Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
Eck

98SE WU Ending So How About IE 6 SP1 Updates?

Recommended Posts

Since official Microsoft support is exiting in June, wouldn't it be a good idea to include the necessary updates to Internet Explorer 6 SP1 in the Unofficial Service Pack? I think most folks at this point are installing IE 6 SP1 on their 98SE machines. Without Microsoft Windows Update to get the patches and security updates folks will need to manually download and install these.

I'm not suggesting that the Service Pack include Internet Explorer itself, or even that the post IE 6 SP1 updates be included in the main package. (Well, I guess that would be ideal for me but some folks still want to use an older version.) Perhaps the main package could remain as it is, simply updating the default version of IE 5 that is installed with 98SE, but one of the optional updates offered could be the package of updates for IE 6 SP1.

And, if that is possible, why not some other choices for those who still think IE 5.5 is best for them?

Personally I think just requiring IE 6 SP1 be installed before running the Service Pack and having the main package install the needed updates would be fine, but I guess some wouldn't agree with that. That is why I suggest offering separate optional packages in that same menu where users could just check the version of IE that they have and then the Pack will install what is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think just requiring IE 6 SP1 be installed before running the Service Pack and having the main package install the needed updates would be fine, but I guess some wouldn't agree with that. That is why I suggest offering separate optional packages in that same menu where users could just check the version of IE that they have and then the Pack will install what is needed.

You are right on some poeple not agreeing with a requirement of IE6. I for one would be one of those poeple. I intend to keep IE 5.00 (yes, not 5.5) on my pc's and they will stay that way. I've had bad experiences in the past regarding IE6 while additionally not seeing the real need to even bother with having it. I stick with the base version for personal reasons as well as development reasons. Need older versions to cross-browser test some of my web-projects on for functionality. I avoid using 'w3c standards' as my methods of writing out pages involve compatibility and bandwitch concerns. To convert them to standards means nearly doubling the size of each page. This is where cross-browser version testing comes into play.

So yes, an optional package would be perfect. Perhaps being the same package but as suggested have it as an autodetectable option.

Edited by Chozo4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seconded

an unoffical SP2 for IE6 (and the equivalent for 5.5) 98SE is whats required (imo)

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right on some poeple not agreeing with a requirement of IE6. I for one would be one of those poeple. I intend to keep IE 5.00 (yes, not 5.5) on my pc's and they will stay that way. I've had bad experiences in the past regarding IE6 while additionally not seeing the real need to even bother with having it. I stick with the base version for personal reasons as well as development reasons. Need older versions to cross-browser test some of my web-projects on for functionality. I avoid using 'w3c standards' as my methods of writing out pages involve compatibility and bandwitch concerns. To convert them to standards means nearly doubling the size of each page. This is where cross-browser version testing comes into play.

So yes, an optional package would be perfect. Perhaps being the same package but as suggested have it as an autodetectable option.

IE 5.00 has plenty of bugs that are fixed in IE 5.01 SP2. Best to upgrade to IE 5.01 SP2 if you dont like using IE 5.5 or IE 6. And some web sites like the Excite Email site do NOT work with IE browsers less than IE 5.5.

no more new IE 5.5 SP2 security updates will be made. MS security bulletin MS06-004 notes that support for IE 5.5 SP2 under WinME has ended. The KB905915 update for IE 5.5 SP2 is the last security update. MS will continue to make new security patches for IE 6.0 SP1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think just requiring IE 6 SP1 be installed before running the Service Pack and having the main package install the needed updates would be fine, but I guess some wouldn't agree with that. That is why I suggest offering separate optional packages in that same menu where users could just check the version of IE that they have and then the Pack will install what is needed.

You are right on some poeple not agreeing with a requirement of IE6. I for one would be one of those poeple. I intend to keep IE 5.00 (yes, not 5.5) on my pc's and they will stay that way. I've had bad experiences in the past regarding IE6 while additionally not seeing the real need to even bother with having it. I stick with the base version for personal reasons as well as development reasons. Need older versions to cross-browser test some of my web-projects on for functionality. I avoid using 'w3c standards' as my methods of writing out pages involve compatibility and bandwitch concerns. To convert them to standards means nearly doubling the size of each page. This is where cross-browser version testing comes into play.

So yes, an optional package would be perfect. Perhaps being the same package but as suggested have it as an autodetectable option.

I'd like it to be optional too. On install, I'll be completely removing the IE that comes with win98SE using win98Lite Pro. I might have to install the IE 6 browser, not to use, but to get some other progs working properly, so an optional update for IE6 SP1 would be very welcome. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spock,

Don't misunderstand please. I don't mean an installation of Internet Explorer of any version. Anyone can get that too easily on their own. I just mean that the updates to the various versions of Internet Explorer be available in the Service Pack. So, you would install your favorite Internet Explorer, then in the Service Pack Options you would choose the version you have installed and the appropriate security patch's, bug fixes, and addon's would install during the Service Pack installation.

Perhaps it could be set up so if the user doesn't select any Internet Explorer version then just the standard updates that are already in the Service Pack for the default 98SE IE 5 would install.

I don't understand why you would remove Internet Explorer if you intend to then install it. In fact, I think the Internet Explorer updates might depend on some files from the original version being there. Not sure about this, but I've never experienced a problem installing IE 6 SP1 over what the operating system came with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-as I'm sure many others strongly agree, I also enthusiastically support the idea of both IE 5.5sp2 and 6.0sp1 additional update options in this sp... imo this has been one HUGE weakness of the otherwise awesome sp...

The primary reason/concern for not including such *vital* updates of "well, it'll make the sp too big for dialup users" is really crap, I mean come on, how often has this sp been updated? Dialup users are used to waiting for things to download all the time, so having to wait maybe once per month (per new update) is nothing to them... I strongly disagree that it'll have any impact on the decision to download.

...

I also (strongly) agree that forcing 6.0sp1 would be a VERY bad idea... Every 98se puter that I (grudgingly) occasionally "upgrade" to 6.0sp1 (a total of 6 puters, old and new) behaves VERY badly afterwards, slowing down EVERY SINGLE CLICK in the OS, even when not actively running IE at the time! VERY annoying, along with so many other annoying things I won't elaborate upon (again) here... [and trying to roll back IE6 to IE5.5 has recently totally screwed one of my otherwise stable/fast win98se installations...grr!]... I've never had a single infection on any puters I have, and I'll stick with IE5.5sp2 NO MATTER WHAT until that ever changes... -as a matter of fact, can anybody provide an actual, real-life, RECENT case senario where a 98se+98se2me+FULLY updated IE5.5sp2 (incl Unofficial updates) system HAS been infected, when IE6 would've NOT been? And of course don't include ActiveX/email/cracks/warez etc infections, in most cases only idiots/noobs allow those to happen, not IE5.5sp2's fault at all...

...

[-whatever is chosen, I of course still greatly appreciate the sp...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-as I'm sure many others strongly agree, I also enthusiastically support the idea of both IE 5.5sp2 and 6.0sp1 additional update options in this sp... imo this has been one HUGE weakness of the otherwise awesome sp...

The primary reason/concern for not including such *vital* updates of "well, it'll make the sp too big for dialup users" is really crap, I mean come on, how often has this sp been updated? Dialup users are used to waiting for things to download all the time, so having to wait maybe once per month (per new update) is nothing to them... I strongly disagree that it'll have any impact on the decision to download.

...

I also (strongly) agree that forcing 6.0sp1 would be a VERY bad idea... Every 98se puter that I (grudgingly) occasionally "upgrade" to 6.0sp1 (a total of 6 puters, old and new) behaves VERY badly afterwards, slowing down EVERY SINGLE CLICK in the OS, even when not actively running IE at the time! VERY annoying, along with so many other annoying things I won't elaborate upon (again) here... [and trying to roll back IE6 to IE5.5 has recently totally screwed one of my otherwise stable/fast win98se installations...grr!]... I've never had a single infection on any puters I have, and I'll stick with IE5.5sp2 NO MATTER WHAT until that ever changes... -as a matter of fact, can anybody provide an actual, real-life, RECENT case senario where a 98se+98se2me+FULLY updated IE5.5sp2 (incl Unofficial updates) system HAS been infected, when IE6 would've NOT been? And of course don't include ActiveX/email/cracks/warez etc infections, in most cases only idiots/noobs allow those to happen, not IE5.5sp2's fault at all...

...

[-whatever is chosen, I of course still greatly appreciate the sp...]

Yup, you hit it right on the nose, PsycoUnc. I like to see IE 5.5 SP2 or IE 6.0 SP1 included in the 98se SP as install options.

The IE 5 version Chozo4 is keeping is SO FLAWED that I have experienced bugs/crashes with it on a Win98 SE computer. And has NO "Print Preview" feature which is even more appalling. The long overdue Print Preview option (which was first included in many non-IE browsers like Netscape) was added into IE 5.5 & higher browsers and saved me lots of computer paper [hey, I sometimes like to Print out certain web pages in IE but I surely want to know how many pages it will take to Print a web page]. That's why I use IE 5.5 SP2 on slow win98se machines. and if a win98se computer cant quite handle ie 5.5 sp2, I'll put on there IE 5.01 SP2. the embedded IE 5 (v5.00.2614.3500) from Win98se is no longer fit for today's world and there are some web sites out there that refuse to work with older versions of IE.

about the comment PsycoUnc made about dialup users used to waiting for downloads, those users better find and use a third party download manager or download accelerator to download and resume/continue incomplete downloads. Download managers/acclerators are a major help to dialup users who want to download part of a very large file, stop and then continue downloading the rest of the file at a later time.

DONT download a large file without a download manager!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, folks I just mean't the updates to the various versions, not the whole installation packages.

My experience with using IE6 SP1 on an old, slow SiS5598 board with an AMD K6-2/366 processor was fine. It didn't like Firefox at all, but surfed pretty smoothly with IE6 SP1. Windows Explorer was not adversly effected by IE 6 SP1 either.

I do like the idea of keeping the size of the Service Pack small. And this would still be possible with just including the updates, fixes, and such.

If the full Internet Explorer installations were included, I certainly would not be happy unless this was optional. I install several things between Internet Explorer and the Service Pack, and some of these would not get the proper updates if they were not present when the Service Pack installs.

So, I'd rather not have the Service Pack include Internet Explorer. I would like it to include the necessary updates and fixes to the various IE versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-yes, of course, just the updates, not the whole giant install package(s)... I agree.

...

-and it's probably primarily just my luck (curse), that every puter, old+new, that I've worked on has hated IE6... or perhaps it's just my intense lack of patience... a tiny delay for every click, both inside & outside of IE, is probably nothing big for most people, but I hate it, it just gets on my nerves, as does the other many annoyances of IE6...

>;]

ps: and you're of course absolutely right, a download manager is VITAL for dial-up, I occasionally still use Net Transport (free) for slow downloads, even with my 5mbps comcast cable modem... very helpful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree in including an optional update of IE6SP1, and other IE browser versions. Once Microsoft goes away, we need one utlity (such as the Windows 98 SE unofficial service pack) to easily update all components. I would also add one additional item: An optional update to Direct X 9.0C. If I am correct, 9.0 D is not compatible with Win98SE, so this will require us to access the 9.0C update through the online update service. With this offered as an option, the picture would be complete, and we would not need to access the very suspicous online update. My goal in presenting this suggestion is to be completely free and clear from the Microsoft update process.

I would welcome your feedback!

Best Regards!!

davidj_1962

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since official Microsoft support is exiting in June, wouldn't it be a good idea to include the necessary updates to Internet Explorer 6 SP1 in the Unofficial Service Pack? I think most folks at this point are installing IE 6 SP1 on their 98SE machines. Without Microsoft Windows Update to get the patches and security updates folks will need to manually download and install these.

I'm not suggesting that the Service Pack include Internet Explorer itself, or even that the post IE 6 SP1 updates be included in the main package. (Well, I guess that would be ideal for me but some folks still want to use an older version.) Perhaps the main package could remain as it is, simply updating the default version of IE 5 that is installed with 98SE, but one of the optional updates offered could be the package of updates for IE 6 SP1.

And, if that is possible, why not some other choices for those who still think IE 5.5 is best for them?

Personally I think just requiring IE 6 SP1 be installed before running the Service Pack and having the main package install the needed updates would be fine, but I guess some wouldn't agree with that. That is why I suggest offering separate optional packages in that same menu where users could just check the version of IE that they have and then the Pack will install what is needed.

I have a few points I think need to be clarified even before the "bold step" you suggest:

1) Can someone please explain the EXACT process by which "all" of the updates are meant to be applied? By this, I mean pretend that we are back in time, waiting for each and every update to come out, and are johnny-on-the-spot in a timely install of all of the relevant updates. This would go a long way to explain just what "all" of the updates actually means, since apparently a lot of us don't quite understand exactly what this even means. And what this does NOT mean is the paltry subset of them that Windows Update actually released, since it missed many of them!

2) A related matter: Can someone explain in plain language what is going on with regard to various forms of "rollups" which were brought out apparently for the purpose of certain categories of specific catch-up. Apparently there are some registry considerations to allow/disallow certain aspects of these things. It's terribly confusing, and again, clarity is needed so we even know what we are attempting to decide about!

3) With respect to 2) above and perhaps other reasons: Where in this overall picture does the IE6WZD [from the IEAK allegedly] fit in? Is this to fix a bug, or only to repair an avoidable bug most of us would never get stuck with in the first place?

4) A loose end or two such as: If you install 258191, the Sens.dll file can get updated past a value more associated with IE 5.0 to at least 5.50.4807.2300, presumably by installing IE 5.5 or newer. Where does this specific file fit in?

There is an ongoing discussion about shell hang failures associated with copying either a lot of files or large files or some combination. I believe also the speed of the CPU is a possible factor. It has been suggested that this can somewhat be alleviated [but apparently not completely!] by obtaining BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL which apparently have been updated by various IE-related releases [possibly even from XP]. What would the interaction be here? [should these "little" issues be resolved before or during or after contemplating an IE-oriented major update to an installed version.]

Speaking purely to the logistics of adding any of this to the SP:

Right now, the SP includes a few updates to take the originally-imbedded IE 5.0 to as far as that can be taken and still be a descendant of IE 5.0 [as opposed to IE 5.01 or any newer].

Some people have taken exception to the inclusion of these IE 6.0 SP1 [or another version newer than 5.0] because of the attendant increase in size of the SP.

Done properly, the SP can become SMALLER than it currently is!

1) Remove the built-in support for upgrading IE 5.0. This saves a small amount of space in the release of the SP.

2) Make available by separate download an IE-specific .CAB or other archive file. It should contain the relevant update files for whichever IE version is currently installed. By clever arrangement, it could be compartmentalized into a universal update for all known IE versions including betas if desired from 5.0 through 6.0 SP1. Standard subsets would be popular and available for 1) IE 5.0 to maintain compatibility and essentially make the overall release size-neutral, just the need to obtain two files where the IE file would likely hardly ever change even as the SP itself changes, 2) IE 5.5, 3) IE 6.0 SP1; I suggest these merely because they are the obvious most likely requested versions. Gluttons for punishment can download the does-em-all version for their CD/DVD collection!

3) Should the newly designed SP notice the availability of this IE update cab, AND its innards match the currently installed version on 98SE, then add in a check-box [defaulted to off for all versions past 5.0; 5.0 can be defaulted to on to maintain total compatibility with the current version] to allow updating the currently installed IE. The script/coding to support this is clearly far smaller than the current files supporting the upgrade of IE 5.0 currently.

Thus, the notion that this whole matter enlarges the SP can be totally dismissed. No one is asking anyone to download anything they don't want to use.

An installation logistic some people need to hear:

Unlike the 9x-specific updates [which is most of them, but not quite all of them!], the IExpress-type updates that the IE updates come in do NOT universally install without rebooting first. Yes, you can suppress the error messages, but not their results. Many of these updates do not need to reboot despite the suggestion, and as such, the switches to suppress do serve well. But it has been observed that certain combinations will exhibit error messages and not install without an intervening reboot. Using the quieting switches doesn't change anything, just suppresses the error message, not the negative results.

The SP mechanism has no relevance to this, since instead it gets around the entire problem by just doing all of the relevant registry patches and mass file upgrades all at once.

There are many sore points even in the 98SE proper updates that refuse to install at all based on order-of-install conflicts with other updates, traceable to bugs in the installer; yes, they SHOULD install, but in fact they do not!

For example, Update 249973 will NOT install at all should certain files be provided at the time of the installation attempt because of a prior installation of, say IE 6.0 SP1 [and others]. The installer is grossly broken and only works if few updates are already there at the time. [No, I do not have an exact analysis of just what ticks it off! Suffice to say, install IE 6.0 SP1 and then try to do 249973 and that WILL fail!]. But the SP just correctly installs the files taken from the original 249973, unless existing files are newer. Thus, the SP solves the interaction problem. Other updates I am specifically aware of that exhibit this behavior in certain analogous circumstances are 249863 and 823559. I do not have a current record of IE-specific interactions; however, I have observed the negative interactions between some of them.

A specific logistical detail:

When you install any version of IE into 98SE, the internal help/about indicates the installed version. Should you install update 313829 to enhance shell security, this is indicated as an additional update in this same area. Subsequently, installing IE updates adds additional update entries to this area.

Thus, the desired order is to first install the IE version of choice, then you have to install 313829. However, that is redundant to the SP! Thus, you have to install the SP and then the rest of the IE updates. It would really be convenient if the SP itself could finish that up and install all of the IE updates after first installing 313829, etc.

Lastly, a minor sore point: Update 240308 is NOT meant for IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1. Perhaps earlier versions as well, I'm not sure just how far back it should be avoided. It IS for IE 5.0, but clearly must be avoided past some IE release. The SP has to be clear what to do/not to do with this update. [Curiously, the hotfix version is ignorant of this and ALWAYS installs into any version! The SP can do better.]

Since others are patterning 98FE and ME SP packages after 98SE SP, it would be a really good thing if this was nailed down, so then it would become a universal modular component for any and all related 9.x efforts. The only differences have to do with the starting points of IE 4.01 for 98FE and IE 5.5 for Me.

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see there's finally a discussion about this long-needed SP feature!

A few observations over the years:

1) IE 6.0 and 6.0 SP1 are very broken and do damage to 98SE. Despite the few times I have tried the browselc and browseui fixes, I don't see any improvement in using explorer for file maintainence; I almost always am expecting it to hang any second!

That said, however, I find myself stuck because an ever growing number of such as on-line malware scans are requiring ever-newer IE versions. Some already require IE 6.0, so even IE 5.5 is out!

Thus, we need to keep all of our options open; no version is obsolete to somebody! [Well, what about all of the betas and SPx-related local updates? Anyone have a beef against 55 specifically SP1 for example?]

I am also a big supporter of Shane Brooks' 98lite [not win98lite!] which also has great interaction with this entire process.

Please note that the '95 shell is totally immune to the hanging problem and is amazingly snappy! No problems with any version, including 6.0 SP1 and 38 updates, etc.

However, there are problems with the MICRO/SLEEK shell support in terms of an ever-growing number of apps that cannot run on the 95 shell.

Until recently, I have been patching just about all of the problem cases using the standard innards methodology of 98lite Sleek itself: Patch the relevant file to use SHELL32.W98 instead of SHELL32.DLL. This fixes the installation of IE 6.0 and IE 6.0 SP1 loadwc.exe file, and a few files that 98lite forgets to patch, especially in the Me-specific installation of Sleek.

The list has grown to include every Adobe 6.0x release from 6.00 to 6.04 [you need to patch ACRORD32.EXE] and a bunch of other apps, including the latest AIM 5.9 release.

However, there is a major problem with an ever growing list of unfixables: SpySweeper, and NAV past 2002. These programs either cannot allow a patch during their install, or in the case of NAV either the shell can't support it, or the app complains it's been plundered, etc. I cannot get powerarchiver past version 8.80 to work in Sleek at all.

Thus, I see the handwriting on the wall -- no more sleek unless you have a really spartan system, such as my bootable LS-120 98lite 98SE micro.

Regardless, it's quite a problem to install IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 on 98lite/98SE, but I have a foolproof, albeit weird way to do it reliably.

1) Install 98lite over the 98SE files as documented; choose Sleek [don't care your ULTIMATE choice; chose Sleek NOW!].

2) Finish up any and all initial install issues, drivers, etc.

3) If you allowed IE to be installed [5.0] remove it now [98lite makes IE an uninstallable option!] and also Windows Update which requires IE be installed; better you opted for neither initially.

4) You need my patched LOADWC.EXE file from the IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 installation handy. Install IE as you normally would. However, at the end of the install, do NOT yet finish the install to reboot.

5) Now replace the \windows\system\loadwc.exe file with the patched one. [Note: Shane Brooks is working on a mechanism to automate what I describe here, but it's not in the latest release yet; he and I worked out this procedure as an interim solution.]

6) Now allow the reboot. Once it comes up again, you will see this amazing display of resetiing personal settings and menus and menu items; on some systems this takes as much as 15 seconds.

At this point, Sleek will correctly run IE 6.0 or IE 6.0 SP1 that you just installed; well, as long as you do not install any of the updates!

At this point, it is necessary to PERMANENTLY decide what shell you want to use, thus either do nothing or do a shellswap to CHUBBY. [Note: OVERWEIGHT is just showing what you lose giving up 98lite entirely, so why bother!] Fix up any cosmetics you want associated with this near-normal to 98SE system if CHUBBY or spartan speedy system if Sleek.

Now, go back and reinstall the same IE 6.0 or 6.0 SP1 you just did. Thus time, however, always use the method of "custom" instead of "typical". Reinstall everything you did the first time around. Yes, this seems like a total waste of time!

If you did this correctly, the IE installer will recommend you exit the install. Don't do this! Instead, choose "reinstall all components" and let that happen. [Note: If you do not get this option, repeatedly install IE until you do! I have seen ME systems require as many as FOUR installations to get the message to pop up!]

At this point, the only problem may be that the "E" icon is damaged on the desktop. I have a small registry patch to repair the property-sheet of the icon, and you can use tweakui to rebuild the icons after selecting "Internet Explorer" as opposed to "The Internet" or other brain-damaged desktop icons tweakui offers up, etc. [Or you can choose to take it off the desktop from within Internet Tools and Options.] Sleek does not have this problem, just Chubby.

Now you can install any and all of the IE/OE updates as in regular 98SE or 98 or ME.

Failure to heed all of the above seemingly wacky/waste-of-time stuff will guarantee that the updates WILL corrupt IE/OE and portions will actually fail to run at all, especially Outlook Express! But doing it will allow all to run fine!

Installing IE to our preference is our business. Updating the version we have is the business of the SP. By providing a separate cab file for IE updates that pertains, the SP can do everything anyone needs in this regard, and also make all download bloat considerations become moot.

Also, the consideration that you might only load the SP once a month doesn't even apply! For the most part, IE updates are never more to happen, especially in older versions. At this point, IE updates should be considered virtually static and as such deserve to be in a separate cab file. Clearly the rate of change of any IE cab file should be less frequent than an SP release at this point.

Personally, I am in favor of adding in all things MS as options, and that includes WMP versions, MDAC/XML and DirectX or even OFFICE updates. Added on as modules, the only overhead is the effort for Gape to do it, and the incidental size of the script files to create the mechanism [and I believe this would be compressed text size change!].

And what of updates for the SP that depend on optional installs? Some are for Plus!, some for UPnP from XP install disks, updates if WebTV is installed, some if WBEM or perhaps WMI are installed, etc.

btw, there is a subtle reg patch for 98SE if you remove IE 5.0 and then install 6.0 or 6.0 SP1: There is a bit in the registry to tell 98lite Windows Setup that IE 5 currently is installed. By faking it being there instead of 6 over <no prior install>, Windows Update can become an add/remove option even in the circumstance I documented.

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a nice idea if we could integrate Internet Explorer 6 into a core Windows 98SE CD. I have looked around for more information about modifying Windows 98 Setup Source.

I found the following:

1. Ultimate Windows 98SE BootCD project:

This is more like a wrapper around the Setup. Internet Explorer 6 is called at the very end of installation.

2. 98Lite

98Lite allows you to install Windows 98 without Internet Explorer.

98Lite does things a bit different: It actually creates customized Windows 98 Components on installation. In order to do such thing altering Windows Setup Infs is necessary.

I looked up the various Internet Explorer 6 SP1 cab files. Basicly every CAB file contains an INF on how to install these components, so converting them to actually Windows 98 Setup Components is possible in my opinion.

However in order to do so I would first try with some basic Components, like example a TweakUI add-on. We can turn this project into something like RyanVM's update Project for Windows XP.

Create custom components that can get installed during Windows 98 installation :)

Edited by hp38guser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...