98SE MS updates

[submix8c]

Well, the Conexant "General Purpose" may *not* actually work on your particular Modem. I found that out the hard way.

 

If you can get the Ven/Dev values for it (out of the Registry -or- Free Everest v2.20.405 Home Edition), I *might* actually have the *correct* one.

 

IOW, don't trust that "generic" one to work for *all* Conexant modems (been there, done that)! Trust me on this.

 

re - the rest of your post.... M-kay...

[justacruzr2]

Well, the Conexant "General Purpose" may *not* actually work on your particular Modem. I found that out the hard way.

 

If you can get the Ven/Dev values for it (out of the Registry -or- Free Everest v2.20.405 Home Edition), I *might* actually have the *correct* one.

 

IOW, don't trust that "generic" one to work for *all* Conexant modems (been there, done that)! Trust me on this.

 

re - the rest of your post.... M-kay...

 

"M-kay".  Had to Google that.  Although I used to watch South Park back in the day I forgot about that joke about Mr Mackey.  Now I remember it M-kay?

So, if I am not running on a network (LAN/WAN) and I am just using my computer as a stand alone at home then I should not have to bother with the following updates:

1).  q314941 (12/17/2001) - 223kb - Unchecked Buffer in Universal Plug and Play can Lead to

     System Compromise for Windows 98.  (changed my mind on this one.  If it's only for computers on a network then why bother).

2).  q315575 (4/17/2002) - 1.3mb - DCOM Program Hangs After Server Reboot Creating DCOM Object.

3).  q323455 (9/30/2002) - 2.96mb - Directory Services Client Update for Windows 98.

Re: Conexant

You're right about that.  I found that out too.  I have a couple different Conexant modem driver packages.  One is the SoftK56 version and the other is the  SoftV92 version.  Currently I have the SoftK56 installed on my 98 system because when I tried updating it to the SoftV92 it didn't work.  Yet I had the SoftK56 originally on my ME system and updated it to the SoftV92 version (same package as I used on 98) and it worked just fine.  Hmmmmmmm........

New Question/Problem:

q326728 (7/26/2002) - 219kb - Your Account Is Locked Out When You View an FTP Server with  Internet Explorer 6.

When I ran this update I received a message box stating that I needed to have IE6 installed to run this update.  IE6 "IS" installed on my system.  Version number :6.0.2800.1106.  What's up with that?

[submix8c]

Have you really looked at this?

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/84886-the-complete-list-of-hotfixes-updates-for-windows-98se/

q326728 - 2002 Aug - DL / Info - Your Account Is Locked Out When You View an FTP Server with Internet Explorer 6 - superseded by kb905495

kb905495 - 2005 Oct 11 - 198kb - DL / Info - Vulnerability in the Windows FTP Client Could Allow File Transfer Location Tampering

Why do you want to install something that has a replacement/newer?

[justacruzr2]

 

Have you really looked at this?

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/84886-the-complete-list-of-hotfixes-updates-for-windows-98se/

 

q326728 - 2002 Aug - DL / Info - Your Account Is Locked Out When You View an FTP Server with Internet Explorer 6 - superseded by kb905495

 

kb905495 - 2005 Oct 11 - 198kb - DL / Info - Vulnerability in the Windows FTP Client Could Allow File Transfer Location Tampering

Why do you want to install something that has a replacement/newer?

 

 

Yes I saw that but I haven't gotten that far yet.  I've been doing the updates in date order.  Still doesn't answer my question why q326728 thinks I don't have IE6 installed when in fact I do.

[dencorso]

Maybe because it expects IE6 and you actually have IE6 SP1?

[jaclaz]

Only seemingly OT, would you really use IE to access a FTP (as opposed to a "proper" FTP client)?

 

I mean, besides the fact that the particular fix has been superseded, did you ever experience the issue?, Have you actually been locked out of a FTP when accessing it with IE 6?

 

 

jaclaz

[submix8c]

Not quite sure I get this.

Using your logic, one might go back and get the "obsolete" updates in this list as well as the "replacement" ones and install them all?

http://xdot.tk/

I would have made a lousy Systems person back when I maintained IBM Mainframes, ignoring the latest Update Tapes and instead using the older broken Updates.

[justacruzr2]

Maybe because it expects IE6 and you actually have IE6 SP1?

 

Thanks for your reply dencorso.  It's the first straightforward answer I've received.  So far all I've done regarding Internet Explorer is install the IE6setup.exe standalone package.  The install was over IE5.5 which is what the Win98SE setup puts on the computer initially.  There is no provision to uninstall IE5.5 before doing the IE6 setup.  Trust you know how that works if you have no previous version.  I have not applied any of the updates, patches or cumulative fixes that Microsoft provided yet.  I am almost to that point in the list of updates I have.  That list is the complete list from this website.  All I did was put it in date order and proceeded from the beginning.  Currently I am at the end of 2002.  I believe the first cumulative patch is the Feb 2003 one which will be coming up soon.  Do you think I should wait until I apply that before trying the q326728 patch again?

[justacruzr2]

Only seemingly OT, would you really use IE to access a FTP (as opposed to a "proper" FTP client)?

 

I mean, besides the fact that the particular fix has been superseded, did you ever experience the issue?, Have you actually been locked out of a FTP when accessing it with IE 6?

 

 

jaclaz

 

Yes I have used IE to access FTP sites with ME and XP.  It's one of the few things that IE 6 and 8 can still do.  That is until I try the IE9 spoof in the registry. that was mentioned in a different article here - tips and tweeks is something I will look at at the very end of this reconstruction.  And no I haven't experienced it to date.  But I had already done this update in ME and XP.  I haven't gone anywhere yet with 98 and will not until I am finished with the updates.  98 is only 1 of 3 operating systems I have, ME and XP being the other 2,  and is not needed as my primary OS.  It's more of a fallback should anything nasty happen to my other 2.  Since this problem is known to exist in IE6 why wait until it does happen when there is a cure?  Preventative medicine.

[justacruzr2]

Not quite sure I get this.

Using your logic, one might go back and get the "obsolete" updates in this list as well as the "replacement" ones and install them all?

http://xdot.tk/

I would have made a lousy Systems person back when I maintained IBM Mainframes, ignoring the latest Update Tapes and instead using the older broken Updates.

 

I have done every official update on that list, up to the end of 2002, which is where I am at now, obsolete or not.  The purpose I have in mind is so that when I am finished with that list I can go to Windows Update and let it give me a once over.  That way I won't get a mile long list of recommended updates.  This very thing was suggested in the complete list for Q242975 (the USB update) so as to trick Windows Update into believing it had already been done.  This suggestion can really be applied to all the updates.  When I actually do visit Windows Update I expect little to nothing in the way of suggested updates.  This way I can be sure I did everything there was to do.  Why does it bother you so much how I reconstruct my system that your every reply is some jab at me?

[dencorso]

Do you think I should wait until I apply that before trying the q326728 patch again?

Yes.

[jumper]

> The purpose I have in mind is so that when I am finished with that list I can go to Windows Update and let it give me a once over.

Oops.

Edited December 21, 2015 by jumper

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

There is no such thing as Windows Update for Windows 9x. Good luck, its been dead for years. You are fighting a lost battle. Hopefully you will win the war. We highly doubt it, this is where unofficial packs come in. Take into consideration, you might be wasting others time is why the rebuttals might seem aggressive.

[submix8c]

Meanwwhile, XP still gets Updates, albeit it takes some sleight of hand to get there. Notwithstanding the KB articles magically disappearing.

[justacruzr2]

 

Do you think I should wait until I apply that before trying the q326728 patch again?

Yes.

 

 

Hi dencorso.  I found the problem with the Q326728 update and it was indirectly related to SP1.  I actually have 2 IE6setup.exe packages.  One installs IE6 version 6.0.2600.0000 and the other installs IE6 version 6.0.2800.1106.  I had installed the latter one (before I ever started doing the MS updates)  since it was the highest and the last version of IE6 released by Microsoft.  Here's what I found when I opened up the verinst.exe file, from the Q326728 package, in my hex editor.  I found a line of code in it that looks at the value "MinorVersion" in the registry key

HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings and expects to find a "0" (zero).  What was in that value was "SP1;q313829".  So it seems that the last version of IE6 already had SP1 rolled into it and I didn't know that.  And the q313829 was one of the updates I had applied.  Didn't know that SP1 was included in the IE6 version I installed and that q313829 affected that entry in the registry and that the verinst.exe file from the Q326728 package was looking at "THAT" value to determine whether IE6 was installed or not.  Seems kind of backasswards to me.  Why Microsoft doesn't just look at the "Version" value in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer is a mystery.  Guess they had their reasons.  Anyway, didn't think that anything I had done so far had affected IE6.  It's the kind of thing nobody would probably know offhand until they did some serious investigating.  So the cure was to copy that current value out, save it, put a "0" (zero) in its place, rerun the Q326728 update again and then re-enter the "SP1;q313829" value back into the reg.  So thanks for that thought about SP1.  It's what prompted me to do some deeper investigating.