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. 


Recommended Posts

I could translate in Djibouti too *joke*.

Its not so difficult to translate it's only a bit a effort.

BTW did someone hear about the "can't download 4GB files" bug which I think has to do with IE?

Edited by winxpi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Win95 kernels - probably pointless, as 95's explorer.exe doesn't work correctly with large files anyway.

I looked up some articles on the 2GBcopy problem for Win95 and it is not just limited to Win95 kernel files. Win95's VREDIR.VXD files also have 2GB+ problem as noted in MS article 127852.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/127852/

also Win95's Explorer has a bug that reports 4GB of files as 0 bytes as noted in MS article 158045:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/158045/

so yeah it's better not to even bother patching the kernel32.dll files for Win95.

WinFile has a lot of other internal limits...

yup, one of them is the max. HD space (total and free space) which displays up to 1.99 GB in File Manager; noted in MS article 128794:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/128794/

This bug turns out to be a "cosmetic" bug.

The WinNT4 version of File Manager does not have this problem as it does correctly display the total amount of HD space and free space beyond 1.99Gb. The NT 3.1x, 3.5x versions (and the Win3.x versions) of WinFile do have the problem.

Wincorner's FMView & FMLFNs tools are NOT freeware, they're shareware. at least they're "no nag" shareware as MDGx mentioned FMLFNs on his 98SE2ME readme.txt file.

whoops, I take that back. FMLFNs and FMView are NOT no-nag shareware, MDGx. When I installed FMLFNs and after a month of continuous use, it WILL occasionally popup a message to register FMLFNs.

Edited by erpdude8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys,

The author of these [and other] 9x patches:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/918547.TXT

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=77218

http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=58780

created a new KERNEL32.DLL patch for Win98SE [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.10.2226] + WinME [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.90.3001] which fixes the correct API function, in order to be able to create/copy/rename/move/delete files [no matter which File Manager/Explorer/similar 16-bit or 32-bit tool is used] of 2 GB and larger in size and up to 4 GB.

I have tested this new Kernel patch on my Win98 SE PC, and MAKE2GB testing tool works properly now.

MAKE2GB tool did not work with previous KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225 patch by LLXX.

WHAT?

MAKE2GB worked perfectly fine with patched 4.10.2222 - either they broke SetFilePointer in 2225 or something else is at fault. I have also recieved reports of correct operation from other members here. MDGx please post system configuration and if at all possible, test on a virgin install.

LLXX:

This is the answer from the anonymous author:

On Aug. 9 2006, 11:45 AM, LLXX wrote:

> MAKE2GB worked perfectly fine with patched 4.10.2222 - either they broke

> SetFilePointer in 2225 or something else is at fault. I have also recieved

> reports of correct operation from other members here. MDGx please post

> system configuration and if at all possible, test on a virgin install.

--

As far as I can tell from the binaries, the C++ source code for _llseek

and Set FilePointer has not changed since Win95. There is no binary

difference in the relevant code between 4.10.2222 & 2225 of _llseek &

SetFilePointer.

There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full

explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

_____________________________

P.S.:

I have tested your patched kernel32.dll 4.10.2225 only on my every-day-workhorse [tweaked] 98SE system, with all these updates installed:

- MS IE 6.0 SP1 + all official + unofficial updates

- WMP9, WMP10 Codecs+DRM, 98SE2XP, 98SEMP10 + all official + unofficial updates

- DirectX 9.0c

- 98SE2ME

- 98SE SP2 2.1a

- all other available official + unofficial updates.

MAKE2GB returned the _llseek error message.

When I'll have the time, I'll test again on a "virgin" [from scratch] 98SE system, and will let you know.

HTH

____________________________________________

MDGx, can the anonymous author patch the KERNEL32.DLL file for Win98 FE and update it to version 4.10.2002?
I have "prophesied" your request, and already asked him. ;)

This is the author's answer:

'erdude8' may be luckier this time - it does not take very long to implement the patch. I most likely will do 4.10.2001 --> 2002 when I am less busy.

Probably, I will also make the patched SHELL32.DLL available. Like the WinMe, WinXP, etc. versions, it uses SetFilePointer instead of _llseek and works fine with the unpatched KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225.

HTH Edited by MDGx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks MDGx. what version of SHELL32.DLL file should he patch? the one from MS02-014/313829 (version 4.72.3812.600) for Win9x. or how about the SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3843.3100 (for NT4) from MS04-037/841356? or the SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3841.1100 (for NT4) from MS04-024/839645 even?

I have confirmed that FMLFNS is NOT no-nag shareware (it WILL occasionally popup messages to register FMLFNS after more than 30 days of use at Windows 9xME startup). Anyway, a FULL version of FMLFNS (this one w/out the nag messages) can be ordered here:

http://www.wincorner.com/home/orders.html

Cost only $11 U.S. dollars or 10 European dollars. affordable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

Does not inspire confidence :}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

Does not inspire confidence :}

eh, that is now a dead issue for ME as I'm getting over it.

want more proof that FMLFNS for Win9xME's File Manager app is NOT no-nag shareware?

Look at the FMLFNS.HLP file and in the "Why should I register and what do I get for it" section. quote-

Peace of mind

The unregistered version of FmLfns has almost the full functionality of the registered version. To remind you to register, the caption of all windows contains in addition to their regular title "Unregistered Copy".

A reminder dialog will pop up twice a month asking you to register.

sorry eidenk but FMLFNS isnt free software. gotta pay for it if you continue to use it for more than a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never said it was free. I just said there were ad-ons for Winfile here and there.

And after that, I did not ask for proof of anything with regards to some of those add-ons' status as freeware or not freeware.

You should chill out really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone say they wanted to patch kernel32 from NT4 because i have it. I would need to find somewhere to host it first though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

Does not inspire confidence :}

eh, that is now a dead issue for ME as I'm getting over it.

Well that's not so dead an issue really as there is currently a kernel32 2GB+ patch for Windows ME by anonymous, packaged and distributed by MDGX, that no one really knows what benefit it brings to the Windows ME platform.

Furthermore there is another similar patch by LLXX, which makes the issue even more alive.

I had expected to witness a "battle of the 2GB+ patchers" but it did not happen so I have learned nothing.

I am sure a full explanation would not be too lenghty if it goes concisely to the point.

I understand that, as this patch fixes a bug in 98SE, and as the same faulty code is also present in ME, then it may make some sense to also fix it in ME despite the fact that the bug corrected in 98SE cannot be found in ME. But still I'd like to know where it benefits if only so I could also possibly see where it could do harm eventually.

Anyway I think MDGX has been too fast to distribute that anonymous patch like that.

Is it better than LLXX's for example ?

One thing I am sure about is that the only unnoficial patch I run is the 137GB LLXX patch. It does the job it is meant to do and it does it well.

And anonymous had said that the 137GB LLXX patch was not good because it was not patching enough code if I recall correctly.

Also something I wanted to say is that redistributing those patched files is maybe not very legal, and, as to avoid as much as possible potential problem with MS, should be distributed under the form of patchers rather than hacked files, I tend to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why, but MDGx is the only one here to say that Make2Gb didn't work with my patched 2226 kernel. All others, and confirmed testing on my own (virtual and real) machines show otherwise. Perhaps that is his reason for release the one he thinks to be working?

Also something I wanted to say is that redistributing those patched files is maybe not very legal, and, as to avoid as much as possible potential problem with MS, should be distributed under the form of patchers rather than hacked files, I tend to think.
Much of this site goes against M$ EULA anyway - nLite, some unattended setup files, etc. Also, remember that M$ provides no support for Win9x anymore. If they were to complain about the contents of this site, the projects in these subforums definitely won't be their first target. I'd say http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=23719 is more vulnerable to legal threat.

...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA :rolleyes:

Edited by LLXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA :rolleyes:

That's not very clever really.

I have seen that Mr Loew, who is registered on this forum, has been around the 137GB patch thread recently. I guess he has inspected your patches and has been satisfied that his work has not been simply copied by you, otherwise I guess he would have said something.

So why this tease LLXX ? Can you tell me what is the point of it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would'nt call that a tease Eidenk, just a simple statement that he[Mr Loew] couldn't do it & if he could he would have charged for it, he seems kinda snakey to me anyway. JMHO

LLXX: I used your patch & sucessfully transfered a 4.25gb file from 1 hdd to another & then again to my USB hdd, crc's matched :D

Edited by randiroo76073

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA :rolleyes:

That's not very clever really.

I have seen that Mr Loew, who is registered on this forum, has been around the 137GB patch thread recently. I guess he has inspected your patches and has been satisfied that his work has not been simply copied by you, otherwise I guess he would have said something.

So why this tease LLXX ? Can you tell me what is the point of it ?

Noone is going to pay for his patch when there's a free (and better-performing, too) alternative available. I wouldn't even watn to copy his code, because it simply isn't that great.
LLXX: I used your patch & sucessfully transfered a 4.25gb file from 1 hdd to another & then again to my USB hdd, crc's matched
4.25? The maximum filesize of FAT32 is only 4Gb - 2 bytes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, the file is a Red Hat Fedora DVD iso I dld & Win reports as: 4.25 gb, 4,572,612,608 bytes, 4,572,618,752 bytes used. Win doesn't lie does it :whistle: I use "HashCalc" for my checksum checks. Maybe with all the changes to Win 98se[uSP2, 98se2ME, WUPG, + other little tweaks] , it just wierded out on me :blink::blink:

PS: Maybe 2 + 2 doesn't always = 4 .....? LOL!

Edited by randiroo76073

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...