on the bitmap color. :angrym:

Correctly 161 Bitmap it not modify for Win98/SE.

To look good in VGA Classic, edit it with the classic color palette 16 colors for 4 bits, Photoshop conducted the rest

The top of the bitmap should be the first pixel to the left the reference color. Windows will repeat along the "up" Menu.

I found that gerislamico is correct in that Windows 98 will "auto fill" above the end of the banner bitmap (157) with the same color as the end of the bitmap.

However, Windows 95 will not do so. Replacing Bitmap 161 will result in a "cutoff" at the end of the banner, and the rest of the menu sidebar will be gray. See below:

(Screenshot is of Windows 95-Shell Explorer, but the result is the same in both)

Does anyone know how to "correct" this behavior?

Either by finding a way to change the color of the "autofill" from gray; forcing the autofill to be based on the bitmap; or changing whatever "version check" causes 161 to be used on 95 instead of 157 (then 157 could be edited to a 95 banner)??