PROBLEMCHYLD Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Anonymous author of various 98/ME fixes [u891711, Q918547, SHELL98 ETC] sent his thoughts about the 98/98SE Explorer/OS lockups when deleting large files/folders using IE 6.0 SP1 browse*.dll files:I don't know about patching USER.EXE. I suspect something gets screwed upwhen USER.EXE repaints the window with the deleted files and runs out ofresources. It then stays "corrupted" until EXPLORER.EXE terminates(logging off also works, but causes a permanent resource leak). So, I amafraid don't know yet what to patch. I noticed another interesting featurewhen EXPLORER.EXE uses the IE5.5 versions of BROWSExx.DLL and you may wantto post this on MSFN. Deleting files is much, much faster than with theIE6SP1 files. There are problems when using two versions of BROWSExx.DLLside by side, so it is not a good solution.HTHI told you guys it eats up resourcesfixed that and the problems go away
MDGx Posted November 7, 2006 Author Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) UPDATED 11-7-2006* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE Explorer Lockups SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.620 Fix:http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84451Direct download [475 KB, English]:http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXEBUG: This SHELL32.DLL fix breaks the ability of removing annoying arrows from Desktop shortcut icons!FIX: See "PATCHED SHELL32.DLL BUG + FIX" in TIPS98.TXT (included) for complete details:http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#PSBFThis SHELL32.DLL Fix corrects Windows Explorer and similar tools lockups while trying to copy/create/move/delete/rename large files/folders, even if Internet Explorer 5.xx/6.xx already installed.Please see 1st post for details:http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84451 Edited January 9, 2007 by MDGx
Acheron Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 UPDATED 11-7-2006* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE Explorer Lockups SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.620 Fix:http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84451Direct download [475 KB, English]:http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXEBUG: This SHELL32.DLL fix breaks the ability of removing annoying arrows from Desktop shortcut icons!FIX: See "PATCHED SHELL32.DLL BUG + FIX" in TIPS98.TXT (included) for complete details:http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#PSBFThis SHELL32.DLL Fix corrects Windows Explorer and similar tools lockups while trying to copy/create/move/delete/rename large files/folders, even if Internet Explorer 5.xx/6.xx already installed.Please see 1st post for details:http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84451Thanks for this update!However aren't there still some open security holes in the Windows Shell? Will these get patched also sometime?
eidenk Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Author's comments...May I use this opportunity to address a common misconception about GDI andUSER resources in Win9x/ME: The OS and all applications, whether they are16-bit or 32-bit versions, share the same GDI and USER resources. Theseresources are managed by GDI.EXE and USER.EXE, respectively. One of thetwo data segments of GDI.EXE is for GDI resources and one of the two datasegments of USER.EXE (plus two extra heaps) is for USER resources. GDI andUSER objects (in these data segments) are accessed through *16-bit-wide*handles. 32-bit applications (and DLLs) just use zero-extended 32-bitversions of the same handles. The data segments I am referring to are32-bit segments with an *initial* size of approx. 2.1 MiByte each. The16-bit resources are just the lowest 65536 bytes each in these two 32-bitdata segments. 16-bit-wide handles and the 16-bit resource limit cause thereal bottle neck in resources of Win9x. Increasing the default size of thetwo 32-bit data segments (which would be possible using hidden systemsettings for them) makes very, very little, if any difference.Unless it has just been updated, I had missed that so far.So, any more information please ? You say the size of the 32bits segments could be enlarged simply by modifying hidden system settings. Which ones and where please ?
Eck Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 MDGx,I've noticed that somehow 98SE2ME always leaves me without the stupid arrows on the desktop shortcuts.I've been running Gape's Unofficial pack, the new Multipatcher, then your 98SE2ME, 98SE2XP, and the MP10 to 98SE thing.So, if I then run this new Shell32.dll fix will I again lose the tweakUI ability to toggle the shortcut arrows on and off?Will this patch be included in one of your packs? Do you accomplish this magic in 98SE2ME with the file already hex edited?Which method would you choose if all those packs had already been installed and you didn't want to run them all again just to fix this? I'd rather not reapply 98SE2ME, etc just to get small changes. I usually try to apply your future changes manually if it looks easy enough. I prefer not to run huge packs on an already setup system.And, I use WinZip and WinRAR so I'm wondering whether those would accomplish things you call for stuff like PowerArchiver to achieve.
the_guy Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 Can the installer please be modified to work on 95, but with the active desktop update installed?the_guy
noguru Posted November 7, 2006 Posted November 7, 2006 (edited) Very nice Thanks for posting this. I used the IE 5.5 browsxxx files trick before because this error troubled me a lot!. I reregistered the the default IE6.0 ones before applying this fix. Unfortunately I could not reproduce the "file-delete" error anymore with 300+ jpg's to see if this fix really works but I know that if it does not the error will come up sooner or later again. So we will see but for now it looks very good, explorer windows including the recyclebin are opening much faster now. That's already a big improvement. I copied 500+ jpg's and deleted them tru recyclebin very smooth.I removed the shortcut-overlay a long time ago with Xtec-Xsetup and it still works with exception from shortcut's to MS-DOS programs.This is the most annoying bug in Win98se if you ask me. Lets hope that this is ended now. Cheers to the author !edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might. Edited November 7, 2006 by noguru
MDGx Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) However aren't there still some open security holes in the Windows Shell? Will these get patched also sometime?I'm sure there are, but M$ discontinued support for 9x/ME OSes, so to port other OSes fixes to 9x shell32.dll it's probably not as easy as it seems.Besides, some of the NTx [NT4/2000/XP/2003] OSes shell32.dll fixes are strictly NTx specific, do not apply to 9x [95/98/ME] OSes.The anonymous author agreed to fix this bug only because I mentioned it to him [and obviously he is a very nice person], and he has also read about our unsuccessful tests/workarounds/etc, here at MSFN.Please do not forget that this is only 1 person [not an entire team of software engineers] who does this in his own spare time [which from what I understand is very limited].But I'll mention this to him nonetheless.HTH_____________________________________________Author's comments...May I use this opportunity to address a common misconception about GDI andUSER resources in Win9x/ME..............Unless it has just been updated, I had missed that so far.So, any more information please ? You say the size of the 32bits segments could be enlarged simply by modifying hidden system settings. Which ones and where please ?I'll mention your questions to the anonymous author.The GDI*.* fixes have not been updated recently.Last update was 8-9-2006, when Win98SE GDI*.* files were updated to version 4.10.2227 .To view this update, please go to:http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581and scroll down to:NEW 8-9-2006HTH_____________________________________________MDGx,I've noticed that somehow 98SE2ME always leaves me without the stupid arrows on the desktop shortcuts.I've been running Gape's Unofficial pack, the new Multipatcher, then your 98SE2ME, 98SE2XP, and the MP10 to 98SE thing.So, if I then run this new Shell32.dll fix will I again lose the tweakUI ability to toggle the shortcut arrows on and off?Will this patch be included in one of your packs? Do you accomplish this magic in 98SE2ME with the file already hex edited?Which method would you choose if all those packs had already been installed and you didn't want to run them all again just to fix this? I'd rather not reapply 98SE2ME, etc just to get small changes. I usually try to apply your future changes manually if it looks easy enough. I prefer not to run huge packs on an already setup system.And, I use WinZip and WinRAR so I'm wondering whether those would accomplish things you call for stuff like PowerArchiver to achieve.98SE2ME does this by modifying the registry, not the file.Quote from READ1ST.TXT:http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT* ALL system files + settings listed below install independent of selectedoption(s) and BEFORE creating any backups = everybody should have them even ifyou decide not to install any options.They all install right after you press Y at 98SE2ME.PIF 1st screen:- patched Registry entry: properly remove Desktop Icons Overlay [superimposedsmall arrows]when using TweakUI [Explorer tab -> Shortcut overlay -> None orCustom] or similar tweaking tools:http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#SYSafter installing any of these Win98 SE patches:- Unofficial 2-4 GB Files Errors SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.610 Fix:http://support.microsoft.com/?id=318293Direct download [473 KB]:http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE- Official SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.600 Security Vulnerability Fix:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms02-014.mspxDirect download [834 KB]:http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-US/q313829.exe-----Begin cut & paste here-----REGEDIT4; Removes Desktop Icons Overlay [then press F5 to refresh Desktop settings]:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]@=""; Restores Desktop Icons Overlay [replace C:\\WINDOWS to match your Win98 SE; drive letter + directory name if different]:[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\SHELL32.DLL"------End cut & paste here------How to restore original Registry value [this will display Desktop IconsOverlay for ALL shortcuts]: run this command [%windir% = usually C:\WINDOWS]:RUNDLL32 %windir%\SYSTEM\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection C:\9!M\BSRESTOR.INF,IOThen press F5 to refresh the Desktop settings.Restore NOT necessary because original Registry value BUGgy.More info [see 3rd FIX]:http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#PSBFHTH_____________________________________________edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might.As I've said before, it is not recommended to patch older files, which do not contain newer fixes, because system file patches are [and should be] cumulative. Patching older files with just 1 fix and ignoring all others defeats the purpose of having a fully-patched OS.But if you want the older file patched only for experimenting on your computer(s), that's an entirely different matter.I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.HTH_____________________________________________Can the installer please be modified to work on 95, but with the active desktop update installed?the_guyDid you or some1 else test this patch on Win95 with Active Desktop?Does it work?If it does, I'll modify the installer to make it work on Win95.HTH Edited November 8, 2006 by MDGx
noguru Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might.As I've said before, it is not recommended to patch older files, which do not contain newer fixes, because system file patches are [and should be] cumulative. Patching older files with just 1 fix and ignoring all others defeats the purpose of having a fully-patched OS.But if you want the older file patched only for experimenting on your computer(s), that's an entirely different matter.I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.HTHWith original file I mean the shell32.dll that's already on the system. This fix replaces the shell.dll file with a, in my case, different language version. Is it possible to fix the existing shell32.dll instead of replacing it?
MDGx Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 With original file I mean the shell32.dll that's already on the system. This fix replaces the shell.dll file with a, in my case, different language version. Is it possible to fix the existing shell32.dll instead of replacing it?Which different language?The only language file that was fixed previousy [the unofficial copy files/folders 2-4 GB bug = SHELL98.EXE] is English (United States) = en-us.The anonymous author patched that shell32.dll 4.72.3812.610 [from SHELL98.EXE] to new version 4.72.3812.620 .So now SHELL98.EXE contains the new version:* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE Explorer Lockups SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.620 Fix:http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=84451Direct download [475 KB, English]:http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXEHTH
erpdude8 Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 how about patching the WINME SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 file? the "delete large files" bug also occurs under WinME + IE6.x
MDGx Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 how about patching the WINME SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 file? the "delete large files" bug also occurs under WinME + IE6.xI'll mention your request to the anonymous author.
erpdude8 Posted November 8, 2006 Posted November 8, 2006 Did you or some1 else test this patch on Win95 with Active Desktop?Does it work?If it does, I'll modify the installer to make it work on Win95.You'll have to make the patch detect v4.72 of shell32.dll file under Win95. I've created an unofficial Wordpad patch for Win95 (it has not been released) but the updated wordpad.exe file requires v4.72 of shell32.dll file and will not run with v4.00 of shell32.dll. the wordpad.exe file from Win98/ME can read DLL/EXE files > 64kb while the Win95 version of wordpad.exe cant and will display the "Cannot load executable files" error message
PsycoUnc Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) -hmm, seems like a lot of effort to fix a prob which has a very easy (and completely successful/reliable) workaround... -when I delete 9000+ files (copies of windows or progfiles dirs), all I need to do is "cancel" the deletion process every 5-7 seconds, and repeat... takes maybe 4 cycles to finish, and no hang/corruption/etc at all... a very easy/simple/quick/reliable workaround, I've done it many many times for years now, no problems...[sticking w/IE5.5sp2 (+98se2me #3), of course; -never infected, will NEVER "crap-out" my w98se OS w/IE6+]>;].-ps: I would like to invite anybody to try to "hack/infect" my IE5.5sp2 w98se OS, just out of curiosity... (and I don't usually run an antivirus, except on rare occasions when surfing "dangerous" sites, and even then it's never alerted me to any hack/virus attempts)... so, go ahead, please, attempt to infect me, I don't even believe it's realistically possible, so prove me wrong...>;].-pps: use Firefox 99.9% of the time; but for the sake of this test, I'll go ahead and use Internet Excrement, see if I get infected... Edited November 11, 2006 by PsycoUnc
myelin Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 -ps: I would like to invite anybody to try to "hack/infect" my IE5.5sp2 w98se OS, just out of curiosity... (and I don't usually run an antivirus, except on rare occasions when surfing "dangerous" sites, and even then it's never alerted me to any hack/virus attempts)... so, go ahead, please, attempt to infect me, I don't even believe it's realistically possible, so prove me wrong...>;].-pps: use Firefox 99.9% of the time; but for the sake of this test, I'll go ahead and use Internet Excrement, see if I get infected... You are asking for something which will make you . People are here to fix the problems, not create problems. Why don't you share with us about your security measures in this thread. I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.Who is that mysterious, hidden, undercover, nameless, shy, genious and selfless anonymous author?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now