Thanks for your tip.
The idea crossed my mind, but haven't tried the MS internet games from WinME yet.
I'll try them out and if they work, I'll add them to 98SE2ME.

It's already included in




Here's the proof.

Ok, I give up.
I have added all 5 "MSN Gaming Zone" WinME internet games.
Run 98SE2ME option 1 or 2. Then run 1 of these shortcuts to play:
Start button -> Programs -> Accessories -> GameZone -> run Backgammon, Checkers, Hearts, Reversi or Spades.
Enjoy.

PS:
Windows XP + 2003 CDs include newer versions of these internet games.
________________________________________________

I have tried tuneup.exe from WinME, and when I allowed it do its thing, it ran cleanmgr.exe, which erased most of my C drive, and if I wouldn't have stopped it, it would have also erased most of my D drive.
I restored all my files/folders from backups, but that's not the point.
If it did that on my computer, it can do even worse on others' computers, so I don't consider it safe enough to add it to 98SE2ME.

Whoa... holy crap. I didn't expect for something like that to happen... I think I'll stay away from that file for now...

I found another bug:
After installing 98SE2ME, MPLAYER.EXE v4.90.3000 from Windows directory does not start. Error: MPLAYER caused an invalid page fault in module <unknown> at 0000:84017398.

Solution 1: Do not copy MPLAYER.EXE from WinME. Version 4.10.1998 from 98 works fine.
Solution 2: Remove MCIQTZ.DLL form Windows\System\ The new version of MPLAYER starts OK without it.

Note: I saw this error on WinXP too. Micro$oft bug?

98SE2ME · UPDATED · 2-8-2006

Please see the top of this topic for most recent 98SE2ME update.
____________________________________________

Thanks a lot Marius '95 for noticing this bug.
I've also noticed this bug a while back, but didn't pay much attention to it, thought it was due to M$ installing WMP [6.4/7.0/7.1/9.0] to replace MPLAYER.EXE with WMPLAYER.EXE [or MPLAYER2.EXE].
I have also noticed this under XP, no matter if SP1(a) or SP2 are installed or not.

P.S.:
On my PC with 98SE2ME [option 2] + all updates installed, this IPF error happens no matter which MPLAYER.EXE version I use.
WMP 9.0 installed [with WMP9 from XP SP2 "enhancements"].
I have even tried MPLAYER.EXE from Win95B OSR 2.0 setup CD. No go.

BTW:
Just in case some don't know yet, VMWare Server Edition is now freeware:
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/
Where to d/l:
http://www.vmware.com/download/server/
The only catch = they log all customers:
Must login with unique ID in order to receive SN:
http://www.vmware.com/programs/8/serverbeta.do
New customer registration login:
http://www.vmware.com/programs/NewCustomerLogin.do

See d/l links for both Windows + Linux here [scroll down to or search within the page for VMware Server Beta]:
http://www.mdgx.com/xptoy.htm#2KXP

Have fun.

I just used System File Checker to extract MPLAYER.EXE from the Windows\OPTIONS\CABS folder where I have my 98SE setup files stored.

That's the same thing as extracting it from Dos, right?

And I just checked back to see that it doesn't matter which version, eh? Oh well. I use WMP 9 anyway. Hmm, let's see...

Hey, I just ran the mplayer.exe from the Windows folder (the original, restored version) and it starts fine! I wonder why it wouldn't?

Let's see...

I've got MCIQTZ.DRV and MCIQTZ32.DLL in the System folder, but no MCIQTZ.DLL. Maybe that's it? Why do I have the 32 bit dll and some systems have the MCIQTZ without the 32? Maybe the MCIQTZ.DLL is replaced by the 32 bit one by some update I apply but some folks don't?

I do WMP9 and the security updates for it, the WMP7 Bonus Pack, the Microsoft WM codecs for the 6 player, the WMP9 VCM, the WMF7 install and the WM codec for the 7+ player, as well as the WMP10 codecs for the 9 series 98SE player and the WMencoder 7. I also install Microsoft WorksSuite 2005 and I don't know what that might install.

the msn gaming zone for xp works with 98se
newer faster and better

Heh, maybe someday they'll be a ME2XP? Seems unlikely though.

Jeez, I think we can just go to the gaming zone and play all these without the shortcuts, no? They just were put there for advertising reasons to get folks to check out the zone. Nobody will miss the XP version of the shortcuts, I suspect.

Re: mplayer.exe...

? curious: is there any reason to use mplayer.exe? (mplayer2.exe (6.4) is the lowest I can think of for any use...) ?

Yes, I know, but if using the XP files the settings are not kept [like chat, sound, etc], you need to reset them [including the starting nag boxes] every time you run those game executables.
All settings remain the same way they were set last if using WinME files.

BTW:
I haven't noticed any faster performance when using the XP files.

Actually those shortcuts strictly allow people to play those 5 games with other opponents throughout the internet, there is no link/advertising/promo/etc to the MSN gaming zone or any other web site.
At least that's what happens when 1 installs 98SE2ME options 1 or 2.
The only way you can go to the MSN gaming zone web site is if you click from within each game: Help -> "Game_name on the Web".

And I took a look [out of curiosity] at the MSN gaming site, most of those games are either crippled shareware [try-b4-u-buy] or pay-per-game, only few are completely free(ware).
The 5 games shortcuts installed by 98SE2ME are 100% free.
_______________________________________

To my knowledge there is no MCIQTZ.DLL file in any edition of Win9x/ME or their updates.
BTW: DirecX 9.0c installs newest builds of MCIQTZ.DRV + MCIQTZ32.DLL.

I guess Marius '95 typed the DLL name without "32" by mistake. He probably meant MCIQTZ32.DLL.

different topic
have you thought about changin tha interface look for 98se2me
now i know it changes with option 3
but i mean like creatin somethin new with like a vista xp look or somethin
like the translucent windows in screenshots its really unique
just ideas for you 2 create the ultimate package all n 1
don't mean 2 pressure u

How about that? I've never clicked on them so I didn't know.

Plenty of games here without that, but maybe I'll check 'em out someday.

Sorry mate, 98SE2ME is strictly a Win98SE to WinME "upgrade" pack, not an interface lift/tweak package. To get UI/shell enhancements, alpha blending, transparency etc you want Tihiy's RP:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=58357
If you have ever read through my 98SE2ME guide:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S
you may have noticed that I also recommend a few files from XP SP2 + WMP10 XP as replacements that work with 98SE. But that's as far as 1 can go. NTx OSes are very different, most core files do not work with 9x OSes.
If it could have been done otherwise, I'm sure by now some1 would have done it already.

Hope this helps.

P.S.:
To make 9x/ME/2000 desktop look more like "XP/Vista" style, you can d/l + install Ultimate XP Theme:
http://www.mdgx.com/bin.htm#UXP

You say u want more of a xp look for 98se why not try this little proggy i whipped up last year. XP EXTREME FOR 98se. Check out http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=58456

I use it as a CD player. The progress bar (cursor) is really diffrent from other programs.

You know, I've mean't to bring this up but always seem to forget. Has anyone noticed the same problem?

When using 98SE2ME the hardware driver detection and install process suffers from long delays. I just experienced this again when updating my ATI driver to the just released Catalyst 6.2 for 9x so it reminded me. I generally have all my drivers installed before using 98SE2ME so that's why I seem to forget to bring it up.

What I'm talking about is that the system actually freezes between each step. I just need to wait, like forever, for things to resume. And even the steps themselves happen extremely slowly.

It's happened every single time there is a driver install on any system that I have put 98SE2ME on.

This time, with the Catalysts, the ATI setup program actually froze Windows after completing everything except for the final message that tells you to reboot the system. You know, the InstallShield (or, whatever they use) screen that asks you whether you want to restart now. This didn't come up as the system froze I believe just before it would have, so I needed to reset the computer. I say it was just prior to this because everything the ATI program installs was there and fully functional after I started up again, including the add/remove references in Windows control panel (generally the last thing installed by these sorts of programs).

Do you think it would work to not replace the 98 hardware driver manager files with 98SE2ME? The ME files don't really work smoothly. I guess they work, but a freezing Windows I would think would potentially muck up these driver installs in some cases. Even though they've worked for me, I can see where they might mess up if Windows in constanly freezing and unfreezing.

Or, is this not possible because these files have other files that are dependent upon them?

Thanks for your bug report.
This is experimental, please try this see if it works, and let me know. Thanks.
I have removed these 4 files from 98SE2ME [%windir%\SYSTEM]:

DEVMGR32.DLL
ENABLE3.DLL
HWAGENT.DLL
IOSCLASS.DLL

98SE2ME.EXE:
http://www.mdgx.com/4

From now on please use the original Win98 SE files from the setup CD, which can be restored by running this batch file:D used as example, must change CD/DVD drive letter if different on your computer.
Reboot after running the batch, and then (re)install your video drivers to see if it works.
If everything works properly now, no more delays, then please take the time to replace these 4 files 1 at a time back with their WinME counterparts [then reboot after each change], and see which one is the culprit for those freezes/delays.
WinME setup CD files locations:
Greatly appreciate your time + concern.
Thanks again.

Hope this helps.

After all the experimenting the file that slows everything down is the first one, the DEVMGR32.DLL. I now have that file in the 98SE version, and the rest in the Windows Me version and detection and installation go at the normal speeds without freezing or waiting.

I did all the testing by just removing the monitors and display adapters from device manager and rebooting. I didn't go through the whole ATI install/uninstall routine.

Now, to fix things proper after the testing I did need to uninstall all ATI stuff, reboot to safe mode, run drivercleaner, boot up and install ATI. This is because a device manager installation of ATI drivers does not install Smartgart (never has).

So, with ATI MMC and all this whole thing took the whole afternoon!

But, that's it. You can just leave DEVMGR32.DLL out of 98SE2ME. The other files didn't seem to have any effect one way or the other.

To expound on remaining weirdness, after ATI's official uninstall it leaves Standard Graphics Adapter (VGA) and Standard Graphics Adapter (for the secondary display) under Display Properties. Now, those should be Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA) and Standard PCI Graphics Adapter. In the past, with my older ATI cards like the 9600XT and prior to that the 7500, to set this properly I would update the drivers to those before rebooting after the ATI uninstall.

So I tried that this time. Windows SAYS it installed the Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA), etc, but it doesn't change what is displayed. It still reads Standard Graphics Adapter (VGA), etc.

Upon rebooting to safe mode and running DriverCleaner the same listings exist. BUT, after restarting to normal Windows an error message states my adapter isn't working properly and then the display properties appears. There is nothing listed, no Display Adapters heading, nothing there for the monitors, nothing at all regarding my videocard in device manager. Even in Safe Mode! If I reboot there it's just nothing listed.

There is no way to fix this. Interestingly, the display device listed in System.ini is now the Radeon x850 Series rather than the Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA) that had been there before the ATI uninstall.

In normal Windows the display properties advanced lists an unknown device on an unknown monitor. Attempting to change the unknown device, there is no heading for Display Adapters among the hardware listings. They do not exist under any of the other heading either.

Running the ATI Catalyst 6.2 setup program, and reseting my computer after it freezes just before ending fixes everything. Or, at least it did this the first time (about a week ago when I updated from the Catalyst 5.9 to the new 6.2). This time the heading in device manager for my display adapters simply reads DISPLAY. And, this time it left the System.ini display listing as Radeon x850 Series.

So, I have nothing called Display Adapters in device manager, just DISPLAY, under which all the proper ATI adapters are correctly installed.

And, the reinstall of ATI MMC went fine and everything works as before.

Changing DEVMGR32.DLL back to the 98SE version worked, as there is now no delay between each step of the hardware detection and driver install process. But there are issues, almost certainly not related to 98SE2ME, regarding this particular videocard and the ATI driver setup.

Perhaps DriverCleaner was overzealous in removing some stuff from Windows. Something is not right, with that DISPLAY heading there now and also not being able to install any display adapters without the ATI setup program.

For your information, when Windows installs with this card it does set up with the Standard PCI Graphics Adapter (VGA) and the Standard PCI Graphics Adapter. But after uninstalling the ATI drivers and using DriverCleaner, there is no way to use the display without the ATI driver. All the display adapters are non-existant!

Strange stuff, eh?

All working now, except for that weird "DISPLAY" catagory instead of "Display Adapters."

Here's what I just posted in the DriverHeaven Tools forum regarding DriverCleaner -


Following using DriverCleanerPro4, 98SE no longer has any Display Adapters to install among all the listed drivers in the AddNewHardwareWizard.

I discovered that following an uninstall of my ATI Radeon x850Pro driver. Upon reboot to normal mode after the safe mode DriverCleaner use, Windows reports that the drivers controlling my display adapters are not working correctly. Checking device manager, there is no more Display Adapter catagory nor any monitors installed. If I open Display Properties advanced, my card is listed as Unknown Device on Unknown Monitor. If I try to change the driver there, there is no catagory "Display Adapters" to select the Standard PCI Display Adapter (VGA) from. These sort of devices are not listed under any other catagory either.

The fix was to run ATI's setup of the Catalyst 6.2, which freezes just before the screen asking for a restart. I have to reset the computer, then upon Windows startup ALMOST everything is back to normal.

The weird thing left is that the catagory "Display Adapters" in device manager still does not exist. It is instead now called simply "DISPLAY." The ATI card drivers are correctly listed under this new catagory. Everything, including the WDM's and the fresh install of the ATI MMC 9.13 works perfectly.

It's just that I don't think Windows has any other display adapters anymore except for what ATI's setup installs in its new "DISPLAY" catagory.

I think something in DriverCleaner is removing what it shouldn't.


So, let's see if Spike (DriverCleaner maker) can come up with something.

What is the benefit of using 98SE2ME as compared to WME?

98SE has its benefits over Windows Me. And anything less buggier caused by newer system files in the later released Windows Me are acquired by using 98SE2ME on a 98SE system.

The System Restore in Windows Me and the other associated System Health processes are very buggy and memory hoggy. Often when you need System Restore to work, it will fail and where 98SE might be able to recover, the Windows Me system will be unrecoverable after a failed System Restore and you need to format and start over.

98SE has a similar feature where you can restore the registry and the major system files by the use of scanreg /restore from an Ms-Dos command prompt. The OS automatically backs up the registry on the first boot of the calender day and holds 5 backups for you to choose from when using scanreg /restore.

System Restore also stores virus infected files and your virus scanner cannot remove them. You must turn off System Restore and thereby delete the old restore points to remove the infection.

So, many use a program called System Restore Remover Pro to purge Windows Me of probably the only useful addition it made to the 9x series. Unfortunately, the bugs weren't fixed until the Windows XP version of System Restore.

Many Windows Me users use one of the available hacks to get back the ability to boot to Ms-Dos Mode.

Windows 98SE is more easily updated as it doesn't stop you from doing so by Windows Me's System File Protection. SFP is a good thing in Windows XP, but Windows Me needs so many fixes that SFP is actually a nuisance when trying to figure out how to replace a newer signed system file with a bug fixed non-signed older version.

So, 98SE2ME is better because you can get the viable fixes of Windows Me without the headaches of it.

I have removed DEVMGR32.DLL from 98SE2ME.

Eck:
Thanks a lot for your hard work.

Good news. Now we won't have those delays.

By the way, it wasn't just video drivers that suffered from this. Anytime the driver install process was invoked these problems occured. It was freezing in between each step, with the mouse staying in that hourglass form until the next step, etc.

With the 98SE DEVMGR32.DLL, the problem is gone.

I just emailed my DriverCleaner log files to Spike so he might get to the bottom of the Display Adapter catagory and drivers dissappearing. This probably is what caused the ATI setup program to freeze Windows, as stuff that it's supposed to find no longer exists. Nice that it works anyway.

I had similar video driver install problems as Eck but couldn't figure it out. Even when I switched from an ATI card to NVidia, the install delay was the same. Thank you, MDGx, for diagnosing the problem, and thank you, Eck, for your time in isolating DEVMGR32.DLL as the culprit. And the update for 98SE2ME is now posted, so fast. You guys rock! Microsoft would have taken months.

The DriverCleanerPro creator, Spike, emailed me with the reason for the setup freeze and the DISPLAY listing. The program removes the Display entry in the registry, which should not be done on 9x.


REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Class\Display]
@="Display adapters"
"Installer"="SetupX.DLL, Display_ClassInstaller"
"Icon"="-1"
"EnumDriverStack"="enumfile.dll,EnumDisplayDriverStack"
"Link"="{4d36e968-e325-lice-bfck-08002be10318}"


This fix, taken from another 98SE machine by Spike, puts the proper stuff back into the registry. That DISPLAY catagory in device manager now reads Display adapters. I suspect that the rest of the entry will fix the ATI driver setup freezing near the end.

Spike says he will fix this removal in the next version of DriverCleanerPro.

We all know, that Mdgx has done a lot very useful things for Win98SE, among others is certainly 98SE2ME Killer Replacements.

My question now, is it possible to get the ME USB functionality just by replacing the USB-files of Win98SE by those from WinME? If it is, what files need to be replaced? BTW, I am using Orangeware driver for the USB 2 PCI Card, will such ME USB implant disturb it?

Thanks a lot!!

Please see this fragment from READ1ST.TXT [found under the "FAQ" section]:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT

Hope this helps.

-hmm, so we should also have usb 2.0 functionality if:
1) sesp2
2) max.dec.nusb2
3) 98se2me, #2+#3
...
-correct? I've tried it w/max.dec.nusb2 AFTER 98se2me, and it didn't work (plus no success w/OrangeWare drivers, either), but it should work in order listed above? I'll have to dig up a pre-98se2me backup and give it a shot... (I have SiS 650GL chipset, w/7001/7002 USB1+2; 2.0 works fine w/XP...)

Dear Mdgx,

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply.
I would appreciate it if you could confirm, that what we need to do is basically replacing following files, either at DOS level or by SFC:

Extracted from ME CD:

%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS WDMFS.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS WMIDRV.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS DBCLASS.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS DBFILTER.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS HIDCLASS.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS HIDPARSE.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS HIDVKD.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS NTMAP.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS OPENHCI.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS UHCD.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBAUTH.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBCCGP.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBD.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBNTMAP.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBPRINT.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBSTOR.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS WMILIB.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS TDI.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USB8023.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS DRMK.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS MSPQM.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS REDBOOK.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS SBEMUL.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS SWMIDI.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBCAMD2.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBINTEL.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBSCAN.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBSER.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS SBP2SCAN.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS USBCAMD.SYS

%WINDIR%\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS NTMAPHLP.PDR
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS USBMPHLP.PDR

%WINDIR%\SYSTEM USBUI.DLL
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM HIDCI.DLL
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM HID.DLL

From your 98SE2ME (C:\9!M):

%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\KMIXER.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\OHCI1394.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\RT.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\USBAUDIO.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\UPDATE.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\WDMAUD.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\1394BUS.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\PORTCLS.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\USBHUB.SYS
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\SBP2PORT.SYS

%WINDIR%\SYSTEM\VIP.386
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM\USER32.DLL
%WINDIR%\SYSTEM\USER.EXE

Is that correct?

And if you don't mind another question:
In order to improve USB performance, not all the ME USB functionality, is it possible to just replace minimum set of ME essential USB files, maybe USBUI.DLL, USBHUB.SYS etc. and all its dependencies?

Once again thank you so much!!

Correct, those are all the files I was talking about.

I haven't tried to replace only those few files [usbui.dll +/- usbhub.sys + dependents], because IMO that may just break the USB functionality.
But feel free to try, and if successful, please post your results here.
Thanks a lot for your time.

Hope this helps.
__________________________________________

It's all a trial-and-error game, basically you need newest INF files [for most USB devices], some may work, some may not.
USB support implemented in WinME is really primitive, and limited to the devices available on the market at the time of the OS release [2000].
So I wouldn't expect too much, some devices won't probably work no matter what.

-yeah, guess if I want USB 2.0 I'll have to fork out the whopping $10 for a pci card... that, or switch to XP as my primary OS (hahaahhahaheheeeheehhooohhhohoh...cough cough gasp hahahhahahahhhhehe! yeah rite!)
>;]

-hi MDGx, a little confusion here:

I see you post many updates w/separate versions for either 98se or ME, and I was wondering: w/98se2me installed, how do we know which version of the update(s) to use? Do we have to manually compare the update files w/the files in our puters to see which ones were replaced by 98se2me, to know which version of the update(s) to use? In case I'm not clear: if an update contains a file that has been replaced by 98se2me, we should use the "ME" version of the update, not the 98se version, right?
-Perhaps it would be best/very useful if you could specify for each update which one to use with 98se2me installed, since I'm sure you already know which versions to use, if 98se2me is installed... ?
-Or do you update your 98se2me project every time an appropriate update is posted/released, thereby showing us whether or not we need to apply the specific update ourselves and which version to apply?

I've been thinking about finally upgrading to Windows Media Player 9 from 7.1 but I've been reluctant to because I remember that when I was using WinME, WMP9 couldn't be uninstalled. I read recently that with Win9x, there's no problem uninstalling it from Add/Remove programs; but what about with Win98SE2ME?

No matter which updates/SPs/patches/fixes/upgrades/replacements/etc you have installed, Win98 SE OS still remains Win98 SE OS. Therefore you can only install Win98 SE updates/patches/fixes/SPs/etc.
Please see READ1ST.TXT for more info [the "FAQ" section]:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT

Hope this helps.
_____________________________________________

98SE2ME does *not* install any WMP files, therefore does not influence the way WMP works/installs/uninstalls/etc.
Please see READ1ST.TXT for more info [under the "FAQ" section]:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT

BTW:
WMP 9.0 is meant to be installed under WinME, no reason not to, SR/SFP/WFP should not interfere with its installation, because WMP9 INF scripts take care of that.
Just run the installer:
http://www.mdgx.com/wmp.htm#WMP9

Hope this helps.

Thanks.

Hi MDGx/PsycoUnc,

I've had similar questions myself about 98SE2ME.



So this means that:

1. The ME updates that you periodically post MDGx in the New 98 FE + 98 SE + ME patches thread are of no use to those who have installed 98SE2ME, even when an updated ME file introduced into 98SE by 98SE2ME is included in a ME update posted to the above thread?

2. Sometimes newer 98SE updates, which include files that surpass the functionality of a ME file introduced to a 98SE system by 98SE2ME, should be installed on such systems to replace an older (but of course, with a later build number) ME file?

3. If 'yes' to 2., a person would have to have some detailed knowledge about the functionality of the files in question, in order to decide whether or not the newer 98SE file should replace the older (but with a later build number) ME file?



I had assumed that this was the case. I think it is. So for example, the latest 98SE2ME release contains the unofficial GDI32 WMF fix for ME. That's generally right, isn't it?

Hah, sorry to be finicky/blind to any explanations provided so far.

-bristols: -perfect! -thx for elaborating exactly my questions/concerns in a much clearer way.

-and one thing more, MDGx: when we try to apply 98se updates containing files which should replace older ME files (from 98se2me), will there be a version conflict because all ME files (even old ones) contain higher version numbers than any new(er) updated 98se ones? Or will the newer 98se files (with lower version numbers) still be able to overwrite the current older (yet higher version #) ME files? And, if so, as Bristols also asked, will/could there be compatibility/funtion issues when only some of the ME files are (gradually) replaced by (updated) 98se files?

[I also apologize if I'm missing some previously-stated simple answer(s)/reasoning(s) regarding these issues]

Right.
Win98 SE no matter which updates/patches/SPs/(hot)fixes/replacements/etc you apply does not change its core, kernel + OS build. It will always identify itself as Windows 98 SE build 4.10.2222.

Updates I post here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=46581
can be installed on Win98 SE only if they are designed for Win98 SE.
WinME updates can only be installed on WinME.

I add WinME system files [like the GDI*.* WMF patch] to 98SE2ME to improve functionality/performance and/or eliminate bugs, but that doesn't mean those files are normally created/meant for 98 SE.
Example:
After you install updated GDI*.* files from WinME [by selecting 98SE2ME option 1 or 2] on your Win98 SE OS, if you try to install the 98 SE GDI*.* files from:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms06-001.mspx
Direct download [393 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q912919.EXE
you'll get a nagging dialog box telling you the files you already have are newer [build 4.90.3002] than the ones you are trying to install [build 4.10.2226], and you can click "Yes" to keep them, or click "No" to replace them with the older ones.
Therefore 98SE2ME always installs the newest files available [if appropriate].
Please keep in mind that I'm experimenting with WinME system files for over 5 years, so I kinda know most that are ok to replace and I always make sure they work properly with Win98 SE.

But even with the 2 GDI*.* files from WinME patch, Win98 SE OS is still Win98 SE OS, and will not allow to install WinME patches, unless you unpack the EXEs manually using a CAB tool [ http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#ZIP ], and then manually install them from native MS-DOS [where appropriate].

Hope this helps.

Sure. This I understand.

This is clear also. I wasn't questioning your knowledge at all.



Right! This is kind of nearer to what I personally was asking about - installing individual files from ME updates, rather than trying to install ME hotfixes on 98SE by executing the .exe. I guess my question is/was quite simple (and the answer obvious, probably), but I just wanted to run it by you, to be 100% clear.

Take for example the file WINSOCK.DLL - one of the 98SE files updated by 98SE2ME to a ME file. If in the future a ME hotfix turns up with the latest known build of this file - a later build than the one supplied by 98SE2ME - is there any reason why a person should not unpack the hotfix and replace their 98SE2ME-replaced WINSOCK.DLL file with a newer build? So, is it ok to manually update files that 98SE2ME has previously updated? Or, is the answer less than clear cut, so that one has to decide on a file-to-file basis?

I hope these are slightly different questions to the one you have already answered.

Edit:



Thanks for asking that one again, PsycoUnc. I deliberately left that question out in this post, because it's my guess that this is possible, but that which of the newer 98SE files replacing older ME files will cause problems will be mainly only known as the result of trial and error, and in many cases these particular problems remain to be encountered (because I guess not many people have been installing 98SE2ME and then allowing 98SE updates to install files with lower build numbers than those of the ME files installed by 98SE2ME). Just for the record (for anyone who didn't follow the thread, and as an example of the situation we're talking about here), the recent unofficial CRYPT9x update contained a higher build-numbered but older and 'less functional' ME file than the latest, newer but lower build-numbered 98SE file (in fact I think it was the file CRYPT32.DLL, which had been updated for 98SE but not for ME). Petr pointed this out, and after that the older ME file in CRYPT9x was replaced by the newer 98SE file. Gah, I hope this makes sense.

-lol, yes, it makes sense, was just hoping it wasn't going to be this complicated to know exactly which updates to apply, how/when to apply them, etc. when using 98se2me... it's my fault, my general laziness, I should have been keeping a running log of all this stuff/updates/files, but hoped I wouldn't have to, hoped that such concerns would already have been taken care of by the uber-experienced pro's doing 98se2me+updates...
-so, it does boil down to my original post: we have to do a file-by-file comparison of new updates, both for 98se and ME, to see which files apply to our 98se2me'd OS, and which ones don't, and then take a chance when it turns out that a 98se updated file needs to replace an old ME one... -Not extremely reassuring, considering I use 98se2me and MDGx's updates for stability reassurance, but now it's a bit more "iffy"... still a major plus, tho, don't get me wrong! Still VERY appreciative for everything MDGx, Gape, etc are doing! I'm just a little "OCD" when it comes to worrying about potential stability issues/unknowns...
{...and I'm far too FLAKY these days to keep track of everything in my head (too dam many meds, lol), + too lazy to chart it all down on paper/file; not a great combination }
>;]
(...was just hoping MDGx could tell us, during each new posted update, whether it's also appropriate for 98se2me'd OS's, instead of just "for ME" or "for 98se"... as he mentioned in his last post, he's pretty good by now at knowing right away which it is, would save us the time/effort/guesswork...)

That's something I'd been wondering and worrying about but I found W98SE2ME.EXE worked okay. BTW, my diagnostics come up with build 2222 or sometimes 2222A - what's the difference?

after installing 98se2me i go 2 microsoft updates and there is a storage supplement shutdown update. is it newer or older than the one from 98se2me and should i install it

Did anybody notice a decrease of speed when copying large files from network after installing 98SE2ME?

Winsock.dll cannot be replaced on its own, it depends on other files [you can find them all listed inside the INF files located in %windir%\INF].
This is also stated here [explaining why one must install also vip.386 + vtcp.386]:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S
And it is also explained in 98SE2ME READ1ST.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT

FYI:
You'll probably find more info in READ1ST.TXT that might answer your questions.
Please see especially the "FAQ" section.

Hope this helps.
________________________________________________

Will do in the future.

FYI:
Usually the same day I post updates here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581
I also post a new 98SE2ME update to include new WinME files I got a hold of, if those files are appropriate for 98 SE OS.
And each 98SE2ME update:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46349
lists complete details about files/whatever/etc was changed in that particular release.
So if you watch both these forums for updates:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46349
there is not much guesswork involved.
This forum:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581
states at the top that:

Hope this helps.

None.
Windows 98 SE OS identifies itself as 4.10.2222 or 4.10.2222 A, depending on which diagnostics/detection tools are used.
That's because different system files either display the A or do not, when called upon to identify the OS version/release/edition/build.
More info:
http://www.mdgx.com/ver.htm
http://www.mdgx.com/win.htm

For example, if u right-click on My Computer desktop icon and select Properties, you'll see something like this:
http://www.mdgx.com/ver95.gif

That means Win98 SE OS will always be 4.10.2222 [with or without the A] no matter which/how many updates/(hot)fixes/patches/SPs/replacements/etc you install.
And that means you will only be allowed to install Win98 SE patches/(hot)fixes/SPs, even if u install [or not] 98SE2ME or individual ME/2000/XP/2003/Vista/etc files.
That's because u can't replace the OS core files, like: krnl386.dll, krnl386.exe.

Of course, you could hex those files to display whatever OS build/version, but why would you want to do that for? It would only screw everything up, the 1st time you try to install a patch/fix not intended for 98 SE [or which does not properly detect the OS build], and doing so will lock up your OS.
And if you don't know how to replace system files from native MS-DOS or don't have a backup to restore from, you would have to reinstall your OS.

Hope this helps.
__________________________________________________

98SE2ME does not install any 98 SE patches/fixes except the ones listed in READ1ST.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT
and those are installed only for the purpose of being able to use WinME system files.
Therefore 98SE2ME does not install any shut down supplement files.
Complete list of files installed by 98SE2ME is also found in READ1ST.TXT and all WinME files installed are listed here:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#FME

This info is detailed in READ1ST.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT
Please see especially the "FAQ" section.

Hope this helps.

I have not.

I've been using 98SE2ME [WinME files] for over 5 years, never noticed internet/network slowdown.

IMO:
Could it possibly be another cause for your slowdown?
This depends on too many factors, making it dificult to narrow it down to 1 cause:
- time of day
- day of the week
- particular server
- MTU/RWIN/IPMTU/Black Hole/TCP/etc registry settings:
http://www.mdgx.com/modem.htm#MY
http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#MTU
- the reliability of your ISP
- if using dial-up/56k/analog modem depends on: land line length/reliability, phone company provider etc:
http://www.mdgx.com/56k.htm

Hope this helps.

The version information (4.10.1998/4.10.2222) used by both IExpress packages and MS Installer is stored in kernel32.dll file.
It is interesting that kernel32.dll 4.10.2222 works well in Windows 98 Standard (First, Gold) edition and this enables to install Adobe Reader 6.04 on this OS. After install it can be replaced back to 4.10.1998.

The version information (4.10.1998/4.10.2222) displayed by right-clicking the My Computer icon is stored in sysdm.cpl file.

The sub-version information (A, is stored in registry in HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion key in text value "SubVersionNumber". " A" (please note space betore A) is standard after clean install, it is changed to "B" (without space) by appying updates from Windows 98 SE Security Update CD (February 2004). It is known that "B" causes that some programs won't install.

Petr