Tried that already, but it didn't help...

But the solution is quite simple:

WindowsUpdate checks, if the files "Kb891711.exe" & "Q891711.dll" are physically available in the path "C:\windows\system\Kb891711".

The registry entries are completely meaningless here.

Why not just use the INf file from the official update to install the unoffical files?

MDGx:

I'm stuck on what to do ... i've read all the recent posts and it seems that its better to have the ANI fixed USER.EXE & USER32.DLL (4.10.0.2223) files as opposed to the 4.90.3001 ones ... so should i use those files inside my Core of Win98 to Me update? This is because the Core of Win98 to ME comes after the Q891711 update, and so the ANI fixed files get overwritten if the user chooses to install both. I could simply swap the order around if that is the bes fix. Or is it possible to still use U891711 and thus keep the usual 4.90.3001 files inside my core Win98 to ME thingy? It seems my options are:

1) for the Core Win98 to ME update, replace the 4.90.3001 USER* files with the files inside Q891711

2) swap the order so the Core Win98 to ME update is installed before Q891711 (not preferable)

3) Use the 4.90.3001 USER* files inside the Core Win98 to ME update as normal, and use U891711 (easiest option for me)

I'm testing out the options above but any info much appreciated...

I would keep the 4.10.2233 USER*.* files [Q891711] because they fix the .ANI exploit.

HTH

MDGx, I may try to test the user*.* v4.10.2233 files under Win98 FE and will let you know if they work correctly. I may be dumping the "temporary" kb891711 files and use the "permanent" user*.* files.

It's a shame that the anonymous person hasn't made "permanent" 891711 fixes for Win95 sr2/WinME and I'm pretty sure BenoitRen is disappointed there is no "permanent" user*.* fix made for Win95 SR2

Win98SE fixed USER.EXE [4.10.2233/Polish]

The Anonymous author has answered some of your questions/requests:

I am way too busy to make WinME USER.EXE + USER32.DLL 4.90.3003.

I doubt this is going to change anytime soon.

I also cannot test such a patch under Win98SE without messing up my OS

installation.

AFAICT, GDI.EXE + GDI32.DLL have no code that interferes with

Power Management. Most definitely, the sections of code I modified and

added to make 4.10.2227 and 4.90.3003 have nothing to do with

Power Management. The problems PROBLEMCHYLD reported about a year ago must

be a mere coincidence.

USER.EXE does call APM BIOS functions. The differences between USER.EXE

4.10.22xx and 4.90.300y are indeed responsible for how 'Restart in MS-DOS

mode' is handled. Some of the differences result from the underlying major

differences between Win98SE and Winme in (WIN.COM), KRNL386.EXE and, most

importantly, VMM.VXD.

BenoitRen wrote Apr 30 2007, 8:44 AM:

> Awesome! Congratulations to the author. I hope he'll be able

> to provide a fix for Windows 95's files as well (both

> version 4.00.950, unless those got updates somewhere?).

As unlikely as a Win98FE patch I am afraid - it is just too time-consuming.

> I have a question, though. It's my understanding that the parsing

> happens in user.exe, and that the way to fix the vulnerabilities is to

> check the size of what user32.dll returns. So why does user32.dll need

> patching? I don't mean to criticise, I just want to learn.

USER.EXE and USER32.DLL are interdependent. So they need to be of the same

version and be updated at the same time. USER32.DLL was patched basically

to make sure this happens under all circumstances.

HTH

¿MDGx if installed Windows 98SE Spanish or Irish, language affects the user or windows version USER.DLL USER.EXE and 2233 in English?

¿MDGx if installed Windows 98SE Spanish or Irish, language affects the user or windows version USER.DLL USER.EXE and 2233 in English?

Yes. They are English versions and you'd need to localize them first before using with Spanish Windows 98SE.

¿MDGx if installed Windows 98SE Spanish or Irish, language affects the user or windows version USER.DLL USER.EXE and 2233 in English?

Yes. They are English versions and you'd need to localize them first before using with Spanish Windows 98SE.

What are the changes (2231-2233) and compile applications used to manipulate the Anonymous author user.exe/.dll 2233?

Testing n Win98SE Spanish, USER.EXE/.DLL English and does not fail even ...

Edited January 4, 201214 yr by gerislamico

You'd have to ask the Anonymous author himself.

They'll maybe work, but you'll have English messages appearing in the system, instead of Spanish ones.

Now, just to localize (=translate the messages), ResHacker, eXeScope and a lot of patience may win the day.

There is something about it here, and other old posts by Petr may be useful, too. Searching the forum may give you some other leads, too. Personally, I only use English (ENU or EN-US) versions. I have really no interest in localization, nor in localized OSes, so I never studied the problem myself, but I know Petr did have lots of success at it, before he gave up on Win 9x/ME.

I translated the Spanish USER32.EXE/DLL 2231 and 2233 with eXeScope . It works perfectly . I invite other users to send their other languages ​​in their native language USER32.EXE/DLL Win98SE and forwarding translated from English to your native language

Thanks Dencorso for Reply