Jump to content

98 SE SP 3.32

Gape

By Gape
in Pinned Topics regarding 9x/ME

 Share

Recommended Posts

rloew

rloew

Posted
Posted

KernelEx alters the nature of Windows 98 in ways that can cause problems with Software not written to expect it, or cause developed Software to work that will then fail on non-KernelEx Systems.

I agree. Maybe if KernelEx comes more stable in the future, I'll consider it. ATM is not going to happen.

It seems to me, guys, your posts are extremely unfair with KernelEx and give a completely wrong impression of its compatibility with programs running on stock 98 systems and stability. :yes:

KernelEx is rock solid and there are currently no known pending issues with it and programs also running on stock systems. :yes:

I personally did not comment on it's stability.

The Package has been stable because development has stopped. There are many things missing or only stubbed. The latest versions of SumatraPDF cannot print because KernelEX stubs PrintDlgEx. Some MSFN members worked out a workaround, and I have a DLLHOOK based fix in my KEXEX Package, but it belongs within KernelEx.

The fact that it is sometimes necessary to disable KernelEx for individual Programs is a sign of the issues I pointed out. If a Program is not listed in a compatability database, the user has to debug his setup by trying different combinations. This can be particularly diffcult if the Package has multiple Executables especially if they are not well documented. In addition, if KernelEx cannot completely hide it's existence when disabled, then a Program that runs on a Stock system will not function properly. My original DLLHOOK Program and Packages based on it such as my 64-Bit File Emulator were incompatable with KernelEx regardless of setting. I had to redesign DLLHOOK to work with and without KernelEx.

The second part of my comment relates to the subtle and often undocumented changes to Functions that can cause a Program developed on a KernelEx based Computer to not work on a Stock system, even if no new Functions are Called. I have been working on a Project, I call WDMEX, which is a superset of WDMSTUB. I am currently attempting to load the generic USB 3 Stack Drivers for Windows XP that appear to be in common use. I already found a case where a Driver calls a Function that exists in both Windows 98 and XP, but they are not the same even though the documentation is the same. The XP version zeroes out a returned buffer while Windows 98 does not. Clearly the Programmer who wrote the Driver assumed that the buffer was zeroed and of course it worked in XP, but it crashes in Windows 98.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

Posted
Posted

It seems to me, guys, your posts are extremely unfair with KernelEx and give a completely wrong impression of its compatibility with programs running on stock 98 systems and stability. :yes:

KernelEx is rock solid and there are currently no known pending issues with it and programs also running on stock systems. :yes:

Quite agree. I've been using KernelEx for ages, and never had a moment's problem with it.

It enables me to run Opera and Java 6 and Flash 10.

Whether its files should be included in a future version of the service pack is debatable.

I would say not.

I certainly would have no problem with KernelEx being included as an optional extra install though.

:)

I wasn't saying KernelEx wasn't good. What I was saying at the same time it allows certain apps to run

it also breaks some at the sametime. KEX is great for you, but it doesn't suit my needs. No offense intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave-H

Dave-H

Posted
Posted

I wasn't saying KernelEx wasn't good. What I was saying at the same time it allows certain apps to run

it also breaks some at the same time. KEX is great for you, but it doesn't suit my needs. No offense intended.

None taken PROBLEMCHYLD.

I think KEx is a worthwhile tool if you want to keep some things working on 98, as long as you're aware of its limitations.

Whether it should be included in the pack is completely up to you.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

Posted
Posted (edited)

These files have been tested. If you guys know of any newer files please list them.

I will be releasing an update sometime this week hopefully.

ASYCFILT.DLL 2.40.4534.0 Windows 2000 SP4
COMCAT.DLL 5.0.2600.1 Office 2003
CSCRIPT.EXE 5.7.0.16535 Windows XP SP3
DISPEX.DLL 5.7.0.16599 Windows XP SP3
HTML32.CNV 2003.1100.8165.0 Office XP
IMAGEHLP.DLL 5.1.2430.1 Windows XP Pre-Release
MSCONV97.DLL 2003.1100.8202.0 Office XP
MSWRD632.WPC 2004.10.25.0 Windows XP SP1
MSWRD832.CNV 2003.1100.8313.0 Office XP
OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4522 Windows 2000 SP4
RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1231 Windows XP SP3
SETUPAPI.DLL 5.0.2183.1 Windows 2000 SP4
SYSMON.EXE 4.10.0.1999
T2EMBED.DLL 5.0.2195.7349 Windows 2000 SP4
USBDSC1.SYS 4.10.0.1998 Casio USB Driver
USBDSC2.VXD 4.0.0.950 Casio USB Driver
VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.7.0.5730 Windows XP SP2
WRITE32.WPC 2004.11.7.0 Windows 2000 SP4
WSCRIPT.EXE 5.7.0.16535 Windows XP SP3
WSHCON.DLL 5.7.0.16599 Windows XP SP3

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jds

jds

Posted
Posted
They would not only have to be OPTIONAL but they would have to be identified as "For KernelEx Systems only".

Of course, at that point, you might as well include KernelEx as another OPTION.

Seems to me that if you go down that road, and I would like to see that, that KernelEx and ALL the files that are "For KernelEx Systems only" should be ONE single option. That way the folks that want a more "pure" solution can have that, and the folks that want a more expanded solution could have that with a group of files that have been tested to all work together correctly with the basic 98 SE SP 3.x files. Any more fine tuning of which files to include and which to leave out puts too much of a burden and workload on PROBLEMCHYLD. A single all or nothing kind of option only. For anything else the user can choose not to select the option and then add in the individual files that they want.

Cheers and Regards

Just my 2c worth ...

I think that instead of having a KEX option in the SP, there should just be the standard SP (say SP3.1) and a KEX update (say SP3.1KEX). This will minimize bloat and hopefully make the workload easier. The KEX update SP would provide all the newest DLL's that need KEX to run, and have the standard SP (of the same series, eg 3.1) as a prerequisite (to avoid duplication/bloat).

Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhaytalError

PhaytalError

Posted
Posted (edited)

SP 3.1 breaks the Start Menu with a fresh win98 SE install on actual hardware when installed via 98lite... the start button is there but when clicked it it just remains depressed with no actual menu.

That systems specs are: 700Mhz Slot-1 Pentium III "Coppermine", ASUS P3B-F Motherboard, 256MB RAM, Diamond Stealth 64 4MB VRAM PCI, SB16 SCSI + NEC XR385 [DB60XG clone], 13GB Hard Drive, 3.5" Floppy Drive, Internal 100MB ZIP Drive.

The real question is which component of the Service Pack breaks it? If I remember correctly I don't *think* SP 2.1a broke it, but it may have as well I don't remember not installed it in along time. :blink:

Thanks in advance for any and all help in this. :)

P.S. I know that SP 3.1 breaks completely with the 98micro setting; EXPLORER.EXE crashes upon Windows startup, I'll do some more testings and see what's going on with the no start menu when using 98lite [sleek setting].

Edited by PhaytalError
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

Posted
Posted (edited)

SP 3.1 breaks the Start Menu with a fresh win98 SE install on actual hardware when installed via 98lite... the start button is there but when clicked it it just remains depressed with no actual menu.

That systems specs are: 700Mhz Slot-1 Pentium III "Coppermine", ASUS P3B-F Motherboard, 256MB RAM, Diamond Stealth 64 4MB VRAM PCI, SB16 SCSI + NEC XR385 [DB60XG clone], 13GB Hard Drive, 3.5" Floppy Drive, Internal 100MB ZIP Drive.

The real question is which component of the Service Pack breaks it? If I remember correctly I don't *think* SP 2.1a broke it, but it may have as well I don't remember not installed it in along time. :blink:

Thanks in advance for any and all help in this. :)

P.S. I know that SP 3.1 breaks completely with the 98micro setting; EXPLORER.EXE crashes upon Windows startup, I'll do some more testings and see what's going on with the no start menu when using 98lite [sleek setting].

I don't use the sleek version of 98lite. So I would assume SP 3.x versions doesn't support this option.

I'll make note of this. Thanks for testing. I might be able to fix this. I'll give it a shot.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
buyerninety

buyerninety

Posted
Posted (edited)

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]

Edited by buyerninety
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

Posted
Posted (edited)

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?

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

Posted
Posted (edited)

Maybe he wants something like this? :whistle:

This person isn't complaining about SP messing up his/her system, but complaining about me not adding the exact file

size. Some people have way toooo much time on their hands. I've tried my best to ignore it. You got to admit though, this

$h!+ is funny :w00t: . I'm sorry, but it is. Please don't encourage my negative behavior :thumbup

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

Posted
Posted (edited)

Were we flooded with demands of exact file size in bytes for each new version, I could do a small PhP script to display it,... but I don't have too much time at the moment for the pleasure of one unique person.

Poeple will have to content with an aproximative "58 Mb" for all versions unless the size change dramaticaly.

(I'll rather be more absent because the summer is the hot job season for me so be aware) ;)

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...