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

[bristols]

Thanks erpdude for checking again for KB908531. I really hope that it doesn't turn into a 891711-type situation. There's a good chance that 908531 will be the last patch issued by MS for 9x systems. What a way to go out that would be.

I guess MS has run into problems with it. It has been reported that the patch released for 2k/XP/2003 systems is causing problems:

Report about 908531 at Yahoo! News

Perhaps the fact that it hasn't arrived yet for 9x is a blessing in disguise.

Edited April 17, 2006 by bristols

[erpdude8]

Thanks erpdude for checking again for KB908531. I really hope that it doesn't turn into a 891711-type situation. There's a good chance that 908531 will be the last patch issued by MS for 9x systems. What a way to go out that would be.

I guess MS has run into problems with it. It has been reported that the patch released for 2k/XP/2003 systems is causing problems:

Report about 908531 at Yahoo! News

Perhaps the fact that it hasn't arrived yet for 9x is a blessing in disguise.

maybe. minor correction to my last post. KB888113/MS05-015 was posted on February 2005 (not Jan. 2005) and the KB888113 security updates for windows 98 & ME were posted at Windows Update in March 2005.

Microsoft KB article 918165 has been posted to note the problems found in the KB908531 security updates for win2000, xp & server 2003:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918165

note that MDGx told me last week Microsoft extended support for Windows 98 & ME until July 11, 2006 instead of June 30, 2006. here's the microsoft support site that says this:

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean18/

[the_guy]

Thanks for posting them MDGx.

KNOWN ISSUE: The updates for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 will not install if you have installed the 912812 update. I have sent fixed patches to MDGx.

the_guy

[MDGx]

Thanks for posting them MDGx.

KNOWN ISSUE: The updates for Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 will not install if you have installed the 912812 update. I have sent fixed patches to MDGx.

the_guy

Done:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581

Thank for the patches.

[the_guy]

No problem.

@erpdude8: on your IE/WMP site, could you please modify the text for the 905495 updates to be as follows:

for the file IE905495.EXE: Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2/6.0 SP1 FTP client KB905495 update for Windows 98/NT4/ME

for the file Q905495.EXE: Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2 FTP client KB905495 update for Windows 95

Could you also add the 2K905495.EXE file and the IE912812.EXE file.

@All: Who's with me that this topic should be a sticky?

the_guy

EDIT: @MDGx: the Q911567.EXE file is just for IE 5.5 SP2, NOT IE 6.0 SP1. The OS's there are correct

Edited April 17, 2006 by the_guy

[MDGx]

@MDGx: the Q911567.EXE file is just for IE 5.5 SP2, NOT IE 6.0 SP1. The OS's there are correct

Corrected. Please see 1st post:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581

Also added updated DXM9X.EXE, DXM9XIE5.EXE, DXMNT.EXE + DXMNTIE5.EXE with newer DANIM.DLL + DXTRANS.DLL files from Q912812:

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581

which are also posted here:

http://www.mdgx.com/dx.htm#DXM

erpdude8:

I have recreated all DXM9X* patches to install on WinME without need for Coolkill/STMGR/etc..., same as OLEUP.EXE.

[the_guy]

@MDGx: Could you also update that text on your IE page as well?

Ooops. Looked at the wrong update when I posted that.

Thnaks again MDGx.

the_guy

Edited April 17, 2006 by the_guy

[MDGx]

@All: Who's with me that this topic should be a sticky?

the_guy

I'm with you

Depends if Gape [forum moderator] considers this a "worthy" topic.

[noguru]

The OE update won't install on my system (Win98SE+IE6.0sp1). Doubleclick on OE911567 starts but I get the error that a file can't be found. When pointing the installer to right file I get a copy error. This happens with all files. Rightclicking/install on kb911567 likewise. There's also a start.exe in the (exe) archive. So I try it

I seems to do something, command screen flashes by, but that's all.

edit: Checked file versions, nothing installed

Edited April 17, 2006 by noguru

[bristols]

the_guy (and MDGx), thanks for taking the time to compile and post these. But like noguru, I also had a problem installing IE905495 and OE911567 (98 SE English, IE 6.0 SP1).

Unlike noguru, the files did install for me, but not before I was prompted for 'missing files': with 905495, I was prompted for the MSIEFTP.DLL, and with 911567, I was prompted for the DIRECTDB.DLL file. On both occasions, the directory already suggested by the prompt window was the correct temporary directory containing the files. So, the files were found, and the installation continued. There was no 'reboot' prompt after installation (I guess that's intentional), but I confirmed that the files had been installed with SFC.

Edited April 18, 2006 by bristols

[MDGx]

BUG:

Q912812 update [MS06-013]:

http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#IEC

installs one of these 2 URLMON.DLL builds into %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM]:

- 6.00.2800.1537 = without "QFEInstalled"=dword:00000001 REG setting installed or

- 6.00.2800.1538 = with "QFEInstalled"=dword:00000001 REG setting installed

[see page below for details how to install this REG fix into your registry]:

http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#IEC

corrupts the MS Windows Update [WU] web pages:

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

and:

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/

at least on my 98 SE computer with MS IE 6.0 SP1 + all other updates/patches installed.

WU does not check your computer for installed updates, and all you get is the "Administrator only" error page.

WORKAROUND:

Reinstall older 98 SE/ME patch from Q905915 update [MS05-054] [3.49 MB, English]:

http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownlo...94e650e29d8.exe

and make sure URLMON.DLL is replaced with one of these older ones:

- 6.00.2800.1526 = with "QFEInstalled"=dword:00000001 REG setting installed or

- 6.00.2800.1525 = without "QFEInstalled"=dword:00000001 REG setting installed.

Reboot after patch installed.

Hope this helps.

Edited April 18, 2006 by MDGx

[noguru]

the_guy (and MDGx), thanks for taking the time to compile and post these. But like noguru, I also had a problem installing IE905495 and OE911567 (98 SE English, IE 6.0 SP1).

Unlike noguru, the files did install for me, but not before I was prompted for 'missing files': with 905495, I was prompted for the MSIEFTP.DLL, and with 911567, I was prompted for the DIRECTDB.DLL file. On both occasions, the directory already suggested by the prompt window was the correct temporary directory containing the files. So, the files were found, and the installation continued. There was no 'reboot' prompt after installation (I guess that's intentional), but I confirmed that the files had been installed with SFC.

Encouraged by your result I tried again. First manually extracting the files in same folder and then doubleclicking OE911567 does work! Files are installed.

[bristols]

MDGx, why not use RICHED32.DLL build 5.00.2134.1 from your RICHEDNT.EXE file in your RICHED9X.exe file, too?

[erpdude8]

MDGx, why not use RICHED32.DLL build 5.00.2134.1 from your RICHEDNT.EXE file in your RICHED9X.exe file, too?

bad idea, bristols. using riched32.dll v5.00.2134.1 under W9x/ME systems may BREAK certain apps. plus file size of v5.00.2134.1 of riched32.dll file is 3,856 bytes. File size of riched32.dll v5.00.1461.82 is 203,024 bytes. Also LOOK at v5.00.2134.1 and v5.00.1461.82 of RICHED32.DLL's File "Properties" and look in the Version tab.

Looking at Description on v5.0.2134.1 of RICHED32.DLL in the Version tab it says "Wrapper Dll for Richedit 1.0" while v5.0.1461.82 of RICHED32.DLL file has Description that says "Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control".

also looking at Product Name of v5.0.1461.82 of RICHED32.DLL file it says "Microsoft Exchange" while looking at Product Name of v5.0.2134.1 of RICHED32.DLL file it says "Microsoft® Windows ® 2000 Operating System".

so v5.0.2134.1 of Riched32.dll may be incompatible with 9XME systems and meant only for NT-based systems.

If a program depends on either the older or newer version of Riched32.dll file, better to store that specific version of the Riched32.dll file into the program's folder instead of in the \WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ folder to avoid problems.

[bristols]

MDGx, why not use RICHED32.DLL build 5.00.2134.1 from your RICHEDNT.EXE file in your RICHED9X.exe file, too?

bad idea, bristols. using riched32.dll v5.00.2134.1 under W9x/ME systems may BREAK certain apps. plus file size of v5.00.2134.1 of riched32.dll file is 3,856 bytes. File size of riched32.dll v5.00.1461.82 is 203,024 bytes. Also LOOK at v5.00.2134.1 and v5.00.1461.82 of RICHED32.DLL's File "Properties" and look in the Version tab...

...so v5.0.2134.1 of Riched32.dll may be incompatible with 9XME systems and meant only for NT-based systems.

I noticed all those things, erpdude (especially noticeable is the big file-size difference). But still:

- I've been using RICHED32.DLL build 5.0.2134.1 for a few days. I've tested it with old apps that use it (some pre-2k). So far, no problems at all.

- Other DLLs, such as several included in SE SP2, have the product name of a later OS (COMCTL32.DLL, to name just one)

- Note eidenk's observations from a few months back:

Version 5.0.2134.1 : Size = 3,856 bytes. Wrapper Dll for Richedit. Dependencies are Riched20.dll and User32.dll...

...Is there a reason not to use the later versions ? It seems to me when looking at the sizes and dependencies that what Riched32 was doing could now be handled by Riched20 so that if there is a newer Riched20, there should also be a newer Riched32. Or am I wrong ?

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=61407&st=15

RICHED32.DLL build 5.0.2134.1 has no unresolved dependencies.

So, given the fact that it is in RICHEDNT.EXE, I'm assuming that the only reason not to use it in 9x is that it breaks some apps. But I haven't found any reports that it breaks stuff in 9x. I'm just wondering if this build has been overlooked/forgotten about, when we could use it.