Jump to content

98SE MS updates


justacruzr2

Recommended Posts

New question.  Was running the following update:

 

q249973 (1/10/2000) - 818kb - Default RTF File Viewer Interrupts Normal Program Processing.

 

I was monitoring the install with an install tracker and the report showed that no registry entries were created, modified or deleted and that no files were created, modified or deleted.  So essentially this update did nothing on my system.  I brought the 249973usa8.exe file into WinZip to see what the contents were and there are only some executables and no setup inf's.  I realize it's possible that one of those executables checks my system to see if certain conditions are present that would require the update and if they don't exist then it does nothing.  Thought I should check with someone here first to see if this might be the case.  I have downloaded this update from 2 other sources and the file contents are the same so I don't think the file is corrupt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I've took a look at the 249973usa8.exe.

Inside, there are two more exe's of interest: ver153.exe and ver1200.exe

Inside them are normal standard inf and files like in any other update exe.

The files that they update are riched32.dll, riched20.dll (renamed: riched20.153 or riched20.120), and usp10.dll.

Looks like these are two different versions of the same three files...why? I don't know. I guess one is for FE and other for SE? It's not clear at all. There's not hint as to what version to install.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ MrMateczko:

 

Thanks for going a step further and opening up those other 2 executables.  Read reply to Submix8c below.

 

@ Submix8c:

 

According to the Microsoft Support link you provided here are the files

 

For Windows 98:

 

Date        Version                          File name
----------------------------------------------------------
12/13/99 5.0.1461.82 203,024     Riched32.dll
11/30/99 1.0325.2180.1 315,152 Usp10.dll            
11/23/99 5.0.153.0 286,208         Riched20.dll
-or-
12-14-99 5.30.23.1200 431,376  Riched20.dll

 

Which according to MrMateczko, are in the ver153.exe and ver1200.exe's.

 

So in order to run this update properly am I to extract those 2 (ver153.exe and ver1200.exe) files out of the update and then run them seperately?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ MrMateczko:

The purpose of the ver153.exe and ver1200.exe is now understood if you look at the 2 version numbers of the Riched20.dll files in the update.
 
11/23/99    5.0.153.0          286,208   Riched20.dll
                      -or-
12/14/99   5.30.23.1200    431,376   Riched20.dll

Apparently the update decides which version should be put on your system.  Maybe one is for Win95 and the other for Win98.

@ Submix8c:

Scratch the extract idea above.  I did some more checking last night and here is what I found:


   Here's what's on my system right now:

   Date            Version           Size         File name
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   4/23/1999   4.0.834.839    188,416   Riched32.dll
   1/26/2002   1.325.2180.1  314,906   Usp10.dll
   1/26/2002   5.30.23.1200  431,133   Riched20.dll

I checked what's in my original Win98se cabs to verify that I didn't download a patched version of Win98SE and they are all the original versions with dates of 4/23/99 so now only the Riched32.dll is the original.  Since I've only gotten into the updates from 2000 there's no way some other earlier update would have replaced the originals.  I reviewed all the previous install reports to confirm this.  That leaves only one conclusion.  Some other type of program I installed on my system, before I started the updates, put newer versions on my system.  I have seen this happen before with some 3rd party applications where they will update your system to newer versions of Windows components that they will use.

That's why it did nothing.  It checks what you already have and if the version number is the same or higher it doesn't touch them.  But why it didn't at least replace the Riched32.dll is a mystery.  So I guess I should delete those 2 updated files (Usp10.dll and Riched20.dll) so that the update will work.   Their version number is right but their size doesn't match the Microsoft size for the files.  It's probably the only way the update will also replace the Riched32.dll and if this update had been done before whatever 3rd party application graciously did it beforehand, it would have seen that the version number was already where it needed it to be and would have done nothing so I think no harm will be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This riched20.dll issue is a can of worms.

 

Some years ago I performed a few limited, empirical tests and found out certain versions to behave erroneously in certain situations. Can't remember if I ever found the best of them all, but in the mean time more versions came up.

 

Right now I have about 17 versions all in all, of which two may or may not be identical copies from different sources.

Version numbers vary from 5.0.152.0 to 5.50.99.2014.

No idea if they're all official, issued by MS or there's any mod of some kind.

Also no idea which one is best and safest overall.

 

As a rule of thumb, the second group of digits represents the RichEdit version.

The 5.0.xxx.xxx is a RichEdit v2.0. From then on, 5.30.xxx.xxx is RichEdit v3.0, 5.31.xxx.xxx is RichEdit v3.1, 5.40.xxx.xxx is RichEdit v4.0 and so on.

 

Also please note that there is a special version of the control named MSFTEDIT.DLL which is a sort of RichEdit v4.1, found in XP Media Center Edition, XP-SP2 and later.

This version may be called by recent applications.

 

So to sum it up, it doesn't matter what updates you install on your system, whether they are official or not, whether they come from an OS-specific update, another OS version or an Office version - all that matters it that it behaves correctly with most/all of your applications. And that's true for any other system files out there. Of course, whatever you do is entirely your choice. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the additional input.  Basically, the only reason to do this update is the Denial of Service vulnerability issue with opening emails in Outlook.  Rather than delete those 2 files (Usp10.dll and Riched20.dll), I'm just going to move them to another drive and keep them for a while until I'm sure everything is working OK.  That way Riched32.dll will get updated (I hope).  I'll find out tonight when I do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you wanna do everything by the book. I haven't checked the inf in the package but it's possible it may abort installation either if any of the current files' version is equal or greater than the ones in package or if any of the target files is missing. At least the former seems to be true, according to your report above. So unless you really need that update to be present in the updates list, a manual update may be the easiest route.

 

Riched32.dll can be updated in place by overwriting it manually with the one from the update package (make sure no applications are running that may have it loaded or the overwite will fail).

You may manually update all three files if you suspect they may have been tampered with or may otherwise be unsafe.

 

Of course it's best to have all three current files backed up beforehand, just for safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My win98se system is currently using:

RICHED32.DLL 4.00.993.4 (May 7/1998) Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control

RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1200 (Jan 26/2002) Rich Text Edit Control, v3.0

USP10.DLL 1.0422.3790.4695 (srv03_sp2_gdr.100416-1721)

There seems to be several or many versions of RICHED20.DLL with version 5.30.23.1200. The one my system is using is 431,133 bytes. Another varient has 421,888 bytes. I have another version (5.40.11.2210) Rich Text Edit Control, v4.0 (March 19/2001) in an MS-Office directory.

The riched32.dll file that my system is using seems strange - as if it's a win-98 FE version. I have version 4.00.834.839 (april 23/1999) in an archived backup of an old win-98se install which I assume is the original 98se file. It is still identified as "Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control".

The previous version of USP10.dll I was using was 1.0325.2180.1 (Feb 7/2000). My current is Sept/2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my system there's:

riched.dll 4.00.834.839 (240,955 bytes, 2000.06.08)

riched32.dll 5.0.1461.82 (212,992 bytes, 2000.06.08, apparently from MS Exchange SP4)

riched20.dll 5.30.23.1230 (433,664 bytes, 2008.04.14 - last one I know in the 3.0 series, unknown source).

usp10.dll 1.0420.2600.5512 (406,016 bytes, 2008.04.14, XP-SP3).

 

Of them all, only riched20.dll appears to be an ActiveX control which needs to be registered.

 

The only variant of 5.30.23.1200 I have is the 421,888 bytes one.

The versions that come with Office (2003 and later) are v5.0 (5.50.xxx.xxx) and may not be suitable for system-wide usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you wanna do everything by the book. I haven't checked the inf in the package but it's possible it may abort installation either if any of the current files' version is equal or greater than the ones in package or if any of the target files is missing. At least the former seems to be true, according to your report above. So unless you really need that update to be present in the updates list, a manual update may be the easiest route.

 

Riched32.dll can be updated in place by overwriting it manually with the one from the update package (make sure no applications are running that may have it loaded or the overwite will fail).

You may manually update all three files if you suspect they may have been tampered with or may otherwise be unsafe.

 

Of course it's best to have all three current files backed up beforehand, just for safety.

 

Rather than move them, I just re-named them in place so it would look, to the update, that they weren't there.  Well that method didn't work either so it may be as you say "if any of the target files are missing".  So what I'm going to do instead is copy those 2 files onto another drive and re-install the originals and if that still doesn't work I'm going to extract the ver1200.exe and run it separately.  ver153.exe installs riched20.dll v2.0 whereas ver1200.exe installs riched20.dll v3.0.  Both executables have all 3 files.  And if that doesn't work then I will just do it manually.  The setup inf has all the info to make the registry entries for HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components and HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Setup\Updates.  And I will have to check the registry since I did see that, as you say, "Of them all, only riched20.dll appears to be an ActiveX control which needs to be registered.  The current version on my system is registered but I see that both versions of the riched20.dll (v2.0 & v3.0) have different GUID's.  The one on the system must match the one in the registry so I may have to edit that registry key too.   So far I haven't run into any other update that is so stubborn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before moving/renaming riched20.dll you probably should've unregistered it (regsvr32 /u riched20.dll at a command prompt in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM).

If you decide to put back the originals don't forget to manually register the original riched20.dll.

 

A reboot may also be in order after unregistering/moving/registering the files but it's only a hunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riched20.dll is not an ActiveX/COM server. It can't be registered/unregistered with regsvr32.exe. It can be registered/unregistered as a type library however and this must be done with regtlib.exe. Registration of riched20.dll as a type library does not appear to be necessary to use it without issues in most cases as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right, I just looked at the Activex/OCX tab offered by the FileInfo plug-in in Total Commander, without actually checking whether registration is available. My bad!

 

However, I see:

dispinterface ITextDocument

dispinterface ITextRange

dispinterface ITextSelection

dispinterface ITextFont

dispinterface ITextPara

dispinterface ITextStoryRanges

as references and typedefs for a tom library, that would suggest a COM interface.

I'm not familiar with COM though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before moving/renaming riched20.dll you probably should've unregistered it (regsvr32 /u riched20.dll at a command prompt in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM).

If you decide to put back the originals don't forget to manually register the original riched20.dll.

 

A reboot may also be in order after unregistering/moving/registering the files but it's only a hunch.

 

Too late.  I already did it.  I put back the original files and It finally worked.  But after reading loblo's comment Ii looks like it isn't necessary.  Offhand I can't remember the exact registry key where I saw it but I think it was in TypeLib.  And I have to retract ,my "The one on the system must match the one in the registry" comment.  The setup inf doesn't touch that key so I'm thinking that no matter which version is on your system the TypeLib key remains the same (it was one of those entries like "{8CC497C9-A1DF-11CE-8098-00AA0047BE5D}").  Appreciate your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...