98 SE SP 3.32

[Drugwash]

People can build simple scripts to check for specific text on web pages. Having the exact file size displayed on the page together with keeping at least the top structure of the page identical, would help people know when there is a new alpha/beta/release published, without the hassle of forum login/logout/search/etc. More so when lots of intermediary versions are being released within short periods of time, when one may not be able to keep count whether they downloaded a particular release or not; the exact size would help avoiding useless redownloads, thus alleviating server's load.

So the way I see it it may not be just a whim but an automation attempt.

On another note, I haven't been able to download current release, neither from main link (download doesn't start at all) nor from the mirror (download freezes somewhere after 8MB). In Firefox I see no notice, but in SlimBrowser it says my number of downloads has exceeded 6 in 24 hours. So using FlashGet to make sure the package comes integer (due to this bad modem connection - max 10kB/s download at the time of typing this - and large package size) practically kills any chance for me to get anything from the main site. Wonderful! Why do I even bother...

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

WHENEVER A NEW UPDATE IS AVAILABLE, THE TEXT ON MSFN IS UPDATED.

THE DATE IS UPDATED.

THE TEXT ON THE MAIN WEBSITE IS UPDATED.

THE TEXT IN MY SIGNATURE IS UPDATED.

THE VERSION NUMBER IS UPDATED.

WTF MORE DO YOU WANT?

AS FRED SAID ITS BEEN ABOUT 58 (MB) FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM. READ THE FUCI<!NG CHANGELOG!

YOU WANT ME TO ACCOMMODATE YOU MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE.

THEN PLEASE DON'T USE SP.

I'M NOT GOING TO LOSE ANY SLEEP SINCE YOU DON'T CARE.

Edited July 2, 2012 by PROBLEMCHYLD

[Drugwash]

Oh, sorry... Sleep well!

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Oh, sorry... Sleep well!

It wasn't aimed @ you.

[buyerninety]

Taken only as an easy example:

_

All cited files are Called -- "U98SESP3.EXE" --, & display same Version.

The Download Webpage Approx Dates;

----------"4-1-12"-(4 Jan 2012)---------------"01-23-12"-(23 Jan 2012)---

_____ / Size Stated / File Size________/ Size Stated / File Size

w_o IE already installed;

______"40MB"----(42,661,888 bytes)____"42MB"----(44,140,032 bytes)

w_IE5.5 sp2 core;

______"45MB"----(47,762,944 bytes)____"46MB"----(49,044,992 bytes)

w_IE6 sp1 core;

______"46MB"----(48,352,768 bytes)____"47MB"----(49,663,488 bytes)

-

Possible conversation;-

{'Hey joe blow, what version of U98sesp3 did you see that behaviour on?'

}'Err..the 46MB one!!'

{'Yeah!? I'll test that.'

_

Less sleepy heads may recognize that it has been entirely possible for

two people, believing that they are tracking a problem with the same

baseline EXE applied, to in fact have been mistakenly using different EXE's.

Suggestion is to display thusly on new versions webpage;

_

e.g__________U98SESPn.n ___(61,008,896 bytes)

_

The (61,008,896 bytes) is that size of the file, as displayed in that files

W98 or WinME files Properties Dialog (note for WinME=not 'size on disk').

The brackets merely act as a helpful hint which 'size' on the dialog is

being refered to.

While in no way <i>unique</i>, the size plus the file dates will do most as

sufficient to be comfortable. ( I don't think anyone who has tracked file dates

back through Device Manager, through dialogues, through INFs, would want

to rely only on displayed file dates. Biting tongue on dat­ing conventions.)

In closing, also acts as signpost in case <i>something</i> adds itself into

the EXE; with the size plainly stated on the website, harder for black hats to

'play'. ...(Very close Tomasz86...even simpler. Drugwash more so. No attacks

intended or implied to anyone. Pass the marshmallows ...or a fire extinguisher.)

Edited July 3, 2012 by buyerninety

[jds]

Happy enough for you to take as long as you like to bring out next Ver

of 98 SE SP X.x BUT; when the new Ver goes on your download page,

if you could state the exact Size of it in bytes (not Mb, Mib, kb, etc.,) next

to it as an extra method of ID of what ver it is (e.g.when files Details

pane view is active), promise, I Won't Even look or care if you do/don't

place the actual Version number also further to the right...

[i'm talking about the bare .exe size, not any compression container size]

You mean, how its in big red bold letters on the homepage and the size is 58 (MB)

Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.2

I'm not sure what you are asking. I think is everything is fine the way it is.

When a new update is release, then the headline becomes

Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.3

When you download updates from Microsoft, do you ask them for the exact size of their files?

I think what he wants is to identify what beta version is on his HD, hence the request for the exact file size. However, just to check if the version on his HD is up-to-date, he can simply compare its date on the HD (which corresponds to the download date) against the date given on the main SP page.

Related to this, the only quibble is that the date format on the SP page is in US format, which can be ambiguous whenever the day field is less than 13. You might consider using the Japanese format, since this has no ambiguity between the day and month fields.

Anyway, onto more important matters ...

I see you still bundle 'MLANG.DLL' version 6.0.2800.1599. Please avoid this or any other version beyond 6.00.2800.1106 (actually, that's the only 6.X version I know of that is designed to work properly on W98). They are all afflicted by the "Outlook 2000 may not display a complete HTML message" bug, which was first reported for version 6.0.2600.0 here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318256

Joe.

Edited July 3, 2012 by jds

[buyerninety]

Not so, jds,

"The Download Webpage Approx Dates;" refers to approximate dates upon

which the U98SESP webpage (at htasoft) had for download same named

and samed versioned ->but_different<- versions of U98SESP3.EXE.

Understand:

.The webpage as it existed on "4-1-12" had a 46MB 'same no. version'.

.The webpage as it existed on "01-23-12" also had a 46MB 'same no. version'.

These two 46MB versions were NOT the same file, and were NOT able to be

applied without, for instance, understanding that one '46MB' was only for

application to a IE5.5 system, while the other '46MB' file was only for

application to a IE6 system.

Therefore, the >Contention< that you can refer to or identify a U98SESP version

by simply referring to whatever 'nnMB' size it showed on (previous) htasoft

webpage(s) demonstrably did not hold true in the past.

To prevent such an occurance In The Future, a minimally better way to

identify the file(s) on future productions of that webpage was requested

(And for Additional Reasons put forward by myself and Drugwash).

PROBLEMCHYLD and Fredledingue deserve great kudos for continuing

excellent work on this software - its worth making the extra effort to improve,

especially where such improvement can head off users making simple

mistakes and incorrectly blaming the software.

Edited July 3, 2012 by buyerninety

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Taken only as an easy example:

_

All cited files are Called -- "U98SESP3.EXE" --, & display same Version.

The Download Webpage Approx Dates;

----------"4-1-12"-(4 Jan 2012)---------------"01-23-12"-(23 Jan 2012)---

_____ / Size Stated / File Size________/ Size Stated / File Size

w_o IE already installed;

______"40MB"----(42,661,888 bytes)____"42MB"----(44,140,032 bytes)

w_IE5.5 sp2 core;

______"45MB"----(47,762,944 bytes)____"46MB"----(49,044,992 bytes)

w_IE6 sp1 core;

______"46MB"----(48,352,768 bytes)____"47MB"----(49,663,488 bytes)

-

Possible conversation;-

{'Hey joe blow, what version of U98sesp3 did you see that behaviour on?'

}'Err..the 46MB one!!'

{'Yeah!? I'll test that.'

This was a while back when I had 3 versions of SP. I combined them all into one package and made it all optional.

If you right click the file, got to properties, you will see the updated version.

I have been doing this since the final release of 3.0.

Things are easier now that I'm not updating 3 packages.

I see you still bundle 'MLANG.DLL' version 6.0.2800.1599. Please avoid this or any other version beyond 6.00.2800.1106 (actually, that's the only 6.X version I know of that is designed to work properly on W98). They are all afflicted by the "Outlook 2000 may not display a complete HTML message" bug, which was first reported for version 6.0.2600.0 here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318256

Joe.

Because anyone who uses the core files shouldn't be using IE.

We had members in the past report problems with this issue.

You can't install Office with out IE. I though the bug only applied to Outlook 2002 is why I added it back.

I probably will remove IE6 core files because IE5 core files are more stable and solid.

It also will shave off approximately 4mb and some change.

If you don't plan on using IE as browser, then IE5 cores is the best solution IMO.

I will also be removing the Smart Card option because the exact same file is present on the Win98 CD.

Location is D:\Drivers\Scard

More so when lots of intermediary versions are being released within short periods of time

Lately I have been releasing an update once a month. If I am aware of an issue I will fix it asap.

Have you tried downloading lately?

The website was down due to moving to a new server.

Edited July 3, 2012 by PROBLEMCHYLD

[Drugwash]

Lately I have been releasing an update once a month. If I am aware of an issue I will fix it asap. <br />Have you tried downloading lately?<br />The website was down due to moving to a new server.<br />

<br /><br />I've tried yesterday, precisely at the time of posting. Took me almost two hours to download through IE's simple download, since any other kind of download manager that'd accept resume would be banned for "too many connections" or whatever that PHP script may be filtering for. I've been using FlashGet for about ten years now, precisely for the resume feature, because anyone would go crazy when their large download would break at 98% due to bad connection. But that's not your problem, since you're not the website manager.

Anyway, what I said above is based on those two dozen or more testing releases for the previous version, when one never knew which is what. And funny thing is, I could download those versions just fine through FlashGet, at the time. Now, I won't even try it again - I got a limited download quota and can't afford download attempts that may fail at any time, without a resume option ("thank you", Microsoft!!!!!).

[billyb]

Just wanted to say that I'm still enjoying playing with the Service Packs on 6 of my old old pcs. So much fun. By the way, SP 3.2 took 12 seconds to download via one of my Win7 64bit IE9 systems on Fios.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I got 3.3 down to 53.9 MB after removing IE6 core files and smart card components.

[Fredledingue]

In Firefox I see no notice, but in SlimBrowser it says my number of downloads has exceeded 6 in 24 hours. So using FlashGet to make sure the package comes integer (due to this bad modem connection - max 10kB/s download at the time of typing this - and large package size) practically kills any chance for me to get anything from the main site.

This mean that your number of downloads or attempts at downloads has exceeded 6 in 24h on the main site.

This is normal except that PhP seems to forget to update the IP login datas after 24h. So I deleted the IP login datas so that you can try again.

This is not wonderful, this is a necessary security step after I'v been hacked.

Otherwise I'd just put a direct link as before.

Took me almost two hours to download through IE's simple download, since any other kind of download manager that'd accept resume would be banned for "too many connections" or whatever that PHP script may be filtering for.

The PhP script is a very difficult one and doesn't react the same way not only on different server, but also on different browser/download managers which theoricaly it shouldn't.

I'v tried dozen versions of this script and this is the only one working on the server.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience. As stated above it was the only way to prevent the bandwidth attack I was victim of few months ago.

I know it sucks not to be able to use a dwonlaod manager, but you don't have to download 98SESP every second day, hopefully.

If I was managing (cuz I'm the website manager) a website where poeple come to regularly download large files I may do it differently. But we are talking about a file that's downloaded only once or twice, for a total of 150 downloads a months.

Not a big deal.

+ There is the second server for which I have no control over, because it's not on my website.

And it has the same inconvenience, probably to avoid the same problem.

buyerninety and Drugwash,

The filesize is not a very good way to check the file version.

The date is more indicative of which file is newer.

But the best way is still to update the file version number (or sub number or sub version letter whatever).

Like 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.2c etc

I got 3.3 down to 53.9 MB after removing IE6 core files and smart card components.

Are you sure it's usefull to trim as much as possible.

What if someone need "smart card components"?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Are you sure it's usefull to trim as much as possible.

What if someone need "smart card components"?

Well', I removed it because its already on the Win98 CD.

D:\Drivers\Scard There no need to add it as an option if everyone already have access to it.

And its the same exact version, so there is no gain in having it.

[Drugwash]

The filesize is not a very good way to check the file version.

The date is more indicative of which file is newer.

But the best way is still to update the file version number (or sub number or sub version letter whatever).

Like 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.2c etc

There's still the possibility that a certain download manager that were able to download the file could alter the file timestamp; FlashGet does that when a download was paused and resumed so any other such app can do that. Exact file size would be a 99% secure pre-download indication, while an MD5 hash would ensure post-download file integrity and also version confirmation.

If it were to use standard MS versioning convention, it should be major.minor.build.revision, where any of the members may range between 0 and 65535.

[jds]

I see you still bundle 'MLANG.DLL' version 6.0.2800.1599. Please avoid this or any other version beyond 6.00.2800.1106 (actually, that's the only 6.X version I know of that is designed to work properly on W98). They are all afflicted by the "Outlook 2000 may not display a complete HTML message" bug, which was first reported for version 6.0.2600.0 here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318256

Joe.

Because anyone who uses the core files shouldn't be using IE.

We had members in the past report problems with this issue.

You can't install Office with out IE. I though the bug only applied to Outlook 2002 is why I added it back.

I probably will remove IE6 core files because IE5 core files are more stable and solid.

It also will shave off approximately 4mb and some change.

If you don't plan on using IE as browser, then IE5 cores is the best solution IMO.

Why not simply bundle the good version 6.00.2800.1106 DLL instead of the bad version 6.0.2800.1599?

Joe.