Hey guys,

Another unofficial project by me. What is does is that it updates IE6 SP1 with the latest available files. So far, the count is 46 files updated, but I may have missed some.

I have attached a list of the files updated, with their latest known versions. If anyone else has a file name to add, please let me know.

If you have a suggestion, let me know. It is currently still in development. This topic was just made to let you know about the project.

the_guy

Hi the_guy,

do you have any idea why Microsoft was always creating different files for IE on Win98/98SE/Me and different for IE on Windows 2000?

Are you sure that it is safe to use Windows 2000 files on Windows 98?

If yes, then why MS was building two different branches?

Petr

The only thing I can think of is that Windows 2000 uses update.exe. The files should be the exact same. However, I'm leary about using files from XP SP1 updates.

If anyone has an update that I didn't list in my .txt file, please post it.

the_guy

IE6 causes problems when large amounts of files are copied, moved, or deleted.

BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL have to be replaced with earlier versions from 5.5 to stop this from happening.

I don't have IE6 and this problem also manifests with IE5.5 SP2 and copying, moving/deleting/large amount of small files.

@LLXX: I don't think I'll be using those versions of files, but I will definately move the browseui.dll copying to a .bat file to not have a 6.0 SP1 file with a 5.5 SP2 file. I honestly never thought of that.

the_guy

Actually, if you unrar the "Upgrade Pack 98" just recently updated you'll see in the "w" folder a "bugfixen.exe" file.

This extracts the older IE5.5 versions of the two problem files to the Windows folder, leaving the IE6 versions in the System folder alone. The batch file then makes a registry entry pointing the system to use the files in the Windows folder.

copy browselc.dll %windir%
copy browseui.dll %windir%




CD %windir%\System

regsvr32 /u /s %windir%\System\browseui.dll
regsvr32 /u /s %windir%\System\browselc.dll

regsvr32 /i /s %windir%\browseui.dll
regsvr32 /i /s %windir%\browselc.dll

This way Internet Explorer uses the latest files but Windows Explorer uses the older files. I think. (Could be wrong.) In any case the older files work fine when browsing or working in Windows Explorer.


No more freezes or slowdowns with folder activity.

Edit - Not that I was thrilled with that Pack. Way too many assumptions as to how a user wants his system to be tweaked. I much prefer Gape's Pack, although I learned to install OfficeXP AFTER the Service Pack. The Pack appears to install some older MDAC files that destroy Windows ability to start the registry if a newer (OfficeXP) version of the files is replaced by the Pack's versions.

I didn't think Gape included MDAC but that's what happened to me. Wait until after the Service Pack for OfficeXP and everything's fine.

you can "work around" this problem by deleting large amount of files from File Manager [winfile.exe]. File Manager deletes files faster than Windows Explorer and will not freeze your computer with IE6 installed.

more accurately, I would NOT replace BROWSEUI.DLL with the IE 5.5 version. Better use version 5.50.4948.700 of the BROWSEUI.DLL file from IE 5.5 SP2 KB905915 patch to get the security benefits of the latest BROWSEUI.DLL file from IE 5.5 SP2 and use version 5.50.4807.2300 of BROWSELC.DLL file from IE 5.5 SP2.

The way I'm going to do it is as follows: Have browseui.dll get copied to system32. I'm not going to touch the 5.5 SP2 patch. However, if you have browseui.dll from IE5.5SP2 in system32, there WILL be problems. I can avoid that, by using a batch file. Other than that, I have no idea.

Can anyone post hotfixes for IE6 SP1 that are missing from my list.

Also, I plan to post in the next few days a list of files in IE6 SP1 with files versioned 5.50.4807.2300.

the_guy

Since IE918899.EXE updates BROWSEUI.DLL to Version 6.0.2800.1692
and 98SE2XP updates BROWSELC.DLL to Version 6.0.2900.2180
are IE5.5 SP2 files necessary?

The freezing of the My Documents folder, explorer slowdown, etc all occur on any versions from the one installed by IE6SP1 on up.

So, yeah, the older versions of those 2 files help. But I don't know how you want to handle this, as the newer files are possibly more secure.

You might want to include a seperate patch that does something like the Upgrade Pack does as I described a few post's ago. That way people could make their own decision as to whether they want the bug fix or keep the possibly added security and handle the slowdown, freezing bugs with work-around's like using file manager, a dos window, or whatever.

I'd rather have a working Windows Explorer as I deal with the My Documents folder and delete files a lot.

Actually, the first time I tried the older files was with that Upgrade Pack and was happy I could extract just that exe and use that as my bugfix without installing his pack. I had been frustrated by the bugs for a long time. It's nice to know when I open My Documents I won't risk having to wait 10 minutes for my computer to start keeping time and unfreeze again!

That fix is nice as the newer versions are still in the system folder but the registry points to the older one's in the Windows folder. The newer files are still listed in the file versions for Internet Explorer in System Information so I think Internet Explorer actually uses those, but Windows Explorer uses the older one's.

I seem to recall a batch file posted somewhere here that did this manually but I never tried it. That's probably what this exe file does.

http://www.wupg98.co1.at/

That's the link to his download site if you want to extract it and see what he has in his bugfixen.exe.

Show me an exploit that will pwn a machine with the 5.5 files, but not the 6.x. No proof, no upgrade.

Hi the_guy,

Regarding your list of files here, the only one of those that I can better is DHTMLED.OCX. I use build 6.01.9232 from Windows 2k SP4 Update Rollup 1 (v2) (direct download link).

Two more files for you (not included in your list):

MSPATCHA.DLL, build 5.2.9354.0, from 883939 (direct download link)

MSTASK.DLL, build 4.71.1979.1, from 841874 (direct download link)
(for NT 4.0 SP6A, but contains 98 INF files and works with 9x)

Did you overlook these?

MSTASK.DLL version 4.71.1979.1 from NT4 KB841873 patch does NOT work under Win9x, bristols.

The mstask.dll files from the ts95.cab & tsnt.cab files are NOT binarilly identical when comparing them with WinDiff file comparison tool. The mstask.dll files from tsnt.cab file of IE6 SP1 setup file (and KB841873 patch) are NT4 specific. AVOID using MSTASK.DLL file from KB841873 patch under Win95/98/ME.

MSTASK.DLL version 4.71.1972.1 from TS95.CAB of IE6 SP1 is 233232 bytes in size
MSTASK.DLL version 4.71.1972.1 from TSNT.CAB of IE6 SP1 is 222480 bytes in size

MSPATCHA.DLL file version 5.2.9354.0 is also included in KB916281 patch for IE6 SP1 for Win98/ME:

direct url-

http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownlo...0afab75c3a5.exe

Update:
Updates I am going to add:
896358/922616
906216/2003SP1 (dhtmled.ocx/triedit.dll)
908519
920670

Things I'm not going to add:
Flash!!! (3rd party, don't know why it's in IE)
Media Player 6.4 files (might make seperate installer)
fonts/cryptui/oainst/usp10.dll/atl.dll (get MDGx's installers)

Things I'm considering:
823559/msvcrt.dll (not really IE, but...)
mspatcha.dll (not copied while hotfixes are installing)

The Media Player 6.4 files aren't IE-related. They are from DX9c (updated files). I honestly don't know how many compatibility issues would crop up if someone didn't have DX9 installed. Also, I want this to be as lightweight as possible. I might change my mind on oainst/usp10.dll/atl.dll, and maybe even fonts, but I am NOT going to inlcude the crypt files. 1 reason: I want this to install on ME as well as 98/NT4.

the_guy

Thanks for the heads-up, erpdude.



I really hope this project happens. CLASYS had been talking about a BAT file of his that installs all IE 6-related updates (rebooting after running each successive update), which similarly I was really looking forward to. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have ever surfaced.

Hopefully this project will have a better chance of realisation.

>IE6 causes problems when large amounts of files are copied, moved, or deleted.

Yep, you have to use 5.5 BROWSEUI.DLL and BROWSELC.DLL to avoid this. Also, it's a good idea to unregister the bad 6.0 DLL's, and register the 5.5 DLL's (with regsvr32 /u and regsvr32). I believe you can use the 6.0 DLL's in IEXPLORE.EXE's folder so that it uses the 6.0 DLL's, while the rest of the system uses 5.5 DLL's. Last time I checked (long time ago), the newest 5.5 DLL's come from an IE 6.0 SP1 Millenium Edition security patch.

to be more accurate, IE6 SP1 users MUST use IE 5.5 SP2 versions of the BROWSEUI.DLL and BROSELC.DLL files. OR better yet, why not copy, move or delete large amount of files from within File Manager as WinFile does those tasks faster than Windows Explorer.

what IE 5.5 DLL files come from IE6 SP1 ME security update, azagahl? Be more specific so you dont confuse some people.

i just use the BROWSEUI.DLL from xp version 6.0 2800.1584 .dll and have np.and of course i get the xp toolbar icons 2 boot.

does any more xp files work on win98se

MDGx made a 98SE 2 XP patcher, here: http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#MP9
This includes WMP9, as well as a bunch of other unrelated files that have been tested on 98SE, and are from XP.

3rd revision of MS06-042 Cumulative Update for Internet Explorer 6 SP1 (KB918899)
Direct download
http://download.microsoft.com/download/3/7...-v3-x86-ENU.exe

URLMON.DLL was updated:
6.00.2800.1567 -> 6.00.2800.1572 (GDR branch)
6.00.2800.1568 -> 6.00.2800.1573 (QFE branch)



Petr

Thanks Petr,

I just updated the unofficial 918899 patch, and will send it off ASAP. I also updated my updater. I will hopefully post an early test version in the next few days.

the_guy

too bad the MS06-042 security updates were not revised to include the KB923996 MSHTML.DLL hotfix for XP SP2 and WS2K3 SP1:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923996/
After installing the MS06-042 security patch under WinXP SP2 or Win2003 SP1 and visiting a web page that uses custom pop-ups, IE may unexpectedly close. those experiencing the problem with MS06-042 should request the KB923996 hotfix.

Hello the_guy,

a few comments to your unofficial patch (v2). I'd just clean some things:
- in _SFX_MANIFEST_ I'd remove references to RTMGDR subfolder, and unnecesary sections and lines, just compare it with _SFX_MANIFEST_ in KB916281.
- in Q918899_D_RTMQFE.INF and Q918899_D.INF I'd:
-- change the GUID (to {4d64f3ba-f112-4efe-a02e-96680859937c} for v3)
-- add HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Active Setup\Installed Components\%GUID%","PackageVersion",0x00010001,3 in [Actsetup.Reg] section
- Q918899_me.cat file - it contanis references to all non-existing files, maybe the cat file from KB916281 would be better, or maybe the empty file would be the best as we are not able to build the correct one. It would eliminate the need to add nircmd.exe and start.exe. I have noticed some references to cat files creating in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/922225

Is any reason for adding
SmartReboot=I
Reboot=1
lines?

MS package contains the following lines in the .SED file:



This is just to have the package similar to original Microsoft package.

Also Microsoft is using wextract.exe version 6.00.2800.1168, I have not found it anywhere so I have extracted it from one packege, it is here: Click to view attachment

Petr

@Petr: The version of 918899 on your site right now is not done by me. It's done by winxpi. I don't use the Q*_me.cat file at all. I just don'tr think it works at all, but someone can prove me wrong.

Interesting thing about _SFX_MANIFEST_ though. I will use it in future for the other unoffcial IE patches.

the_guy

I have downloaded the package from http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE918899.EXE and I supposed that it was done by you, sorry.

Petr

No problem. I just hope I can get an alpha version of this out soon. Also, would you be able to request KB316638 for me? It's just that the KB article mentions portcls.sys build 3002, and the version on MDGx's site is build 3001.

Note to all: This is the beginnings of me replacing the obsolete option pack. I realized that that was WAY to bulky. I also plan on making an updater for WMP updates soon. I will make a topic for this in the coming weeks. I don't think I'll make one for DirectX, as that has 1 update.

the_guy

unfortunately, the newer Q316638 hotfix that has portcls.sys build 3002 is no longer available. MS only has the original Q316638 hotfix with portcls.sys build 3001.

Petr, I will use all of those changes to the SED file except 1. I will not be using the /d switch as my package also allows installation on NT4. Also, what program do you use to find out all of this information?

the_guy

The information is stored in the installation package, you can use any resource editor to look at all of the RCData resources.

And I wrote simple decompiler that creates the SED file from the IExpress package. It is written in DOS Foxpro because I know no other programming language and is very primitive - but it works.

Petr

@Petr: Resource Hacker doesn't work the best. To me it's mainly gibberish. Could you send me the program you wrote?

the_guy

Yes I could but it would be useless for you because it needs DOS FoxPro 2.5b development environment.

Someone could re-write it to C or other normal language.

Petr

First of all: Hi guys! Been a busy summer, but I'm back a little bit.

What eidenk says here is serious if accurate. I thought the whole idea is that the files taken from what best you can get if you install IE5.5 SP2 is supposed to relieve the problem?

Clearly it seems to get much better when using IE6.0 SP1 (mucho patched), but why wouldn't the "native" form be at least as good if not better.

I have found that patching it as recommended here, while a major step forward, still might have some occasional problems.

I'd like to just raise some potential issues:

1) Moving the original files [before you applied anything 5.5-like] to the IE directory -- Does this actually do anything other than a convenient placeholder to undo it. Does Iexplore.exe actually use them, considering the registered versions are in \Windows? Or does the rule of "in my directory is mine" trump that?

2) The 5.5-like files, and I assume the choices are now final as to which two, are placed in \Windows and registered there. Anything to gain by keeping the originals in \Windows\System? Wouldn't we possibly be better off then deleting those, since presumably, anyone playing by the rules has to ignore them, since they are no longer the registered copies?

Or as a more drastic step: Replace the ones in \Windows\System with the 5.5-like ones in \Windows? Or even more drastic: Do that and deregister the ones in \Windows and instead register the now-same ones in \Windows\System? And to finish that thought, delete the ones in \Windows at that point [should always be able to delete the non-registered copiesl, correct?]

cjl

Petr,

Thanks a lot for the tips.
I have updated IE918899.EXE [3.61 MB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE918899.EXE
- updated INFs.
I left in place in the INFs:
SmartReboot=I
Reboot=1
and in the SED:
RebootMode=I
in the hope it helps to reboot without all those dialog boxes, but I guess it doesn't matter because the SED runs IEUPDATE.EXE, not an INF file.
- replaced CAT file with older one from Q916281 [but not sure if it works without nircmd.exe + start.exe under WinME, so I left them in place]. I need more testing on a WinME computer to determine if CAT file works by itself.
- cleaned up _sfx_manifest_ :
- added SED code to detect IE build:

Petr,

This version of wextract.exe is part of IEAK 6.0 SP1 [2.55 MB]:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie6...EN-US/ieak6.exe

HTH

No, it is not, IEAK 6.0 SP1 contains wextract.exe 6.00.2800.1106.

Petr

My bad, didn't pay enough attention to ver numbers.

I raised yet again the issues over using BROWSELC.dll and BROWSEUI.dll taken from 5.5-related releases over the same files installed by updates to IE6.0 SP1, etc. [see my previous post above.]

Can anyone address a new concern:

I notice references in the registry to the browseui.dll in \windows\system as opposed to the one registered in \windows.

Thus:

Is the copy now in \windows [as suggested] and then regsvr32'd there actually replacing the copy in \windows\system? Should it instead go into \windows\system so there is only one copy? [Notwithstanding the IE6-related files are in program files\internet explorer, where perhaps they either do no harm or perhaps are merely ignored?]

I don't understand how/why registering the file does NOT completely obliterate references to the ones there before this attempt at fixing the file copy/hang problem, etc.

So, is the recommended method flawed as I describe or is this by design and in fact we have perhaps as many as three sets of files deliberately placed for some definable reason?

This does not seem to be a problem of browselc.dll at all, just browseui.dll.

cjl

It is strange yes. Explorer will only use the 5.5 versions of the files when these are regsrv32'd. You can simply see this in a taskmanager. Funny thing is that with IE both fileversions will show up. Perhaps because explorer is a "part" of IE (in this case "integrated" would be a wrong word, it's co-existing) . I have no idea which of the file versions is actually used bij IE but they seem to co-exist fine without issues. The question is why IE behaves this way. I mean, why does it not use the registered file only?
More important, do we still benefit from the increased security from the newer files because of this IE behaviour? If so then it's a good thing to leave things as they are now.

All I'm sure about is that explorer uses the 5.5 versions only and will keep doing that even when newer files are installed by updates, that's what this workaround is about.
When you replace the files in windows/system/ by the 5.5 versions they will be overwritten when you apply a update containing these files. If you then feel the need to replace them again you're basically back at the point where this all started.

To me, the way it works is that IE uses the files in the SYSTEM directory, and Windows Explorer uses the regsvr32'd files. Why, I have no idea.

Also, alpha 1 should be available this weekend. I'm just fine-tuning it now. There will probably be an alpha 2 release a couple of weeks after to add new files from the October update release.

the_guy

I use BROWSELC.DLL 6.0.2900.2180
BROWSEUI.DLL 6.0.2800.1692
and it seems when i delete large files it loses system resources
the reason for the problem we having now.if it didn't eat resources so much
i think they would be ok.But i still use them anyway.

I had notice this when i was deleting 7000 files a week ago

How did you notice that exactly ?

I get a Low Resource error saying

Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit
any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding.

this only happen when i delete a large number of files.

When I delete many files/large files [machine has 512 MB main memory] the screen tends to have one window semi-freeze. Moving it with the mouse leaves a "trail" of frozen images all over the screen where the window had been. Eventually, it figures it out and cleans up the old images, etc.

When emptying out the recycle bin there can be a similar problem. First there is a lengthy delay if there are really a lot of files and/or drives where there needs to be file removal, and then a later effect where the window will fixup later as above.

I think the timing of the problem is related to when the delayed writes for carrying out the file processes start kicking in is the common factor. These large file operations mean that you cannot completely cache them, i.e., they are unable to complete within the time before the earlier operations would start to be finalized and still are attempting to add new things to do to the cache, etc. [Or at least it seems to be this is the case.]

Again, the presented arguments are that regsvr32-applied copies in \windows are being used for most purposes while clearly the ones in \windows\system are being used in others, and I have seen signs in the registry supporting some aspect of this, etc.

Thus, I ask again: What is the point of actually bothering with three sets of files? If IE is using the ones in \program files\internet explorer, then why have the ones that are in \windows\system at all? Or, is it that the ones in \program files\internet explorer are actually superfluous?

Can someone make a case for less than three sets? I haven't yet seen a proper reason as to what exactly continues to use the \windows\system copy, but apparently something still does. If not IE, then what?

And what exactly is the downside of using the 5.5-related files in \windows\system instead of having two copies [while having first moved the 6-related files to program files\internet explorer]:

first unregister the 6-related files in \windows\system then delete them.

then replace with the 5.5-related files and register them.

I don't mind temporarily replacingregistering the two original files in \windows\system should there be another update I can appy, THEN restoring the 5.5-related files again, so I don't consider the need to avoid this as an issue. Even if any of this has to be done from DOS, etc.

But I am concerned about all of this hanging/freezing that seems to continue even with this so-called "fixed" situation, where the so-called fix seems to be somewhat nebulous. In some ways this is the proverbial cure is worse than the disease.

In case it matters, I am not concerned about any IE settings becoming impossible to further adjust, as long as I can get them where I want/need then have them become quasi-permanent unless reverting some files transiently for readjustment purposes then re-"fixating" them, etc. [I believe someone once raised an issue that some of these problems could interact in such a way that you were no longer able to access some IE parameters to change, as opposed to being able to first set them as needed; if this were the only down-side, it's a good compromise if this file-maintenance problem would disappear.]

Fixing the overall problem may not be seen by all as that important; and there are people who never use explorer to move even a single file. But others do a lot of file maintenance and it can be quite frustrating.

Please also note that despite all of the other problems, using 98lite with the Sleek [win95] shell NEVER has any of these problems and is rock-steady for any possible file operation. Unfortunately, this option is not compatible with a lot of recent applications; the ability to switch back and forth, as the author intended, is simply not possible. To do so requires a complete reinstall of IE 6.0 SP1 and all of its updates at the minimum. The fast switching mechanism was designed when IE 5.5 was just getting started, and there didn't seem to be much to worry about; but with MS bringing out IE 6.0 deliberately incompatible with 95 [and additionally not all that compatible with 98, 98SE or ME!!] this has become quite problematic. [For those who are unfamiliar, the Win95 shell lacks support for a small class of calls to shell32.dll. Where possible, 98lite patches affected files to instead use shell32.w98, which is actually the original shell32.dll renamed, or its descendant as described in q313829 with that same rename. I have successfully applied this method to many applications such as IE 6.0 and 6.0 SP1, Adobe Reader 6.0.0 through 6.0.5, the latest AIM classic client, but a growing number of applications aren't able to have them applied such as PowerArchiver beyond Version 8.80, Norton AntiVirus 2003 and up, SpySweeper.]

If instead, the Win95 shell itself could have these missing functions added on, this would allow the original 95 system to be more compatible with many applications, and also allow it to replace the 98/SE shell as in 98lite Sleek, but wouldn't require any patches at all. Presumably if this could be accomplished, this entire problem would cease to exist.

Here's a list of the features currently lost [or gained!] using 98lite Sleek:

1) There's a bug reporting the size of a folder or file such that the size is reported modulo 4 GB instead of actual.

2) There is no support for the registry patch to enable details view to display attributes; just ignores the settings either way.

3) A couple of minor cosmetic settings that for the most part I tend to turn off in the regular shell anyway. The only one I miss is the ability to turn off the autocasing of files and folders [first letter capitalized, rest lower case]. Is there a registry setting that should make the shell turn off this "feature"? [Sometimes referred to as allowing all upper-case names].

4) Extremely fast recycle bin emptying even with multiple drives. However, if drives are removable, fails to notice a recently added drive in need of emptying unless something is added to that drive's recycle bin first. This seems to have been crudely fixed in the regular 98 shell but the tradeoff is that emptying always takes an inordinate amount of time if you have a lot of drive letters. Win XP seems to be more like Win 95 in this regard, although this doesn't imply the same implementation, etc.

Of course all of this is the norm for win95 as well.

I would assume also there is no interaction with any greater than 137 GB stuff; I haven't seen any and have used 250 GB disks connected through the Promise Ultra TX2-133 and using their mini-port driver.

My normal install is 98lite with Sleek first, then install IE6.0 SP1. At this point, make a shell choice and stick with it. Then apply any and all IE/OE updates, etc.

The Sleek choice gives me total stability with the few predictable minor problems, but a growing number of apps that cannot be accomodated because they cannot be patched to get around the shell problem. But no file management problems whatsoever.

The Chubby choice give me exactly what everyone else here is describing, except that I lose overhead associated with the Active Desktop; this is not a shell component change so much as a bunch of favorable registry settings to remove overhead. I believe that 98lite chubby could be achieved by a .reg file! Especially in light of the inability to "quick change" shells now virtually impossible in light of IE 6.0 etc.

To raise a possible alternate solution: How badly does the 98FE shell react to IE 6.0 SP1 and any browseui/browselc issues? If I replace SHELL32.DLL, COMDLG32.DLL and EXPLORER.EXE with the 98FE counterparts, would anything be different regarding the file hang/freeze issues? I daresay the 95 shell incompatibilities would disappear! [And MGDx, if you are reading this, same question for using the ME files?]

cjl

I have never experienced such a thing on both 98SE and ME.

Are you sure you were not already very low for other reasons before deleting ?

Actually I moved more than 50.000 small files, 1-2 clusters or so, ( the entire textiles.com website linked by LLXX in another thread) from my desktop to another drive just two days ago with the resource meter on screen (for testing purposes having nothing to do with the copy files freeze problem) and noticed no impact on the resources at all.

Of course, Explorer froze (with IE 5.5 SP2).

I am pretty sure the freeze problem is about explorer not being able to keep up properly with the copy speed. It can't update itself as fast as the data actually changes in Windows and ends up freezing.

Pretty sure also that there is a disk write speed setting somewhere in Windows that could solve the problem (which is of no real consequence for me as I have a fast workaround to get to normal explorer again in one click and 2-3 seconds).

Possibly, using Total Copy, which allows to limit the copy speed, will generate no freeze problem for such operations.

But I haven't done specific testing of that so can't really say.

better yet, delete the large number of files from within File Manager instead of Windows Explorer.
WinFile does a lot better job of removing large number of files and does it faster and more reliable than in Explorer and will not drain Windows resources.

If wonder why PROBLEMCHYLD hasn't tried deleting the large number files from the File Manager [WINFILE.EXE] applet instead of using Windows Explorer.