98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes

[pjmelect]

I have just tried out mesp202en-b9.exe update for Windows ME. I installed it on a clean copy of windows ME with the latest versions of Internet Explorer 6.1, DirectX and Media player installed. The only problem I saw was when the program had finished installing the updates and the computer was restarted the error message "Windows could not upgrade file %1 to %2 %3" flashed up briefly on this version of the updater, Windows update now works correctly and reported the following required updates.

KB916281

KB837009

KB833989

KB917734

KB904706

KB828026 (not required)

KB887797

KB816093

Microsoft Net Framework 1.1

Windows Automatic update

Euro conversion tool

Edited October 28, 2007 by pjmelect

[RetroOS]

Hey MDGx,

There are regular problems being reported with the current OLEUP update not actually installing OLEDLG.DLL and leaving the old one missing...

See a number of previous posts.

Also see here for the latest one.

I think the author of this unofficial update needs to revisit it!

It's really quite useless as an update as it stands if it needs manual intervention to get back an OLEDLG.DLL file that was there before the update...

[bristols]

MDGx is strangely absent. He hasn't logged in for over 2 weeks (according to his profile).

It seems strange to me, since he's a moderator, and is usually so prompt when dealing with enquiries and posting new and revised updates.

[RetroOS]

Even moderators need holidays!

That might explain why the latest unofficial 9x IE6 and OE6 updates haven't shown up?

They've probably already been compiled, but haven't been posted anywhere...

Afterall, MDGx is the updates collector man!

[soporific]

seriously, you can set your watch by MDGx ... just not this month for the first time in ages. It just goes to show ... human beings need holidays! It's about time he took a break

We've got things covered till you get back MDGx!

[bristols]

Even moderators need holidays!

That might explain why the latest unofficial 9x IE6 and OE6 updates haven't shown up?

They've probably already been compiled, but haven't been posted anywhere...

Afterall, MDGx is the updates collector man!

I noticed and decided to post about the fact that MDGx continues to update his own site with new and revised hotfixes:

- check bottom of the home page: "Site UPDATED October 23 2007"

- check the dates next to the first three updates under the heading "Free Updates + Patches" on the home page, which include the latest unofficial IE6 Cumulative Update for 98/98SE.

I'm not sure whether or not he wants the information posted here (otherwise why not post it himself?). I can only guess that he is not against us downloading the updates, because he has taken the trouble of compiling them and making them available on his own site.

Edited October 23, 2007 by bristols

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 10-24-2007

Hopefully all install/rename INF problems should be resolved.

Please test these updated patches, and let me know:

ITOLEUP.EXE - Italian

OLEUP.EXE

KB891711.EXE

Q891711.EXE

Q891711F.EXE - French

Q891711I.EXE - Italian

RICHED9X.EXE

ITSHELME.EXE - Italian

SHELL98.EXE

SHELL98F.EXE - French

SHELL98I.EXE - Italian

SHELL98P.EXE - Polish

SHELLME.EXE

ME918547.EXE

Q918547.EXE

KB918547.EXE

All others are English.

BTW:

I need a volunteer to translate the text files from English to Polish = SHELL98P.EXE.

PM me if you want to do this. Thanks.

Enjoy.

P.S.:

I'll be waiting for more feedback on the new Xeno86 VACHE.VXD patch for 98 SE.

I'll build an installer if it works for most testers.

[RetroOS]

MDGx, nice to see you around again.

It's amazing how everything seems to slow down when you're not posting.

You must be the motivator as well as the moderator!

Good to see those 9x updates rolling on.

The Dream Lives!

[MDGx]

Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

[bristols]

Welcome back MDGx, and thanks as always for the updates.

[RetroOS]

Has anyone tested Sun Java 1.6.0_03 on Windows 9x? (Yes, it does work)

The installer claims that it is best on a newer OS but does not claim it will not work!

I've been running it for about a week.

It appears faster and more stable than 1.5.0_13.

No problems so far with IE6 and Firefox...

Anyone else had experience with Java 6 on 9x?

[Analada]

Has anyone tested Sun Java 1.6.0_03 on Windows 9x? (Yes, it does work)

The installer claims that it is best on a newer OS but does not claim it will not work!

I've been running it for about a week.

It appears faster and more stable than 1.5.0_13.

No problems so far with IE6 and Firefox...

Anyone else had experience with Java 6 on 9x?

Yes it works well for me on firefox.

I'd like to get the enhanced ("unlimited") security files. Evidently they can be downloaded with the JDK (java development kit) but haven't yet found them. What is installed is limited 128 bit encryption.

It's probably a good idea to go with this version as it has fixed some security bugs.

[dencorso]

Hi, MDGx!

Now that you're back, let me please direct your attention to two subjects I believe will interest you.

1)Random occasional lock-ups due to CNTRL98 (updated Win 98 SE CONTROL.EXE v4.10.0.1999) update: see this post by fastlanephil and the second post following it, by myself. I believe CONTROL.EXE v4.10.0.1999 needs revision. But, unfortunately, all I can report about the lock-ups is that they are haphazard and occur for no apparent reason.

2) My own USB FDD DiskTSD.VxD 4.90.0.3000 Patch, to allow NUSB to work with FDDs without eliciting a BSOD!

Petr's findings (as quoted in my post) indicate there might be problems in incorporating it to 98SE3ME, so, please, do test it in this context. Also, the principle underlying this patch is pretty general, and might allow the use of other Win ME VxDs in Win 98SE. But among those that always crashed Win 98SE, which do you think would be the most worthy of investigation? Please advise.

bristols words also represent my own feelings exactly, so:

Welcome back MDGx, and thanks as always for the updates.

Added on October 31st, 2007 - 01:09 AM: I confirm that the selfsame patching strategy applies to other files, as it has enabled me to have the following Win ME files running on my Win 98SE system, up to now without any detectable problems:

DISKTSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3000

DISKVSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3001

CDTSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3000

CDVSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3003

SMARTVSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3000

and with a slightly modificated version patching

VNETBIOS.VXD v. 4.90.3000 (since Nov 10th 2007)

Edited November 16, 2007 by dencorso

[fastlanephil]

Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

Welcome back! {Whistling tune to Welcome Back Kotter)

MDGx, if you get a chance, I am very interested in what you think about this issue in Win 98 SE - ME:

galahs, dencorso, eidenk, rloew

From what I understand of the problem, in order to make Win 95-98-ME able to run (backward compatible with) 16-bit Win 3.X programs, they need to be able to operate in 16-bit mode. Thus the files, User.exe, User32.dll, GDI.exe, and GDI32.dll limit the 16-bit system resource size to 64 kbyte. Likewise, there are three 32-bit system resource limitations, 2 Mbyte each per this article (click "About System Resources" at the bottom):

http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros/repair.html

Some more reading on the subject:

http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#resources

http://www.aumha.org/win4/a/resource.htm

Thanks for the input everybody , I suppose that this is the real root of the system resource problem. Note that in two bytes there are ((2 raised to the 8th power) squared =) 65536 possible combinations, thus there is only a 64K 16-bit heap size.

"...The resource table is essentially a big list of information about all the resources that are in memory at any given time. So if an application tells Windows to load a resource, Windows finds an empty spot in this resource table, and fills it in with the information about the resource that was just loaded. Now, instead of giving the application a four-byte pointer to the resource, Windows can just tell the application where the resource is in the table. If I tell Windows to load a window, and that window winds up taking the 383rd slot in the resource table, Windows will tell me "Okay, I've loaded the resource, and it's #383." Since these 'index numbers' are much smaller numbers than memory addresses, under this scheme, a resource's number can be stored in only two bytes instead of four; when you only have a few megabytes of memory to work with, and lots of resources being used, that's a huge improvement.

There's a problem with this scheme. There's only so many different possible values that you can store in a certain number of bytes of computer memory, just like there's only so many different numbers you can write down if you aren't allowed to use more than a certain number of digits. If you have four bytes of memory to work with, you can store billions of different possible values in those four bytes. But if you only have two bytes, there's only 65536 different numbers that you can store in those two bytes. So if you use two-byte numbers as your resource identifiers, you can't have more than 65536 resources loaded into memory at one time; if you loaded more than that, there'd be no way for programs to tell them apart. But on the computers of the day, there'd be no way to fit more than a few thousand resources into memory at one time anyway. So this limitation wasn't seen as being a problem, and the Windows designers went ahead and used the resource table and two-byte resource identifiers.

Now, we leap ahead to the present day. Memory is incredibly cheap; the memory savings from using two-byte resource numbers instead of four-byte pointers simply aren't significant anymore. There'd be more than enough memory to hold hundreds of thousands of resources in memory at one time. But there's still only 65,536 different possible resource identifiers; so only that many resources can be loaded into memory at once. Beyond that, you're out of resources, no matter how much memory you have left."

http://www2.whidbey.com/djdenham/Window_memory.htm

http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_B...0&start=300

[bristols]

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

I have been dutiful, MDGx. I have an issue to report concerning a DLL from the RICHED9X.EXE update. Using Miranda (the current ANSI version - 0.7.1), I get the following message when I click on a contact from my contacts list (in order to open a message window):

The specified module could not be found (USP10.dll)

The message appears only on the first occasion that I do this - not subsequently. The message window opens as normal after I dismiss the message, and I can continue without problem (at least I haven't discovered a problem yet).