Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
Gape

Progress about 2.0 RC

Recommended Posts

so they r working on a 4.8 then?as far as i know with sleek you cannot delete anything from the start menu thats the reason i don't use it coz i need to keep the start menu cleaned and organized,the chubby has less web integration and is almost as good as sleek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so they r working on a 4.8 then?as far as i know with sleek you cannot delete anything from the start menu thats the reason i don't use it coz i need to keep the start menu cleaned and organized,the chubby has less web integration and is almost as good as sleek

Well, you CAN edit the start menu, just not "in situ" as Shane describes it. Remember, this is the Windows 95 shell! You use: click on taskbar/properties/start menu/advanced. This puts you into a specialized version of Windows Explorer that starts and ends in the Start Menu folder [even if you have multiple users, it picks the correct menu, etc.] From there you can edit start menu items. Also, in situ editing cannot add anything while this mode allows any start menu editing including creating new groups. In situ cannot paste an item, but it can copy/cut so you can put on say the desktop, etc.

This is a rough summary of the differences between SLEEK [V1] and CHUBBY:

SLEEK has the problems of compatibility with a handful of programs, the majority of which can be patched for SLEEK compatibility. [98lite does most of the work, but the list is close-ended.] CHUBBY is the basic 98SE shell so no compatibility issues per se.

SLEEK has a bug in that all folder sizes are presented modulo 4096 MB in terms of the properties of a folder. Since most folders aren't that big, this is hardly ever a problem in realworld situations. [i have a 10 GB folder that appears more like 2 GB!] CHUBBY has no such bug.

SLEEK has instant recycle bin empty, better than WinXP. 98SE takes a long time depending on how many logical drives/volumes you have.

The above is partially influenced by a bug involving the BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL files and IE version conflicts. SLEEK is TOTALLY IMMUNE to this problem of instability involving large/many file transfers and related hangups.

SLEEK lacks many frills of CHUBBY that most users turn off anyway. One particular exception to this is the ability to enable via a registry patch the ability to view attributes in details view.

SLEEK seems to lack the ability to "allow all uppercase names" as it is slightly erroneously known as in CHUBBY shell. What this actually means is that if a name conforms to 8.3 short filename conventions, then auto-capitalize the first letter and auto-lowercase the rest of the name. While cute, it can be misleading. CHUBBY clearly has the ability to turn this on and off. Anyone know of a patch to SLEEK to turn this cutesiness off in SLEEK/MICRO?

SLEEK is clearly faster as well as more stable.

To properly install IE60SP1 without any prior IE files, it is marginally harder to install in SLEEK due to the need to do a kludge I personally stumbled upon that will eventually be automated in a future version of 98lite once Shane figures out what the "nicest" way to do it is. To those that know, it involves the so-called LOADWC.EXE problem. [i can elaborate for anyone who needs to know, etc.]

SLEEK ignores all cosmetic WinME icon changes induced by the SP.

SLEEK doesn't support the automatic properties of how you can dynamically move/change where "My Documents" is from that icon directly. However, you can also do this successfully regardless of shell from tweakui Version 1.33 or literally by cut and paste from any variant of Windows Explorer window, etc. 98lite 4.6 shell swap to SLEEK included a dummy "My Documents" kludge that is merely an ordinary shortcut to C:\My Documents. This is true even if your system drive is NOT drive C: ! 98lite 4.7 and up has deleted this "feature" allowing you to make your own kludge. [Note: a nuance of the AUTHENTIC My Documents icon found only in CHUBBY/OVERWEIGHT/98SE-ONLY: When you open My Documents, the path label says "My Documents" and NOTHING ELSE. Assuming you asked for the display of the full directory path on all windows, this is curiously inconsistent. Indeed, should you open a subdirectory contained in My Documents, it will CORRECTLY show the complete path for THAT directory, etc. A standard shortcut to My Documents will CORRECTLY obey the shell setting, etc. Thus, arguably a "homemade" shortcut [the only one available in SLEEK or MICRO] is "better" than the standard one of CHUBBY and co.]

SLEEK may have a bug regarding seeing "Suspend" on the Start Menu which can be fixed as documented on the litepc website. Implementing a registry patch may cause your machine to be faked out into believe you have Automatic Power Management even if you actually do not and/or have ACPI instead. Ignore it, since all it does is install support for non-existent hardware which is harmless. Once this is done, the patch can be used to remove the "Suspend" or even put it back by "reversing" the logic in the patch. I can provide Suspendonmenu.reg and Suspendoffmenu.reg for those who want this both ways, etc.

The following is a SERIOUS LIMITATION of 98lite's ability to invoke Shell Swap:

Regardless of choice, you MUST maintain your shell choice forever IF you also install IE60SP1 over no prior IE version AND the update to Outlook Express Q330994 and/or its "rollup" follow-ons! Any attempt to manipulate the shell once the OE updates are installed WILL PERMANENTLY CORRUPT Outlook Express!!!! [Even doing a Shell Swap from/to the same shell currently will cause the corruption!] Any attempt to install said updates will also kill OE if the shell has changed since the point of install of IE60SP1 [including the shell swap from/to the same shell as above, etc.]

To make matters worse, all of the above ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH to avoid the corruption! The ONLY WAY to get it to work is to:

1) Pick a shell, any shell, and stop changing it forever.

2) Install IE60SP1 over no version of IE. Use my manual kludge of LOADWC.EXE if using SLEEK or MICRO.

3) Install IE60SP1 AGAIN! Use all the same options you selected earlier even though they are bold in the installer [indicating they are already there, etc.]. This will result in a message asking you to exit the install or use "reinstall all of the components" Select the latter.

This will allow Q330994 to install correctly [amazing, isn't it? :rolleyes: ]

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't use outlook express sousing sleek wouldn't be a problem,the problem i have is i need a 95 disk,i got 95b but from what i read it's best not to use that one,or just use the original or 95c(i used to have windows 95)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't use outlook express sousing sleek wouldn't be a problem,the problem i have is i need a 95 disk,i got 95b but from what i read it's best not to use that one,or just use the original or 95c(i used to have windows 95)

No, you are fine: You CAN use the original 95 (950) set of three files, but the preferred are the ones from 95b (which various people are violating MS's copyright and linking to, etc.) and you CANNOT use the 95c files!

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about the Q330994 Outlook Express update, CLASYS. It has been superseded

or replaced by the latest OE update, the Q823353 update from Microsoft security

bulletin MS04-018. The Q823353 update also replaces the Q837009 [MS04-013]

update. Install the Q823353 update which includes the fixes from the Q837009

and Q330994 patches.

The original & SP1/OSR1 versions of Win95 are CRAP because they can't access

FAT32 formatted drives and are slower than the OSR2 versions. 95b and 95c are

faster and allow using FAT32 on HDs. Just use the 95b files if you're not comfortable

using the 95c files.

So Gape, when will the final release of 2.0 be ready?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe in a few days,also i do have a 95 disk(the orginal)but 95b would be better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
U can try to contact www.softpedia.com.

Anyway, look at this.

SoftPedia host and will host all the Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack, and other SP from Gape.

This is not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gape, I can host a mirror 2.0 for you. I have a proper hosted web space for my business, with 8GB/month bandwith. Shoot me a PM if you like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need a web space for the file. Could anyone help me about it?

I can provide you [4 free] with space + bandwidth [5GB/day] for SP2 @ MDGx.com.

Please contact me thru email for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newer/updated versions for SP2:

MSVCRT.DLL build 6.10.9844.0 [yours is 6.00.9782.0] from Windows 2000 SP4:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downl...rvicepacks/sp4/

MSVCIRT.DLL build 6.10.8637.0 [yours is 6.00.9782.0] from Windows ME Setup CD-ROM.

Older SOFTPUB.DLL build 5.131.1877.9 [yours is newer 5.131.1880.14 *but* it is from Windows 2000 Update and will *not* work properly under Win9x].

Newer RPCRT4.DLL build 4.71.3336 [1.39 MB]:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q269874.EXE

RPCLTCCM.DLL [same build you have but different file size] from Win98SE TCPIP/PPP Update [?], not from Windows ME Setup CD-ROM [which is the one you have].

All 4 files above [195 KB]:

http://www.mdgx.com/spx/MSVCRT.ZIP

Windows 98 SE USBHUB.SYS build 4.10.2227 Fix:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=306453

Direct download [166 KB, English]:

http://ftp.isu.edu.tw/pub/CPatch/msupdate/.../306453usa8.exe

I have tested all these files with Win98 SE on my PC = they work OK.

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong on the softpub.dll file, MDGx. Version 5.131.1880.14 of the

softpub.dll file is from the NT4 MS04-011 (835732) update. It can work ok

under a Win9x system after you register the newer softpub.dll file with the

regsvr32.exe tool.

Uh, Gape are you close to releasing v2.0 of the Win98se SP. The year is

almost over.

Forget about the Win95 files. All versions of Win95 are in the graveyard

and MS already ended ALL support for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...