safemode not neccessary just run 98se then click on sp2.1 exe and sit back and prepare to be amazed.

I turned off the Spy Sweeper and AVG and installed the SP2.1a and there was no apparent problem.
There was a portion of the install where I was asked what to install in a series of boxes to check off. There were two already checked, so I just picked them and ran the install.

It's a great update, and thanks to the authors for doing it. I've noticed a leap in performance when opening programs and much less errors. I'm sticking with 98SE, even when I get a new computer - I really do not like XP! (the 'updated' find files, no msdos, speed, newbie style interface and poor security all put me off!)

Now, there are a few issues that I've noticed ever since installing the SP, neither of which are that serious but all the same a little annoying:

I can't restart the computer now without it hanging on the "Shutting down" screen. It's only with restarting - shutting down works fine and so does hot restarting - but a normal restart completely hangs the computer on that screen. Any advice on this?

For some reason, also, I've been having problems with Media Player. Sometimes, part through a song the sound just stops and I have to stop and play it again to get it going. Also, once or twice, the sound cuts out and all other sounds refuse to play, forcing me to restart the PC. I think this is just with WMP, though, as I have Classic Media Player which seems fine, so I'll try reinstalling WMP and telling you what happens.

Any ideas on the first point? Any help would be appriciated, thanks!

Gape, I've been using your Service Pack for 98SE for the last several versions, now 2.1a, and thank you so much for producing it!
Just one minor query.
I've noticed that since installing the Service Pack, the "General" tab on the "My Computer" properties no longer shows any detail about my machine's processor.
Is this due to a problem in the replacement shell dlls?
Thanks, and Happy New Year!
Dave.

This is a problem with sysdm.cpl 4.10.2224. It fixes the negative value bug, but it also prevents the processor information from showing. Petr put up a modified version of this file a little while ago, not sure where, but I have a copy of it. I will post it if the original cannot be found.

the_guy

Thanks for the quick reply!
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of a "negative value" bug.
Was this in the amount of RAM display?

My General tab, as well as missing the processor information, also shows only 1021MB of RAM, when I have 1023MB. It shows this correctly in Safe Mode.
I cannot find any explanation for the missing 2MB, so maybe this is another issue caused by a problem in that file version.

If you can find the corrected version so I can try it that would be excellent.
Thanks again.
Dave.

Petr has the patched file hosted on his site. It is a .zip so you need an unzipping tool to get it.

the link is:http://www.winpack.org/petr/98/sysdm.zip.

the_guy

Thank you so much!

That has restored by processor type display, but not my apparent missing 2MB of RAM!

I'm amazed MS issued a version of the file with such an obvious bug in it..........

BTW, what happened to version 2223, and did it have the bug too?

Cheers,
Dave.

Dave-H,

you mean version 4.10.2223 of sysdm.cpl file. it was never released because of an unforseen problem only Microsoft knows (dont ask what the type of problem was and dont ask why 2223 of sysdm.cpl file wasnt released).

the "negative value" bug is the value of virtual memory hard disk space in the Virtual Memory dialog box. to access the Virtual Memory box, open the System control panel app, click on the Performance tab and click on the Virtual Memory button. that is where the "negative value" bug would occur if you have 32Gb+ or more free HD space.

see MS kb article 272620 on the "negative value" problem:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/272620



the sysdm.cpl file in the .zip file is version 4.10.2222!

Indeed, and the version in the Service Pack is 2224.
That's why I wondered what had happened to 2223!
Thanks for the information.

I only have 20GB of space left on my C: drive where the swapfile is set to be located, so am not troubled by the negative value bug if it's still there.
I will stick with version 2222.

Thanks all!

it looks like version 4.10.2224 of the sysdm.cpl file for win98se was not modified correctly unlike version 4.90.3001 of sysdm.cpl for winme.

anyone want to try to make an unofficial sysdm.cpl 4.10.2225 fix for 98se that would contain the fix from build 2224 but will also display the cpu info. just asking.

Dave-H, the missing 2Mb of RAM problem is due to the integrated video [VGA] feature on the motherboard sharing some memory with the RAM chips. I also have that problem on my ME system and it is NOT a big deal; the system properties of my WinME machine show 255 Mb of RAM when it really has 256 megs. The built-in Intel 810 video graphics feature on my computer used some portion of the system memory for video. This inaccuracy does NOT cause major problems on anything as my ME computer runs perfectly fine. It is even like that on most new computers where video RAM is shared with some system RAM like with my brother's XP computer where I can specify in BIOS setup how much shared system RAM can be used (or shared) for video RAM.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gape,

can you add an "un-installation prompt" in the next release of the 98se service pack? I mean a dialog box asking whether or not to go on with the uninstallation of the pack. I know when I double-click on the Unofficial 98se service pack entry in Add/Remove programs, it performs an immediate uninstall. And when I double-click on the XP service pack 2 entry from Add/Remove programs on my brother's XP computer, I get a dialog box asking me whether to uninstall xp sp2 or not.

also you might want to add the Update Information Tool files qfecheck.exe and qfecheck.hlp in the 98se sercice pack. Those two files were included in the_guy's ME service pack.

Thanks again erpdude!
I do have a setting in my bios for "AGP Aperture Size".
Apparently according to my motherboard manufacturer (Supermicro) it sets aside system memory for the graphics card to use for textures. I used to have it on maximum (256MB), but apparently you might as well leave it at the default (64MB) if your graphics card has 128MB or more of on-board memory, as setting it higher will make no difference to the graphics performance. As my card has 128MB I set it back to 64MB.
I don't think this explains my missing 2MB, but I'm sure you're right that it is the graphics card stealing it, which is why it doesn't show as missing in Safe Mode when the drivers aren't loaded.
Windows 2000 does show the correct amount, but that's completely different of course!

The DirectX 9.0c Redistributable for Software Developers - Multilingual DOES work with Windows 98se users. The Link: lhttp://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9226A611-62FE-4F61-ABA1-914185249413&displaylang=en
still shows Windows 98se as a valid system. Not sure why M$ removed Windows 98 under the main DirectX 9.0 Redistributable file because M$ is still supportiung Windows 98 users until later this year...

Great job Gape with 2.1a!

Just short look into the file shows that all names of CPUs were removed from 4.10.2224 version (and not form 4.90.3001 version) so it would be probably impossible to make simple patch.

So there are two possibilities:
1. To use 4.10.2224 without CPU info
2. To use 4.10.2222 with patched string 205 from %d to %lu in stringtable resource 13.

I prefer the first one.

The CPU detection is limited to old CPU models anyway.

If I want to know the CPU, it is much better to use any freeware tool like CPU-Z. It will give me much more information.

Petr

It sounds as if MS deliberately remove the ability to display the processor information from version 4.10.2224, if the processor names were all removed.
That can't have happened by accident!
I wonder why they did that..........

Anyway, I'll carry on using the version of 4.10.2222 that I've now got, thanks to everyone here!

It does NOT matter why MS removed the cpu identification feature in build 2224 of of sysdm.cpl. who cares anyway? I agree with Petr in using a utility to identify CPU info since the 98se versions of sysdm.cpl [builds 2222, 2223 or 2224] cant properly identify new types of CPUs like Pentium 4s or Pentium M [M for mobile cpus]. I use Microsoft's System Information tool [msinfo32.exe] to view the kind of processor I have on my machines.



It wasnt the AGP Aperture Size that you have to adjust unless you had used a large value. Try looking for the Shared Video Memory or the System Share Memory Size option in the BIOS and making changes to that.

Also try updating your video drivers. older drivers might have also caused the missing 2Mb RAM problem. Win2000/XP systems may not have the problem because they use a different type of video drivers.

I have no such setting available in my BIOS.

Try looking for some jumpers or DIP switches on the mobo with such a function (very unlikely but...)

I haven't actually opened the box up to look, but there are no such jumpers or switches mentioned in the motherboard manual............

I dont think it's a hardware problem at all. As I said before try updating your video drivers to resolve the missing 2Mb RAM problem. if the updated drivers dont fix the missing memory prob, then dont worry about it.

note to Gape. The unofficial U891711 patch has been revised on 1-5-2006. It's almost the same as the original U891711 patch but a memory problem has been fixed. this revised one should be included in the next release of the 98se service pack.

Thanks erpdude.
I don't think I'm going to worry about it.
Updating my ATI video driver I know will cause more problems than it solves!

I'm using the latest version that I found which doesn't have the very annoying bug that the display crashes when switching between full screen DOS and Windows.
When that happens I have no choice but to re-boot. Very annoying.

I'll stop worrying about the missing 2MB, as the system seems to work perfectly well anyway.
I only wondered if anyone knew a definite cause with an easy fix!
Few computer problems come into that category I know!
Cheers, Dave.

the missing 2mb ram problem is barely insignificant. I also booted my WinME machine into safe mode & WinME reported the full 256Mb of memory. that's because in Safe mode, WinME doesnt load my usual Intel 810 video drivers, it loads the Standard VGA driver. when I rebooted to normal mode, WinME reports 255Mb of RAM and I am using the latest Intel 810 video drivers available. this missing ram doesnt bother me as my ME system runs well and there is NO definite fix for it.

I like to see the QFECheck.exe and QFECheck.hlp files added onto Gape's 98se service pack; both of those files are included in the_guy's ME service pack.

Have you asked ATI support why this happens?
They also have a decent KB:
https://support.ati.com/

Maybe their drivers need those extra 2 MB of memory for some specific [?] video controller functions...

This can [probably] be tested also under Windows ME, 2000, XP or 2003.

Hope this helps.

It's the wrong one. That page is for Windows 95 only. Sorry.

Don't get me wrong. I am not for forcing good tools on chickens who are afraid of trying it.
But read my lips for once: WINTOP WORKS FOR ME ON WINDOWS 98SE.
Sorry, I don't care that the page says win95 only.

Rapidshare.de, that's the problem! That host sucks IMO, because my download has gotten cut off before when I downloaded a file from them!

Also, rapidshare.de will prohibit you from resuming downloads unless you cough up money to them!

Thus I'm forced to completely start over again then pray that the download don't get cut off again!

Major Geeks never gave me major problems. In fact, they seem to keep files for a long time.

Italian group for UNOFFICIAL Windows98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1

Italian Link

Portiamo avanti questo progetto.

If rapidshare provides such poor service, would it be best to not use them at all? Would seem that corrupted packs from rapidshare will bring in more complaints toward the pack than good.

To note: I too highly recommend MajorGeeks. They are often the first mirror I pick if it's available for anything.

Ditto here:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=52318...ndpost&p=372977

And I highly recommend downloading the 98se SP from Softpedia as well. Majorgeeks and Softpedia allow resuming partially downloaded file transfers w/ download managers & no restrictions.

NEVER get any large size files from Rapidshare unless you have a broadband internet connection like cable, DSL or LAN.

let's tell mamas6667 to NEVER, EVER EVER download the latest version of the 98se service pack from Rapidshare,,,NEVER AGAIN. download only from Majorgeeks and Softpedia sites when using a dial-up connection.



appp is right. ivman is wrong! sure, RJARRRPCGP, the Wintop powertoy is listed on a Win95 page but Wintop works on all Win9xME systems. I ran Wintop under Win98, 98se & ME and it worked just fine on those 9x versions of Windows. I'm serious!

This is ivman reporting back in. Actually, I was not speaking as an expert on the app - I was just going by what info was on the site. Here's what I actually said in my only post on this subject: "On the site you gave, it says specifically *not* to use that PowerToy with Win98. Have you had any problems using it with 98SE? Just wondering why they say not to...."

Are there not apps made for Win95 that WON'T work on Win98?!? When the page specifically says not to use the app on Win98SE, what was I to assume? How can one be "wrong" when all he does is quote the info on the download site?!? Sheesh! You might more correctly say the download site is wrong.

Since then, on the recommendations of others on this thread, I *have* tried it on my Win98SE, and it works fine on my computer too.

ivman

Yeah, it's ridiculous for Rapidshare to charge users to have to resume downloads from their site especially for people who use dial-up internet connections.

Note to all downloading the 98se service pack now: AVOID downloading the pack from the Mytempdir.com site. The 98se SP has been removed from that site giving the "The file was removed. Reason: Hosting period expired." error message. Gape might want to remove the link to the Mytempdir.com site off his 98 SE Service Pack page.

I was browsing the windowsbbs.com boards yesterday and noticed a post about the Service Pack.

A moderator there dissed the pack when replying to the question of whether it was safe or recommended to use it. All were in agreement about how dangerous it was to use this thing, and how wonderful Microsoft Windows Update was in providing what is needed to update 98SE.

The kind of work put into the Service Pack and all the other testing, files, and support provided by folks here could not go undefended. So I added my 2 cents, and gave them my order of install so someone there wouldn't go and run it on an already borked 98SE system and then say,"see, it messed up my system."

If anyone wants to jump on the bandwagon

http://www.windowsbbs.com/showthread.php?t=52183

Heh, the guy mentioned that he might upgrade to XP since his hardware could handle it, so I said that I upgraded to 98SE from XP since my hardware could handle it!

OH GET OVER IT IVMAN! The Wintop issue is now over and done with. END OF STORY. PERIOD! MOVE ON!



well, I would say that the 98se SP is NOT for every Win98se user out there since it does have the potential of breaking a Win98se computer. when I tested the SP on and old Win98se computer, it worked fine. when few other win98se users tested out the SP they found problems with it. so it isnt for everyone. results of installing the Win98se service pack will vary.

like Gape said in another post, nobody cant create a "perfect" service pack because it will cause some problems with some users (I'm paraphrasing what he said).

BTW, Eck - is that guy who mentioned he is upgrading to WinXP, will he install XP SP2? I know that SP2 will cause some problems with some old software and some hardware because MS noted the problems in their KB articles. XP users may have to upgrade some of their apps to be fully XP SP2 compatible.

I have been using WinTop on Win98 for 2 years on many different hardware configurations. Never had a problem.

Any idea when the next update will be out?

erpdude8,

Yes I suppose he'll discover these new incompatibilities if he uses some of the problem applications. I had a problem with an old game, Star Trek Captain's Chair. Well, not actually a game but a program that uses Shockwave Director with embedded Quicktime mov files. When I had XP SP2 running at the time, the only way to run the game was to install 98SE on VMWare. Before SP2 this game ran fine on XP. Surprisingly my other old games that use this type of thing still ran properly on XP SP2.

I remember reading of your experiences with the Unofficial Service Pack. I agree that certain things it does probably result in the negative effects you experienced. In fact, I don't remember how my system was setup at the time but I had some of the same fun you did with Windows no longer starting up properly and/or resetting my registry back to a saved copy automatically, resulting in losing a whole days worth of updating the system. Since I had no idea where exactly I was at the time of the registry restore I just formatted and started over.

I hate when that happens. Same thing used to happen to me when rebooting after installing RealPlayer. That's when I started disabling the ethernet and setting ZoneAlarm to not run at startup immediately after installing RealPlayer. Once rebooted I reenable everything. I do this even on XP now, as recently XP would no longer startup after installing RealPlayer. So I do the disable ethernet and ZoneAlarm before restarting on XP as well now. I don't want to take a chance.

So we're never completely assured that some software glitch won't potentially bring Windows to its knees no matter what version of Windows (even the supposedly protected XP.) We all do the best we can to set Windows up to run as stable as possible.

I'll be making a return to XP soon since I'm testing out my new Foxconn 748K7AA board. I just ordered a second one since I have 2 Socket A CPU's (actually 3 as I just ordered the OEM Sempron 3300+ so I'll have my 2 Socket A motherboards both running at the best speeds possible for Socket A.) I'll just be retiring the boards I've been using in favor of the 2 Foxconn boards since I like the SiS748 chip better than all the Via chips I've been using. And, XP will go in since I now know the Foxconn runs 98SE fine. I want to see what XP SP2 can do on it. I'll run 98 on VMWare.

The Unofficial Service Pack has worked fine for me with the exception of the one time I had a similar experience to what you reported. I don't remember exactly what happend, except reformatting.

I just don't like it being dismissed so easily for those folks who would generally do nothing except go to Windows Update. I'd rather have them try using the Service Pack as most folks probably wouldn't know how to manually apply some of the tweaks that the Service Pack will do for them, as well as some of the hotfixes it applies. If they're starting with a fresh install, and Service Pack doesn't work for them, they won't lose much time by starting over fresh again without it. I figure it's worth a shot.

good point Eck. those guys are wussies just downloading stuff only from Windows Updates. Dont they ever heard of the Microsoft Download Center? I download many of the same Win98 updates listed at Windows Update that are also found at MS Download Center. Heck, I even found more Win98 downloads at the MS Download Center that are not listed at Windows Update.



Nope. Please wait patiently until Gape releases the next version. You may want to contact him personally by email and ask him when the next version of the 98se service pack will be ready.

First of all:

Hi to everyone; been busy, etc. [Alleged to have life beyond SP!]

Hearing all of this noise about Windows Update from people who think it's the be-all/end-all just brings up the main point with regard to just about everything this group stands for, which is the total lack of actual credibility MS really has with regard to fixing *anything*.

Eck: I haven't been an active member on WindowsBBS since something like 2004; they were wussies then and nothing has changed. The sad part is that people go there believing they actually know anything!

We may make noises at each other on msfn, consider it just a lot of "family" squabbles, etc., but all of us are, in theory, on the "same side" with regard to the fundamentals: Just trying to get Windows to work knowing that there are fixes, in various states of officialdom or lack thereof, and we want to use them to fix problems we know about or have heard about, etc.

Here are a few reality points [excuse the bandwidth if you know about any of these already, but I think a summary is in order]:

1) No version of Windows has ever been released without quickly needing fixes. This of course years ago gave rise to the perfectly sensible "Don't use Version 1.0 of anything" phrase, and it just about always applies.

2) It has never been easy to get fixes from MS, and they are always ready to make it even harder. I laud various individuals for having "intestinal fortitude" to get past some of this. Without them, we would be quite frustrated. However, on this forum, we have become empowered to the point that we can anticipate getting some measure of control of the situation.

3) Windows Update can be a cruel joke. Far too many people believe it to be both complete and accurate. Most of the time neither apply. Some problems over the years:

a ) Lost updates that were at one point on WU, but now aren't nor replaced with "better" ones. Fortunately for all of us, we have recourse, primarily from top members right here!

b ) Never-had updates simply because MS policy about what is expected to be in WU itself changes. Is it a place for bugs to be fixed? Or security updates? Both? Neither? It seems that for certain specific sore points all four have applied at some time or other.

c ) Total lack of timeliness: I have maintained an unofficial list of WinXP "should-be"s in terms of stuff I don't understand why these aren't in WU. Some were removed because they became allegedly replaced by other updates, that I suspect in some cases was a misplaced trust with regards to whether the replacement actually accomplished anything positive. Still others just seem to have no reason not to be there and months go by. And in a few cases, apparently after a baffling amount of months, amazingly they eventually get to WU! [But once there do they stay there?] Some of these are fairly recent MS security bulletin subjects. Yet, they don't surface quickly [or ever?].

I believe there were some 9x updates that were promised and either never were delivered, or were delivered after one would long ago given up hope, yet verbiage would have you believe it was "real soon now" that they would get there.

d) Improper distribution of updates: How many updates obviously pertain to more systems than are nominally offered for? What about the ones where you have to do sneaky things with the innards to get them to install where they are needed, unless you just so happen to be running ME? Some of these updates include arrogant verbiage from self-appointed MS policy makers proclaiming the obsolescence of various systems and thus the justification for non-support, etc. Yet, these statements themselves are fatuous and totally wrong! [Note: In some cases, the specifics are fantasy notions that proclaim obsolescence well before any official drop-dead dates, and I am not talking about when such dates eventually were modified. Yes, official support was extended to June 30, 2006. But this was back before there even was a need to extend it, before the old expire dates, etc. These people were just making up their personal notion of obsolescence, etc. Additionally, since the extension to this June, what about the total lack of change of policy on these updates? Clearly they deserve to be rewritten to include proper support, etc., yet how many just didn't get any changes?]

Again, many thanks to all in this forum for getting around much of this, but to continue to allow WU to have anyone's respect is pure fantasy.

And if anyone thinks this is just some overall MS policy to get rid of all things prior to XP, here's a few tidbits to give pause:

1) Indiscriminately, before and during the XP era, MS personnel made much of the KB useless by making the notion of date of article totally worthless. Articles were updated merely to point out that they were changing their name from Qxxxxxx to xxxxxx where xxxxxx is the KB article number. Non-information was used to change the effective date of an article because all that was added was a notice of when an article was reviewed, adding nothing literally except the update of the date/time of the review itself.

2) KB articles mysteriously disappear, including XP-related ones, never to be heard of again. Some KB articles contain dead links to others because the demise of the linked page is news to the maintainers of the referring page!

3) KB articles have contradictory contents. Some examples are the infamous "stonewalling" language many of us are familiar with, where they essentially "dare" you to get an update that does clearly exist as documented there, etc. Yet, in some cases, after all that spiel, a download link is actually provided!

I once saw a KB article for a recently-released security bulletin update that used the stonewalling language! Fortunately, the actual security bulletin itself added a download link to trump the KB article. But some bulletins use language that depends on the KB article, and in some cases the KB article never has the download link, or in some cases, the KB article itself is never posted! [Or perhaps it was removed?]

For those of you familiar with t h e h o t f i x . n e t, it appears there are nearly 300 updates post SP2 for XP, but something like only 60 of them can be counted as ever having been in WU at some point, and usually more like 40 at any point in time. It's true that some of the "extra" 20 come from the claim of having been replaced, but it doesn't seem to hold for all of them. And remember, some took at least 9 months to eventually even be added to WU, so in part it depends on just when you went to WU. It makes it seem like for XP, WU is essentially a "popularity contest" of the most requested recent XP updates, etc.

But in this larger list, we find literally hundreds of things MS has at least made a half-hearted effort to fix, many in the "stone-walled" form in terms of the corresponding KB article. [Users of that site can get them there anyway, etc.] Far too many of them are fixes to things admitted by MS as being broken by the application of SP2.

The reader is advised not to install these fixes unless absolutely necessary, because they haven't been "regression tested" or some other Micro-speak phrase. Yet, the stuff that went through WU has had to be either re-released or replaced at times. Notice how many updates are of the "v2" variety. At certain times, it seemed that WU only provided an update that needed to be replaced less than a week later because the fix, presumably rushed into WU, was actually incorrect and replaced, etc.

The point is that WU is not a "seal of approval" on many of these updates, yet there are individuals that basically pronounce all things not in WU as unusable and all things actually in WU as perfect and flaw-free; obviously reality dictates that both of these notions are wrong.

For the longest time, some XP updates are in internal conflict, i.e., certain updating methods exist that cannot be applied to something like a sore-point duo or trio. i.e., you have to either use WU or manually install after-the-fact, but not according to the normal rules of server-based installs, etc. Yet, in spite of the known problems, these updates just don't get changed. And of course, WU just continues to make them available. Thus, the widespread use of WU means that MS never hears sufficiently about the actual problems with the update interaction, etc.

If XP is a priority, I hate to think of how long a non-priority takes to get implemented. How many months/years does it take for MS to actually bring out a SP? How many months/years more than they claim? And just what about it actually breaks the alternative of the previous SP augmented by available hotfixes regardless of whether "WU-approved" or not?

As of this writing, MS envisions Vista to be out, possibly sometime later this year, or next year, or who knows when? But more importantly, they now, having changed their tune several times, admit they intend to bring out an SP3 for XP, but only *AFTER* they release Vista. Dates implied by this mean that not only are there those hundreds of not-quite-available fixes for post-SP2 XP, but probably there will be many more in the next year or so that would also have to be added on so an SP3 could even be half-way relevant. [Maybe they'll change it to release after Vista SP1!]

All of this means that some people will always remain clueless; this doesn't mean we have to. On the contrary, because of all of the long and hard work by all involved here, we don't have to operate in "wussie" mode like some others, etc.

Please keep up all the good work, as always!

cjl

Hello,
i found something unusual with my latest german SP2.1B (german). After i installed a TV (BT848) and a NIC (3C905) there is a stange thing after changing network options (TCP IP for example). I installed SP2.1B before those cards. Aufter installing the btwincap wdm driver for the BT848 the network icon on desktop appeard. I wanted to restart after installation but there came the message that one task is busy. I clicked on wait and after some time there was a normal restart. I remeber that there are somtimesm, after a driver installation seems finisched, there ist still activity in the background copying files from the win98 dir. aufter that i installed the driver for the nic and set ip adresses, gateway, dns, name, workgroup, domain, ipx ,file and printerscharing. ater restart everything works. the unusial thing ist that after clicking ok in the network options, even if i clicked nothing but ok, the ndis.vxd is always copied from SP2.CAB. Is this normal or did something went wrong?

Bye,

nudgegoonies,

If everythings working it seems fine. The sp2 is where the updated versions of the files are, so that's fine.

And changing the Network properties usually includes some file copying so that seems fine too.

Now, I'm no networking guy, just a home hobby at this point so I hope someone else will confirm my logic for you.

CLASYS,

Heh, heh. "Wussie mode." I like that.

Nice report on the Windows Update stuff. Yes, I was aware of most but that was nicely stated all in one spot. Interesting reading. I'm gonna print that out in case an argument ever comes up. I won't go out of my way to push it over there. I'll just leave sleeping dogs lie. (He, He.) They're not setting up my computers so there's no point to my trying to push too much.

I couldn't sit while they were trashing all this work though.

Thank you very much for your Answer. And sorry for posting the question here. I didn't mention that the whole subforum is dedicated to the SP. I was confused because i cant't rememer that ndis activity in my previous installation where i tried the sp first. I did a new one because of so many changes in the system and i forgot the 'line up' mentioned on the german side (first ie, dx, drivers,sp,windows update) and i installed the SP and WU before the drivers. All Microsoft Stuff first and than the rest was my motto (i hope this word exists in english).

Regards,

That's cool, nudgegoonies. Glad it's working.

By the way, not all at the windowsbbs are fraidy cats! And even those who aren't thrilled with 3rd party updates have lot's of knowledge and are helpful folks. I don't want to diss them just like I don't like to see the Service Pack's dissed.

Especially good is the Netscape, Mozilla forum there. No one can acuse Ramona of being unwilling to try different stuff to fix problems, etc.

Nice folks there.

And that's why I am still a member there. All of us wear lots of "hats" which some people here need to remember!

cjl

Clas, thanks for the great disertation on "WU" ! Hope you don't mind if I use it[with kudos & proper reconition of author] in my little local[printout] newsletter.

Go ahead, make my day

cjl

ps: Don't forget our unsung heroes here [erp, mdgx, etc.] who "somehow" get ahold of all of these updates from others [not just me! I'm a contributor, but by no means a large one; just capitalizing on opportunities: Long before XP SP2 came out, I received an XP post-SP1 update as a "crackerjack" within support downloads for my cell phone! Apparently MS updates pop up when least expected. Anyone care to reveal how 299014, which first was in WU for ME, then disappeared from there, and now is available again, not from WU, but from someone here, etc. actually became "reincarnated"? For the longest time I was manually "synthesizing" the update because fortunately I had an ME system that had been to WU at the right time, so I lifted the registry entries and files, and did it manually, etc.]. Without the updates, we wouldn't have an SP, and we'd all lose to WU and its largely empty promises believed by the those in "clueless" and "wussie" modes (or both).

I sing praises to them all the time[LOL!] Wouldn't have such a great 98se w/o them

HEY CLASYS,

I remember downloading the WinME Q299014 Help & Support update from WU in summer 2001. This update replaced the older Help & Support update [Q278497] which sometimes hangs while trying to install the files.

Q299014 was removed from WU after MS updated to V4 of the WU site. V4 of Windows Update site started to work for Win98/ME systems in November 2002. Q299014 was featured in V3 of WU.

btw, i have heard about other member project "98 Service Pack 2.1b" that contain file newer than 2.1a can i see the link?

thanks

Maybe you mean the Windows 98 Gold project? I haven't seen any 2.1b references for the Unofficial 98SE Service Pack.