Bugs of SP 2.0.2

[Big Monstro]

Hello,

Firstly, I congratulate people who contributed to the realization of Win98 SE Service Pack 2.

With this program, it's possible to reduce considerably the time devoted to upgrading.

What good intention helping the users without payments.

However, there are some little bugs :

1) After installing, it's impossible to uninstall this Service Pack.

In the disclaimer, it's explained there is no guarantee.

Consequently, it would be logical that the program allows the uninstall

(like a choice in the Infex.exe) in the event of problem.

But I suppose making an uninstaller for this pack isn't easy...

2) During the installing, the files explorer.exe and shell32.dll are replaced

by these which have Windows 2000 icons.

That means that the file shell32.dll are replaced by the file from SUPP.CAB

instead of the file from SP2.CAB.

The effect is the change of appearance of the icons...

But I refused "theme of Windows 2000" in Infex.exe.

Another user has noticed already this bug :

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=53875

I would like to know the utility of the file Shellconcache created by the install.

I hope this bugs are resolved for the next versions.

[eidenk]

I would like to know the utility of the file Shellconcache created by the install.

Well I highly doubt that Gape's pack creates a Shellconcache. Here is why :

To the best of my knowledge and observation Shellconcache is created or updated by Windows during the normal shutdown process.

Windows stores in a zone of the memory the icons you see on your screen. It can store a maximum of 4092 icons (by increasing a value in the registry. Default is 500 I think). It allows the system to be more responsive by allowing icons to load faster as Windows seeks them in memory and not on disk the second time they are used. When Windows shuts down it writes those icons into a file called ShellIconcache and reloads them into memory from that file at the next startup.

If for some reason you delete the ShellIconcache from your disk and never shut down your system normally like me, you won't have a ShellIconcache on disk.

So that I believe that like me you have deleted your ShellIconcache some time ago and that you never shut down normally but simply power off your computer when you're done with it. But after installing Gape's pack that you monitored with one or another utility you took care to shut down properly for once and hence the ShellIconcache appeared.

[Gape]

1) After installing, it's impossible to uninstall this Service Pack.

  In the disclaimer, it's explained there is no guarantee.

  Consequently, it would be logical that the program allows the uninstall

  (like a choice in the Infex.exe) in the event of problem.

  But I suppose making an uninstaller for this pack isn't easy...

Because of the installation method, it's difficult to create a good uninstaller. But, I'm working on it. I hope I'll make a better uninstaller on the next version.

2) During the installing, the files explorer.exe and shell32.dll are replaced

  by these which have Windows 2000 icons.

  That means that the file shell32.dll are replaced by the file from SUPP.CAB

  instead of the file from SP2.CAB.

  The effect is the change of appearance of the icons...

  But I refused "theme of Windows 2000" in Infex.exe.

It is not "Theme of Win 2000", it is "Win 2000 Color Scheme"... So, in fact, it's not a bug. But you're right about that Win 2000 icons also should be optional. I'm working on it now, too.

[Rhelic]

It is not "Theme of Win 2000", it is "Win 2000 Color Scheme"... So, in fact, it's not a bug. But you're right about that Win 2000 icons also should be optional. I'm working on it now, too.

As discussed in another post, I'd have to agree that the Win2k icons should be linked to the "Win 2000 Color Scheme" option. In fact why not just rename it to "Win 2000 Style" and if chosen, it applies the Win 2000 color and icons (and any other cosmetic things from Win 2000).

I do realize that the people who don't want the Win 2000 are a niche group (Win 2000 looks better, who doesn't want that?) but this still falls under the "patch" vs "feature" argument. As proven in previous discussions some people need a purist install where they only apply Win98 patches and can't apply non Win98 stuff for work or end user reasons.

Edited October 14, 2005 by Rhelic