To do list for 2.0 FINAL

[Gape]

It also happens with Windows ME.

Windows ME with IE 6.0?

[azagahl]

Thanks for that link Gape, I'll try it out (the fix for slow deletion of files).

At one point you said that IE6 install was suggested before installing your SP.

Therefore my installation procedure will be to install IE6 SP1, your SP, and then this new fix

[Tarun]

It also happens with Windows ME.

Windows ME with IE 6.0?

That is correct. As you of course know I'm on Windows ME and running IE 6.0 with SP1 and all the other junk filled fixes.

I may just revert to IE 5.5 now that I use Firefox. Annd, it fails to revert. Heh. "Uninstall failed." Though I'll recommend BugOff from Merijn's site.

BugOff:  This little app disables a few exploits that are commonly used by browser hijackers (including CWS), thus protecting you from infection. This does not remove an existing infection! Applicable to everyone that uses Internet Explorer.

Merijn's Download Page

[soldier1st]

i don't use Internet Explorer 6

i use Opera so i'm protected from this

[Tarun]

i don't use Internet Explorer 6

i use Opera so i'm protected from this

Incorrect. Even if you do not use IE you are still vulnerable. What it says in the program is incorrect, because if you go to a favorite through a folder in Explorer, it uses IE. IE is rooted all through of Windows.

[soldier1st]

i removed ie from windows 98 se and use opera n don't use any ie based apps that need it

now you see i am not vulnerable cuzz i have no ie

[craberos]

hey thanx for the service pack .... i am greatful to u people

i find a small problem after i install is i have to ping some site to connect to browse untill then i cant

hey all i have all the updates of win 98 se .... almost 125mb and windows me 220mb if any ones wants me to upload them i will be happy to do so .... i downloaded these file from microsoft .... for installin it later .... they are in folders just like from thge site ... i downloaded all the updates on 01 - 04 - 2004 .... dd - mm - yyyy

like i read ..... before please add tweak UI ..... in the new version ...

and if u could add this feature i would be very happy ....

in windows me and higher like win2k win xp if we opena file with different applications ... the next time we right clike it will ask us open with .....

but in win 98 se every time we want to open the file other than the default programe we have to hold down shift then only open with comes on the right clike see if u clould add this in the new update

once again thanx ....... for every thing

greetz

craberos

craberos@yahoo.com

[soldier1st]

hey since you dled the updates for win me you could upload em to gape n that would help him get a win me sp going faster but this one should include ie 6 with all updates or give a choice to install it or not

[CLASYS]

Thanks to George [Axcel216] for pointing me to this forum!

Gape [Alper I presume]:

I am still working on my auditing of 1.6.2, but I have been side-tracked by having to fix FAR TOO MANY XP-based machines that come to me to be de-malwared, etc. Hopefully, I will have all of my points in order fairly soon. Here are a few highlights:

Relative to the list of the first seventy [not counting the last three added to make 73] hotfixes, I would dispute the "dominant" hotfix number in a few instances simply because of the quirky way MS defines them. I don't have access to the specifics here [as I am typing on an "alien" machine at the moment], but there is at least one occurance of something like the following:

KBxxxxxx refers you to download hotfix yyyyyy. However, there also is KByyyyyy which also references hotfix yyyyyy. In my view, that means that hotfix xxxxxx is unavailable and replaced by yyyyyy. As such, the dominant article is the yyyyyy one, not the xxxxxx one, etc.

In some cases, there are "co-dominants" where there are multiple KB articles that all point to the need for the same file revisions. If applicable, perhaps in this case they are either equally dominant or perhaps only one of them has an obtainable hotfix? Whatever the outcome, I think there needs to be an alternate way of categorizing these cases, etc.

In at least one instance, you are taking a file from a known package [such as dsclient] and as such, there doesn't appear to be a KB article to attribute the SP upgrade of the file to. In point of fact, there IS a KB article that precisely fits the description. Thus, this allows the number to be upgraded to 74 [Whether or not the hotfix is actually available is irrelevant to any rollup package, but it's nice to have the individual hotfixes as well.]

As I understand the overall action of the SP, files that aren't currently installed are not immediately upgraded. As needed, they are installed from the SP1.CAB file to prevent taking from the original .CAB collection, etc. A prime example would be a machine where there is currently no USB hardware, but later a USB add-in card could get installed.

My point is that the installation of the relevant, for example, USB-oriented upgrades from MS as hotfixes ALWAYS install these files, while the SP merely only ULTIMATELY might install them as needed.

The subtle point is that if you include QFECHECK information for the hotfix, then installing only the "necessary" files leads to false-positive errors in the hotfix info for that update, which in turn causes the confusion and waste of time reconciling out which red-flags are merely for not-yet-installed hardware specific updates, as opposed to genuine errors regarding corrupted files, etc.

A related point is: Can the QFECHECK information be installed along with the hotfix-related files? This would work exactly like a fairly recent update rollup that MS did for XP months before SP2 was released, etc.

Other topics:

I can pass along some horror stories related to MS's installers of certain hotfixes, mostly covered by the SP [other than the QFECHECK issues I raised above]. For example, Q249973 cannot be installed unless you haven't upgraded to IE60 or higher due to some internal logic error; it just bails and fails to upgrade any file or provide the QFECHECK program or relevant registry updates.

The root cause seems to be the mislogic that because one of the files it provides is already updated to a higher-still revision by the IE6 install, it just exits, even though there are two other files that still need to be upgraded as well as the other QFECHECK and registry stuff, etc. [Note that the SP correctly installs the higher rev files!]

Again, I apologize, but not being at "home base" I cannot get details I don't have committed to memory, but there is a serious problem with an available hotfix that disrupts the SP and even other MS-provided hotfixes. Goes something like this:

hotfix xxxxxx installs 4.10.2223 of a file; hotfix yyyyyy installs 4.10.2224 of same file; hotfix zzzzzz installs 4.10.2226 of same file. However, if xxxxxx is installed BEFORE yyyyyy or zzzzzz or the SP, then the file stays at 4.10.2223! If the file is manually deleted, QFECHECK info for each hotfix correctly state what rev of the file they require. Yet, if xxxxxx gets installed, then each QFECHECK section gladly accepts 4.10.2223 as the revision they "like".

If xxxxxx is never installed, all else works as intended. Apparently, something within the installer for xxxxxx makes the installation of the file at 4.10.2223 too "permanent".

Should this update already be installed, the only way to fix it is to manually delete 4.10.2223 of the file, then apply any other update [yyyyyy or zzzzzz or the SP]

I suppose an appropriate mod to the SP would be to check if xxxxxx is installed and pre-delete the file? Or perhaps delete some "overly strong" reg info?

Yet another topic [so I can get off of this machine which is not mine!]:

I have periodically heard references to this "heresy" topic about either VMM32.VXD is always a faster-loading panacea as compared to providing the relevant "component" files, presumably loaded into either \windows\system directory or perhaps elsewhere? [iosubsys? vmm32? both? all three?] and people reporting either no change or dramatic loading time changes or performance changes or all of the above or none of the above, etc.

I have a concrete example of something that makes be a bit "nervous":

I am testing out the SP on a slightly souped-up Compaq Presario 7212 [now has a mighty 64 MB and a P133; originally was 16 MB and a P75]. [The main reasons to test on are: a) It's available and now not being used as a doorstop, B) It has virtually none of the "optional" hardware thus allowing me to document which files the SP doesn't initially install.]

Specifically, this machine uses the OPTI "Viper" chipset instead of the more common Intel versions. This is not a problem per se, as 98SE has full support built-in.

I initially installed a quite vanilla 98se system on this box, and all built-in stuff was totally recognized [all except my Realtek 8139 NIC for which I added the latest driver and no problems there].

However, I noticed that DMA is not set on the hard disk controller, so I enabled it, got the standard warning, etc. Unfortunately, with DMA set, the machine became quite unstable as can be the case, etc. In safe mode, I was able to get things reset, etc. and basically ignored DMA mode for some time.

Later, I was reinstalling the same basic system, but had run across the whole VMM32 .VXD debacle, and noticed that the drivers for the hard disk controller referenced a few files included inside of VMM32.VXD, so I decided to follow someone's directions and placed the de-CAB'ed originals into a couple of relevant directories.

After a reboot, I do notice that it DOES take a bit longer for the system to come up, which is what most of us would expect, since VMM32.VXD is being thwarted, etc.

However, I was able to set DMA on the controller and IT TOTALLY WORKS NOW!

Thus, it would appear that the compaction process that creates VMM32.VXD could be buggy; the fix in that case is to not use it!

Have I blown any holes into anyone's "theories" about this?

cjl (will write more when I get back to my own machine!)

[Tarun]

After a reboot, I do notice that it DOES take a bit longer for the system to come up, which is what most of us would expect, since VMM32.VXD is being thwarted, etc.

However, I was able to set DMA on the controller and IT TOTALLY WORKS NOW!

Thus, it would appear that the compaction process that creates VMM32.VXD could be buggy; the fix in that case is to not use it!

Indeed it does sound like your VMM32.VXD had problems when it was built during install. You may want to try and reconstruct it.

[erpdude8]

You're still wrong soldier1st. Even if you use non-IE apps that does NOT mean

you're out of the woods with security problems. Even non-Microsoft software

can have potential security flaws. But at least they're harder to exploit than with IE.

Tarun, try using IEradicator to remove IE6. Get it here:

http://www.litepc.com/ieradicator.html

I use this tool to uninstall IE when IE's uninstaller doesn't work.

The IE uninstaller in WinME won't work if WinME's system file protection feature

is disabled. I found that out several months ago when I prevented 'Statemgr' from

running by disabling it from the MSConfig tool and restarting WinME, I couldn't

remove IE. When I re-enabled Statemgr and run the IE uninstall tool, it worked.

Forget about the Q249973 update, CLASYS. It's CRAP! Go to Axcel216's addons page:

http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm

And click on the links to download newer riched20.dll, riched32.dll & usp10.dll files.

They're better than the ones found in the Q249973 patches.

[CLASYS]

After a reboot, I do notice that it DOES take a bit longer for the system to come up, which is what most of us would expect, since VMM32.VXD is being thwarted, etc.

However, I was able to set DMA on the controller and IT TOTALLY WORKS NOW!

Thus, it would appear that the compaction process that creates VMM32.VXD could be buggy; the fix in that case is to not use it!

Indeed it does sound like your VMM32.VXD had problems when it was built during install. You may want to try and reconstruct it.

This is a testbed system created thus:

• Format drive C:
  
• Install 98SE on C: drive selecting all options allowed except WebTV
  
• After last reboot, resolve Realtek 8139 NIC using latest (616) driver on D: drive
  
• Don't bother enabling DMA on Opti Hard Disk Controller because it will make system lockup predictably [Tested on a previous otherwise identical test installation on this machine]
  
• Add files indicated as being imbedded in VMM32.VXD into IOSUBSYS and SYSTEM directories. System Device Manager acknowledges them as now independent of VMM32.VXD
  
• Reboot; takes longer to come up; this was expected!
  
• Enable DMA in hard disk and CD-ROM
  
• After reboot, major speed improvement since DMA enabling makes it run faster as expected; no system lockup whatsoever. System behaves exactly like similar systems based on Intel chipsets. DMA can be enabled and disabled at will with predictable performance changes. Yet, if you do NOT remove the VMM32.VXD dependancy, you cannot ever enable DMA!
  

Clearly, there is no bug per se in the 98se built-in support code for the Opti chipset, or else it couldn't ever work. However, something gets "lost" in the process of creating VMM32.VXD by Windows itself when it self-creates that file, etc.

So, what would you have me reconstruct?

What are the files Gape is adding to \...\VMM32 to override VMM32.VXD? As I understand it, some are specifically because of hotfixes beyond 98SE release, but some are because he also noticed something "works differently".

[Note: "works differently" is official MicroSpeak for any change in how something works, no matter how big or small, important or not important. It is part of MS UML [user Manipulation Language] SP2 as used with Windows XP Service Pack 2 to deflect and minimize the impact SP2 has on many people's systems after installing SP2. UML cannot be uninstalled and all support contracts are automatically entered into and cannot be cancelled. ]

cjl

[Tarun]

So, what would you have me reconstruct?

What are the files Gape is adding to \...\VMM32 to override VMM32.VXD?  As I understand it, some are specifically because of hotfixes beyond 98SE release, but some are because he also noticed something "works differently".

This has been discussed in this thread and many others. Remember, the Search feature is your friend.

Article on how to rebuild VMM32.VXD

A utility for those who do not wish to use VMM32.VXD titled WinPatcher. Basically scans the system and VMM folders and allows extraction of the files from the CAB files.

[CLASYS]

So, what would you have me reconstruct?

What are the files Gape is adding to \...\VMM32 to override VMM32.VXD?  As I understand it, some are specifically because of hotfixes beyond 98SE release, but some are because he also noticed something "works differently".

This has been discussed in this thread and many others. Remember, the Search feature is your friend.

Article on how to rebuild VMM32.VXD

A utility for those who do not wish to use VMM32.VXD titled WinPatcher. Basically scans the system and VMM folders and allows extraction of the files from the CAB files.

Searching through the forum as you suggested, I realize there has been some furor over this subject. Since this is the time to "get it right" for the benefit of releasing the new SP, I just want it stated succinctly:

1) There are factions for and against the notion of even having VMM32.VXD and whether or not it either helps some things or hurts others. Within this discussion are claims of performance improvements/lack thereof and in particular case a report of a vanilla system build that probably creates the file initially corrupted, thus the "loose" files are better than the corrupted one, or at least this is the theory behind what I have observed.

2) There is the possibility that it gets created wrong when the system was first installed or somehow gets corrupted later.

3) There is an article from the people who insist that MS is correct and that there are no benefits whatsoever from displacing VMM32.VXD, for the purpose of rebuilding VMM32.VXD when it is discovered to be corrupted for whatever reason, etc.

4) There is posted a utility to carry out the method of eliminating the need for VMM32.VXD entirely.

5) There is posted a link to a VMM32.VXD known to be stable, but was created for Win ME; does this particular file apply to 98SE?

6) The SP will include several VXD files in part because it is necessary as the files are updated by the SP itself, and partly because Gape believes that there is a performance boost if certain others are additionally added in "loose" form despite not being updated. Are there any other files that would be considered as a portion of VMM32.VXD beyond this set?

7) Most importantly, what is the method the SP will use to best implement a stable result after applying it?

Part of what I read here is that unless you can prove that VMM32.VXD isn't corrupted, it's always safer to run with all of the "loose" files, albeit it boots slower. Conversely, rebuilding VMM32.VXD to a known non-corrupt state should be as good as having the loose files with the added benefit of shortening boot-up times. However, some report that VMM32.VXD eats some resources as compared to some form of perhaps selective override at least some "loose" files, etc.

Do I have it right or what? Someone please show me the errors of my ways, if any.

cjl

[Tarun]

Searching through the forum as you suggested, I realize there has been some furor over this subject.  Since this is the time to "get it right" for the benefit of releasing the new SP, I just want it stated succinctly:

1)  There are factions for and against the notion of even having VMM32.VXD and whether or not it either helps some things or hurts others.  Within this discussion are claims of performance improvements/lack thereof and in particular case a report of a vanilla system build that probably creates the file initially corrupted, thus the "loose" files are better than the corrupted one, or at least this is the theory behind what I have observed.

2)  There is the possibility that it gets created wrong when the system was first installed or somehow gets corrupted later.

3)  There is an article from the people who insist that MS is correct and that there are no benefits whatsoever from displacing VMM32.VXD, for the purpose of rebuilding VMM32.VXD when it is discovered to be corrupted for whatever reason, etc.

4)  There is posted a utility to carry out the method of eliminating the need for VMM32.VXD entirely.

5)  There is posted a link to a VMM32.VXD known to be stable, but was created for Win ME; does this particular file apply to 98SE?

6)  The SP will include several VXD files in part because it is necessary as the files are updated by the SP itself, and partly because Gape believes that there is a performance boost if certain others are additionally added in "loose" form despite not being updated.  Are there any other files that would be considered as a portion of VMM32.VXD beyond this set?

7)  Most importantly, what is the method the SP will use to best implement a stable result after applying it?

Part of what I read here is that unless you can prove that VMM32.VXD isn't corrupted, it's always safer to run with all of the "loose" files, albeit it boots slower.  Conversely, rebuilding VMM32.VXD to a known non-corrupt state should be as good as having the loose files with the added benefit of shortening boot-up times.  However, some report that VMM32.VXD eats some resources as compared to some form of perhaps selective override at least some "loose" files, etc.

Do I have it right or what?  Someone please show me the errors of my ways, if any.

cjl

1.) I run Windows ME and have found my system to be much more stable and faster when using the VMM32.VXD

2.) That has indeed been confirmed as a bug on Windows 9x, it all depends on the hardware.

3.) I have checked with many PC techs and asked on several forums about the Infinisource website; it is correct and reliable.

4.) If you are referring to WinPatcher, that would indeed be a creation of mine to help automate the process if anyone chooses not to use VMM32.VXD (which I do not recommend unless you are experiencing problems)

5.) Another file that I constructed with the help of several PC techs, however I do not have a Windows 98 machine around and thus am unable to create one for 9x versions. The ME version provided will not work on Windows 9x machines as it asks for MS-DOS 8.0.

6 and 7 will be left for Gape since he's constructing the SP.

VMM32 is a good file to have in your system and running if it is constructed properly and without bugs (As some Windows OS' have issues with the creation of this file).

You can also check this link where I asked about this instance. DjLizard is a certified PC technician and he definitely knows his stuff.