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. 


MDGx

98SE2ME = Killer Replacements: ME -> 98 SE

Recommended Posts

Well i installed 98SE2ME on a clean install and i got 715 files installed.

your site has 752 listed files not including option 3 files.Where is 37 files thats suppose to install.

Maybe my web site list is slightly out of date? :blink:

If you post the 37 missing file list here, I'll update it soon.

Thanks

Well these 2 files should be added to the list at your site MPREXE, SIGVERIF.HLP

it must be something in your scripts that allow only 715 out 754 files to installs.

You also need to add shell.dll to the option 3 menu in your readme.txt

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Drugwash: the problem is what M$ calls a "cosmetic issue" in that the CDFS driver works otherwise correctly, but does report the wrong size when asked. It may require a considerable amount of reverse engeneering to pinpoint and correct. Then again, with some luck, it may yield to a simple patch. I really don't know, but I'll investigate it more closely as soon as I can.
Indeed it appears as cosmetic, however certain applications may use the reported size in their own reports, thus creating confusion. For example, a simple disk catalogue software (SuperCat) will display the size of all CDFS DVDs as 2GB, which may lead someone into thinking they may be partly burned (open session) or corrupt. May also mislead regarding the required free destination space when copying from such DVD to another support.

Thank you for looking into the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Five Additional Win ME VxDs Patched to Work with Win 98SE

I've been testing them for a long time (from Dec 2007 to the present), and so has RetroOS (from Apr 2008 to the present; thanks RetroOS, you rock! :thumbup ), so I'm quite sure they work as intended with Win 98SE.

CDTSD.VxD, CDFS.VxD, SMARTVSD.VxD SCSI1HLP.VXD and VOLTRACK.VXD .........

Anonymous author of numerous 98SE fixes had this to say:
Unfortunately, I now hardly ever use Win98SE. However, I successfully used WinME versions of several VxDs for many years, some of them since 2003 or 2004! Not all VxDs (such as UNIMODEM.VXD!) are suitable, but I never encountered any issues after modifying

CDFS.VXD

CDTSD.VXD

CDVSD.VXD

DISKTSD.VXD

DISKVSD.VXD

HSFLOP.PDR

(ESDI_506.PDR <-- I believe this one required additional changes)

for their use under Win98SE in a similar way 'dencorso' used (except that I gave them WIN98SE version #'s).

I also successfully modified some other WinME VxDs that are not in the IOSUBSYS subdirectory. I still have plans to make patch files available for use with PATCH.EXE when I am less busy.

I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MDGx,

My 98SE2ME continues to run flawlessly and has done since I installed it in April 2006.

I am at present still using the 12-12-2007 version, although all more recent updates have been applied by hand so to speak.

However, with the_guy raising the subject of the unofficial Q918547 fixes in another thread, did remind me ask the following.

According to update 8-1-2006. Options 1 + 2 :replaced GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3002 from unofficial WinME Q912919 hotfix with newer GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3003 from unofficial WinME Q918547 MS06-026 security fix.

This was later changed back to the earlier version because of a problem with power management, was it only PROBLEMCHYLD that had this issue or could you reproduce the issue yourself?

Edit: I have been using 4.90.3003 versions for over one month now with no apparent problems of any sort.

Thanks for your work

Colin

Edited by lightning slinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Drugwash: the problem is what M$ calls a "cosmetic issue" in that the CDFS driver works otherwise correctly, but does report the wrong size when asked. It may require a considerable amount of reverse engeneering to pinpoint and correct. Then again, with some luck, it may yield to a simple patch. I really don't know, but I'll investigate it more closely as soon as I can.
Indeed it appears as cosmetic, however certain applications may use the reported size in their own reports, thus creating confusion. For example, a simple disk catalogue software (SuperCat) will display the size of all CDFS DVDs as 2GB, which may lead someone into thinking they may be partly burned (open session) or corrupt. May also mislead regarding the required free destination space when copying from such DVD to another support.

Thank you for looking into the issue.

@Drugwash:

I have looked deeper into the problem and, although I have not yet any solution at this point in time, I believe I have, at least, a good explanation of what's happening:

I)Windows Explorer, Total Commander, SuperCat, Karen's Drive Info and the superb and simple Karl E. Peterson's DriveInfo, along with every other well behaved Windows program, when trying to determine disk capacity, used and free disk space, first check whether the GetDiskFreeSpaceEX API call is available, and if so, call it to get the desired info, but fall back to the pre-Win95 OSR2 GetDiskFreeSpace API call, when the EX version is not available. That's, BTW, the M$ recommended way to do it. So those programs are doing exactly what they ought to, and are not buggy.

II) From Win95 OSR2 up to Win XP (and probably Vista :puke: also) both GetDiskFreeSpaceEX and the legacy GetDiskFreeSpace are exported by Kernel32.DLL. There is no bug here also. However, in the case of Win 9x/ME, the kernel is a complex symbiosis among Kernel32.DLL (a 'PE' .exe, a 32-bit executable), KRNL386.EXE (a 'NE' .exe, a 16-bit executable) and VWin32.VxD (a 'LE' .exe, a 16-bit executable driver), so that ultimately all API calls relating to drives (and most of the others as well) have their ultimate origin in the Ring-0 .VxD layer.

III) At the .VxD level, all the drive's API are implemented twice: a native FAT (12/16/32) API and an Installable File System API (IFS), for which just two clients are provided: the Network Redirector and the CDFS subsystem. Those two are prsent in windows at least from Win 4 Workgroups 3.11 up to now. The CDFS subsystem is what interests us now, and it consists of an inner layer of stactic VxDs (IFSMGR and VCDFSD) and an outer layer of dynamically loaded VxDs (CDFS, CDVSD and CDTSD). If I'm not mistaken, the inner implementation of GetDiskFreeSpace is in VCDFSD.VxD, which does not provide its sister GetDiskFreeSpaceEX. Why? Because there ate no CD greater than 870 MiB (the very rare 99 min CDs!), the usual, nowadays being 700 MiB maximum capacity, and at the time nobody though that there might be CDFS DVDs. :wacko: When support for DVDs was added at last, it was support fot UDF, which was grafted to the inner, stactic VxD layer at VCDFSD.VxD, in the form of UDF.VxD! And UDF.VxD adds GetDiskFreeSpaceEX, but for UDF only.

Hence the CDFS support remained without support for GetDiskFreeSpaceEX, because CDFS DVDs were overlooked at that point, and remained so up to and including Win ME. Thus CDFS DVDs can only be queried through the legacy GetDiskFreeSpace, which, on overflow, returns the infamous 2.147.450.880 bytes size. Now, then, grafting an all-new .VxD to VCDFSD.VxD, just to provide GetDiskFreeSpaceEX for CDFS all the way up to Kernel32.DLL, is possible, but it requires some really serious reverse-engeneering effort that is way more time consuming than devising the usual patch.

Update (Jul 04, 2009): RLoew devised a freeware patch to CDFS.VxD, which resolves this issue. :thumbup See this post.

Edited by dencorso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive, I must say. So... we must enhance the old VxD. But there's a small problem: no such VCDFSD.VXD on my system. :unsure: Maybe you're referring to CDVSD.VXD, which indeed exists.

Anyway, thanks for the extensive research. I'll have to read this again later, coz it's almost 5 AM here and my eyelids are too heavy now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VCDFSD.VxD and UDF.VxD are usually compressed inside VMM32.VxD and are expanded just at load time.

As VMM32.VxD is created at installation time, when you apply a hotfix to any one of the VxDs inside VMM32.VxD, it is not recompiled, and the hotfix VxD is put instead in the %windir%\SYSTEM\VMM32 folder. I believe you've found a UDF.VxD v. 4.10.0.2223 there, but no VCDFSD.VxD because there has never been any hotfix to it, and hence the original one inside VMM32.VxD is loaded on startup. To see a list of all the VxDs inside VMM32.VxD (or extract some or all of them, if you so want) you'll need Clive Turvey's VxDLib. To see what VxD are loaded and running in your system, in real time, you'll need the fantastic APSoft VxDView. ;)

Edited by dencorso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I had overlooked VMM32.VXD. :blushing: Thanks for pointing out those tools, will have a look inside VMM32 soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um what is this thing ment to do ?

and i thought all you people say windows me is crap and useless so why would you make a thing to make win 98 into win ME?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, 98SE2ME pulls the best bits out of Me and transplants them into 98SE.

The Me kernel stays where it is - we don't want that!

Over 700 98SE files are replaced with Me files.

Many Me files are simply continued improvements to 98SE files.

It's the "new" Me core features, many that we don't want, that are left behind.

What you end up with is the newest code builds available for the 9x system files.

That means things like better hardware/software compatibility, bug fixes, performance improvements, feature enhancements, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the "new" Me core features, many that we don't want, that are left behind.

Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Two such core features, System Restore and System File Protection, were in their infancy, did not work very well, and were too much of an overhead.

Successful, stable operation of Windows Me, is possible by disabling (not so easy) these 'features' and applying all updates.

Yes, some people have had a good run with Windows Me as is, but generally it was not as reliable out-of-the-box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Two such core features, System Restore and System File Protection, were in their infancy, did not work very well, and were too much of an overhead.

Successful, stable operation of Windows Me, is possible by disabling (not so easy) these 'features' and applying all updates.

Yes, some people have had a good run with Windows Me as is, but generally it was not as reliable out-of-the-box.

Actually it is very easy to remove System Restore and System File Protection from Windows ME with Oppcomme which you can still grab on the wayback machine :

http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...es/oppcomme.exe

http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...om/oppcomme.htm

If you choose not to remove that, you need some Microsoft hotfixe (KB290700) to have System Restore to work correctly (perhaps) on ME as otherwise it won't work with any restore point made after September 8 2001.

Edited by eidenk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Two such core features, System Restore and System File Protection, were in their infancy, did not work very well, and were too much of an overhead.

Successful, stable operation of Windows Me, is possible by disabling (not so easy) these 'features' and applying all updates.

Yes, some people have had a good run with Windows Me as is, but generally it was not as reliable out-of-the-box.

Actually it is very easy to remove System Restore and System File Protection from Windows ME with Oppcomme which you can still grab on the wayback machine :

http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...es/oppcomme.exe

http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...om/oppcomme.htm

Share this post


Link to post
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...