February 16, 200917 yr I will update RICHED9X.EXE soon to include RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 from XP SP3. Done.RICHED20.DLL is ver. 5.50.99.2014 in latest RICHED9X.EXE . I am mentioning this in case you really intended ver. 5.30.23.1230 .
February 16, 200917 yr Please check again, EvanD; I got the right version here just as advertised, downloaded yesterday.
February 17, 200917 yr Author I will update RICHED9X.EXE soon to include RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 from XP SP3. Done.RICHED20.DLL is ver. 5.50.99.2014 in latest RICHED9X.EXE . I am mentioning this in case you really intended ver. 5.30.23.1230 .If you downloaded this a couple of days ago, maybe, but now has RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 .Please download again...http://www.mdgx.com/files/RICHED9X.EXEFYI:If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.HTH
February 17, 200917 yr FYI:If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.HTHAll is well now. I did download RICHED9X.EXE last week first and yesterday as well and both files were the same size with the same CRC so I never saw the dialog box. Now I do. I do not know why I got the wrong download on Feb. 16 but whatever happened is fixed now. Thanks for your help.
February 19, 200917 yr Author FYI:If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.HTHAll is well now. I did download RICHED9X.EXE last week first and yesterday as well and both files were the same size with the same CRC so I never saw the dialog box. Now I do. I do not know why I got the wrong download on Feb. 16 but whatever happened is fixed now. Thanks for your help.You're welcome. ______________________________________________________UPDATED · 2-19-2009Enjoy.
February 21, 200917 yr Author dencorso:I have, however, to point out that two of the newest updates might contain files of yet a higher version that work OK, by my own tests, with Win 9x/ME, namely:SCHANNEL.DLL v. 4.87.1964.1880, from KB831225Thanks a bunch, I got the Q831225 NT4 hotfix.And I'll post it at my WinNT4 fixes page:http://www.mdgx.com/wnt4.htmBut I realized I already had the file by itself [without the hotfix somehow, probably sent by erpdude8 a while back], it actually installs on Win95/98 [all editions] as part of CRYPT9X.EXE:http://www.mdgx.com/files/CRYPT9X.EXEMore info:http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#HEPStrange though, SCHANNEL.DLL file Properties [Explorer or File Manager] says 5.00.1880.14 , but getver.exe says 4.87.1964.1880 [without .14 at the end]. [?]This happened in WinXP SP3, maybe it's different from within Win98, 98 SE or ME?btw:Wonder how I use File Manager from NT4 SP6a in XP?Wonder no more... FMNTHTH
February 27, 200917 yr Strange though, SCHANNEL.DLL file Properties [Explorer or File Manager] says 5.00.1880.14 , but getver.exe says 4.87.1964.1880 [without .14 at the end]. [?]This happened in WinXP SP3, maybe it's different from within Win98, 98 SE or ME?Strange, but true! Here's some more info on it, from Petr: File versioning question Edited February 27, 200917 yr by dencorso
February 27, 200917 yr MDGx, please have a look here; information provided by the FileInfo plug-in in Total Commander:
February 28, 200917 yr BTW, Drugwash, it catched my eye you're using v. 4.86.1964.1880... Consider updating to v. 4.87.1964.1880, so you'll get 128-bit strong encryption.Quoting from Petr's post I mentioned above, he found out and reported this little pearl:Sometimes it gives additional information:SCHANNEL.DLL (40-bit) 5.00.1880.14 (binary) and 4.86.1964.1880 (text)SCHANNEL.DLL (128-bit) 5.00.1880.14 (binary) and 4.87.1964.1880 (text)Even if he posted it in reverse, because 4.8X.1964.1880 is in fact the binary version number (the one returned by getver.exe), while the text version number is 5.00.1880.14... See also the NT part of the security update info of MS04-011 Edited February 28, 200917 yr by dencorso
February 28, 200917 yr Thanks for the information, dencorso. The screenshot above pertains to the library found in the NT4 packages on MDGx's site; the one installed on my system is actually older (the original one?): 4.87.1959.1877 / 5.0.1877.6 as reported by FileInfo.I remember having some trouble in the past - can't tell what exactly, though - and I had to downgrade this file (and possibly some others I forgot about).I was about to say that MDGx was wrong saying it can be found in CRYPT9X.EXE, but then I checked the inf and it's being renamed at install time, that's why I didn't notice it at the first glance.Given the past experience (blurry as it is), I'm a little reluctant to installing that package again, for fear that I may screw up the system, but eventually I might do it after backing up all the involved files. It may take a while to notice all the possible side-effects though and by then I might forget the culprit (yeah, got a short memory ).
March 24, 200917 yr You are too much!I counted 18 new system updates since october 2008! And +- 45 since the release of uSP3-0-beta3, on october 2007!
Create an account or sign in to comment