soporific:

I was looking through your list [May 16 2007 update]:

- Tools9x.exe link must preserve the upper case:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/TOOLS9X.EXE
My web server is case sensitive.
Your link:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Tools9X.EXE
returns a 404 error, file not found.
Same here:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE931768.exe
must be replaced with:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE931768.EXE
If you wish to see the actual URLs to all my files:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/list.php
http://www.mdgx.com/spx/list.php

- IE Audio WAV fix:
M$ has the file on their WU servers, no need to mirror [unless you like to]:
* Microsoft Internet Explorer 4/5/6 for Windows 9x/NT4/2000/ME Compressed Audio START.WAV Fix:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=327922
Direct download [79 KB]:
http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownlo...DCB7AD3B062.EXE

- KernelEx:
I have changed the link from:
http://www.mdgx.com/spx/KERNELEX.ZIP
to [both versions now]:
* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME KernelEx allows to install + run NTx-only + XP-only applications + games (free GPL):
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=71476
- KernelEx 0.3.1 Test [68 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/spx/KX031.ZIP
- KernelEx 0.3.0 Stable [65 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/spx/KX030.ZIP

HTH

ta muchly, and thanks for the other reply as well.

Soporific,

I don't find in your list 78 items released since uSP2.1a, and which were mentioned on MDGx's thread (98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes)
(All these files have been downloaded from this thread.)

237493USA8
249973USA8
50COMUPD_DLL5-80PATCH
908519FX
ACTIVEXSCRIPTCONTROL1-01-0-0-8825
ADDREMOV
COPY2GB
CRYPT9X
DCOM98UP
DIRECTX_OCT2006_REDIST
DISKMIND
DTI
DTI_V2
DX9CPL
DXM9XIE5
EXPLOR98
FLASH9-0-45-0_W98
FLASHPLAYER7-0-63_WINAX
IE6-0SP1-KB916281
IE6UPD
IE813451
IE834707
IE883586
IE890573
IE905495
IE918899
IE922760
IE925486
IE925568
IE928090
IE931768
INSTALL_FLASH_PLAYER_ACTIVE_X
INSTMSIA
JAVARUNTIME-1_5_0_12-I586-P
KB917344-X86
KB917734_WINDOWSMEDIA9
KB918547-SLV
KLCODEC281F
MDIE6CU
MDPOSTCU
NUSB30E
OE911567
OE923694
OUTLOOKEXPRESS6-0_PATCH911567
Q222930
Q816362
Q817914
Q824220
Q834158
Q886677
Q891711F
Q893627
Q896156
Q909363
Q912919
Q918547
Q919587
Q920213
Q920670
Q923689
Q923694
Q924191
Q925398
Q925672
Q926247
Q927978
Q929120
Q931836
ROOTSUPD
RUNHELP
SETUPAPI
TOOLS9X
TTFPAK
U891711
U918547
VC6REDISTSETUP_ENU
VCREDIST_X86

Note that there is also 136 items from your list which I DON'T have!!

That's a mighty fine list you have there ... once in a while i get feedback worth a ton of gold ... and this is one of them. Thanks to you !! I'll be slowly working my way thru the list in the next few days ... lots will be added to both the main list and obsolete list i have no doubt. Thanks again!

EDIT: i take it all back !!!! Well, i'm not taking back the thanks for the thought to tell me about these missing updates, but my initial check of the first few items on the list was like: where are the missing ones? ie of the following, most are already in the list! And a quick scan down the list says there's many more!

So, my question before i continue down the list is how did you come up with this list? Of the first 9, about half are obviously already there ... it just doesn't make sense! Please advise !!

(and for some light relief humour, lets remember another celebrated occasion when 'it doesn't make sense!' -- this is one of the best South Park sequences ever, it even has its own wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
"Cochran: Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski: Dam* it!
Chef: What?
Broflovski: He's using the Chewbacca Defense!
Cochran: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.")

Gotta love South Park ...

Soporific,

I compared your Monster List on the first page of this thread with the list of files I have downloaded.
And 237493USA8 and 249973USA8 are definetly not there. (but q237493 is there)

I made the comparison automaticaly, through a script. There can be some mistakes, but I can tell you that 237493USA8 and 249973USA8 are not on the monster list on the first page.
===>Maybe you have another list?

The other thing is that some files are named differently. My files came from the "direct download" links posted by MDGx and usualy I don't rename them.
IMO it could be a good idea to add all the known names.

Here are a few name change my script dtected

COPY2GB UCOPY2GB
CRYPT9X UCRYPT9X
DXM9XIE5 DXM9X
IE6-0SP1-KB918439 KB918439
KB891711-V2 KB891711
KB917344-X86 KB917344
KB917734_WINDOWSMEDIA9 KB917734
KB918547-SLV KB918547
NUSB NUSB31
ROOTSUPD ROOTSUP

I also improved my script to avoid error (thought errors came only in the detection of changed name, I think)
I will redo a list comparison later.

Yes, they are. Let me explain. Rather than just use the filename for the 'short title' of the update, i've gone with using the Q number or the KB number (numbers before 400,000 are Q and ones over 800,000 are KB). SO you WILL find 237493usa8 if you search for 237493 (which brings up q237493) and hover your mouse over the download link. Same with 249973USA8.
i agree and i will add as i come across them.

Edit: you could ease up in the script code with the filename. As long as the entire number is found in the filename, then the update exists, rather than restricting to the original name. We would then be in harmony.

Ok, I see...

I will add codd to the script to look for the number if the name is not found.
That way we will have a tool to compare lists faster.

Ok, I improved my script in the way we talked above and I (partialy) checked the result manualy.
Here is what came out as "missing" from your list ( obsoletes and renamed have been excluded fom this list)
I added the link when I had it.

As you can see, the list is much shorter.

50COMUPD_DLL5-80PATCH ?
ACTIVEXSCRIPTCONTROL1-01-0-0-8825 ?
ADDREMOV http://www.mdgx.com/files/ADDREMOV.EXE
DCOM98UP ?
DIRECTX_OCT2006_REDIST look here: http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#NFR
DISKMIND ?
DX9CPL http://www.mdgx.com/files/DX9CPL.EXE
EXPLOR98 http://www.dr-hoiby.com/TrayIconIn256Color/
FLASH9-0-45-0_W98 look here: http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#SHFL
FLASHPLAYER7-0-63_WINAX ?
IE6UPD http://www.mdgx.com/spx/IE6UPD.EXE
IE813451 ?
IE834707 http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE834707.EXE
IE890573 http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE890573.EXE
IE922760 http://www.mdgx.com/files/IE922760.EXE
IE925568 ?
INSTALL_FLASH_PLAYER_ACTIVE_X_8-0-24 Look here: http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#SHFL
INSTMSIA ?
JAVARUNTIME-1_5_0_12-I586-P http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/index_jdk5.jsp
MDIE6CU http://www.mdgx.com/spx/MDIE6CU.EXE
MDPOSTCU http://www.mdgx.com/spx/MDPOSTCU.EXE
NUSB30E look here: http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#NUS
Q222930 ?
Q817914 http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q817914.EXE
Q909363 http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q909363.EXE
Q920213 http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q920213.EXE
Q927978 http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q927978.EXE
RUNHELP http://www.mdgx.com/files/RUNHELP.EXE
SETUPAPI http://www.mdgx.com/files/SETUPAPI.EXE
TOOLS9X ?
TTFPAK http://www.mdgx.com/files/TTFPAK.EXE

Ok here's the line i added to the first post:

Also, not every single update is on this list. Updates for Internet Explorer 5.5 are NOT included, neither are any unofficial upgrade packs.

So that clears a few more from your list. I will eventually get around to going thru the rest so please stay tuned ... I have already made quite a few changes.

EDIT: do i have to add EVERY single old "Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer" to the obsolete list? eg. IE834707 - OLD Unofficial MS IE 6.0 Patch --- actually this for IE 6 and not IE6 sp1 --- i'm in two minds about whether to add this to the obsolete list because it isn't obsolete for those who haven't upgraded to IE 6 sp1. Comments?

I have that question as well.
Most, if not all, lists I've come across simply state the
latest versions available.
Even when they list the latest IE5.5, and IE6 and IE6.1
cumulative patches.

I notice the lists that try to keep up with the flow of
all released AND current patches
seem to have been unable to do so.

If you wanted to go that way you might restructure
your list to group components together.

An IE6SP1 cumulative group may look something like this.

Please notice that ADDREMOV.EXE was replaced with [renamed to] TOOLS9X.EXE .
Actually when some1 tries to download ADDREMOV.EXE, they actually d/l TOOLS9X.EXE [.htaccess server redirect].

FYI:
About IE 6.0 [pre-SP1] patches:
I have removed them from my web site on purpose, to encourage people to use IE 6.0 SP1 instead.
This is because IE 6.0 pre-SP1 is full of bugs + security flaws, and is not updated anymore, for a long time now.
And besides, IE 6.0 pre-SP1 has no advantages over IE 6.0 SP1, it has actually fewer features and is less polished to my knowledge.
Therefore, I urge everybody still using IE 6.0 pre-SP1 to upgrade as soon as possible to IE 6.0 SP1:
http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#6S1
and then d/l + install all current IE 6.0 SP1 patches:
http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#BRO

HTH

@ soporific:

Can you put "(multilanguage)" in each update that supports different languages?
I'm creating first basis from Auto-Patcher in italian (I've translated all program), but it's very hard to know what updates are only in english and what updates are also in different languages.

Another simple method is to separate official hotfixes from unofficial hotfixes.

This differentiation is very important....

About unofficial hotfixes, I ask you if you can compile certain italian hotfixes (originally in english) with iexpress, using your .sed files and italian files that I can send you.

I think that we must have a common contact via email/chat.

Let me know if you're interested.

i've sent you a PM ...

Hi, soporific!

Two interesting freeware add-ons are:

Calendar 2000
http://www.gregorybraun.com/Calendar.html

and a nice DirecteX Starfield Simulator Screensaver
http://www.hope.co.nz/projects/stars/
Note: despite what is said in the above homepage, I found out that if you set up a screensaver password, it will ask for it normally on wakeup and won't let you get back to the desktop, unless it gets the right password, so it seems to be fully functional to me.

Of course, I'm aware that their Win 3.1 couterparts do work under Win 9x/ME, but they require a licence for Win 3.1 (which I do have), while the above don't. They also have some more features, and the calendar has a beautiful interface, IMHO. Even MS at last has acknowledged that a simple calendar is useful, as I read they've brough it back from oblivion in Vista, so I believe these may be timely suggestions.

thanks for all the tips!

I've made some improvements to the list. I was inspired to give some attention to all things Win98 when i heard of the demise of the AutoPatcher project. Hope you like. I stil haven't added all the links. Please bug me if i don't get around to it.

For the time zone update you show KB931836. This should be changed to KB933360.

the_guy

fixed. thanks for the free proof read

here's an unofficial installer for DirectX 9.0c August 2007, it was designed to be used with the UBCD project. You cannot use the standard redistributable file from MS to install DirectX 9.0c from scratch, you can only use it after installing any of the previous versions of DirectX 9.0c (ie December 2006 or before) ... this installer is in effect the regular DirectX 9.0c with the August 2007 files installed as an add-on and as such is 39 MB in size. I will also (hopefully) be releasing an update from December 2006 to August 2007 which will be much smaller in size, so wait for that if you already have December 2006 (and you can also just use the standard redistributable file from MS).

So just repeating, this is useful for people wanting to include it on a UBCD or something similar.

http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/DirectX9-Aug2007.exe

it should work for all Windows 98se/Me systems.

What wmp files are obselete now that we have WMP90_98.EXE

Hey all,
I see you have the MSXML 4.0 SP2 MS07-042 update 936227 / 936181 in the list.
I have tested XML 4.0 SP2 (818081) and update builds 887606 / 832414, 925672 and 927978 with no problems.
However, when I installed 936227 / 936181 it broke XML 4.0 in Windows 98SE!
I tested this on two seperate installs of Windows 98SE - a basic install and an update max'd out install.
To back-date, I had to uninstall the update and then manually delete the three msxml4?.dll files and then install 927978!
Even though there is an Add/Remove entry for the update, it does not remove or rollback the dll files so installing an older XML 4 build does nothing...

soporific,
maybe you should have an incompatible section for updates that don't work in 98SE anymore?

I am having some issues with oleaut32.dll update 924053 / 921503 and msxml 3.0 sp9 update 936227 / 936021.
I've yet to confirm these since I was having issues with XML 4 so I back-dated those two while I resolved xml 4.
I'll let you know when I have properly tested these two updates.
You don't have them listed yet and they might just fall into an incompatible section...

Interestingly, the xml updates released this year are having problems where the late 2006 updates work okay.
I bit like MS dropping the bda.cab and directx.cab files after the DirectX December 2006 release...

it should be all the updates listed in the Windows Media Player module in the Auto-Patcher contents file.


The incompatible section -- I think that's a good idea, and it looks like we need to wait a bit for some testing to occur on the new releases before we release into the wild. All the Win98se projects should take this approach me thinks.

soporific,
I have tested the other two new updates I mentioned with the XML 4.0 SP2 update 936181.
So...
921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL does not work. It causes HTML script errors with library not found messages...
936021 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML3.DLL does not work. It causes application errors...
And as mentioned earlier,
936181 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML4.DLL does not work. XML 4 simply does not do anything... Broken...

I welcome others to test these updates.

Thanks for this really important testing info ... i should send a note to MDGx about this as we're going to see more and more cases like these and we don't want to be breaking all the few remaining fully functioning Win98 systems out there! We want to do the opposite ... we need to maybe formalise a testing window where we ask for volunteers to test the new updates we want to release, maybe a fortnight, and then do the proper release.

I better get started on the new section for this thread's first post!

Thanks again RetroOS, you are a very welcome member of the unofficial Windows 98 SE support team!!

That's quite true and, at the same time, it is not!
In fact, RetroOS and soporific, it's complicated...

kb921503 points to MS07-043, and this points back to kb921503, but also to kb924053, among other possible security updates to remedy the vulnerability in MS07-043. And here is the catch: the OLEAUT32.DLL (v. 2.40.4531.0) in Windows2000-KB921503-x86-ENU.EXE really does not work with Win 9x/ME. But VB6-KB924053-x86-ENU.exe contains no less than 5 versions of OLEAUT32.DLL, TWO of which identify themselves as v. 2.40.4519.0! One of them (named oant4.dll in the pack) does work well with Win 9x/ME and IS the most up-to-date version of OLEAUT32.DLL known to do so, even if it does have a version number below v. 2.40.4522.0, which was formerly the most up-to-date version of this file. Well, I warned you it is complicated! erpdude8 was the first to find out about v. 2.40.4519.0, but was rather terse about it. When I understood how confused was this matter, I tried to spell it out as best as I was able to, so if you want to read more on this conundrum, see my long post on it here. HTH

BTW, thanks for the heads up on MSXML3 and MSXML4, RetroOS. You rock!

Thanks for the information dencorso and RetroOS. OLEAUT32.DLL v2.40.4519.0 functions well in my Win 982SE computer.

soporific,
You should probably clarify the actual version numbers of incompatible update files.
Since 921503 for example does have a compatible file hidden away in the mix as pointed out in the last posts.
So the actual dud files are:

921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL is 2.40.4531.0
936021 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML3.DLL is 8.90.1101.0
936181 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML4.DLL is 4.20.9848.0

Essentially, versions of these three files that are numerically less than those listed, should be okay in 9x.

Hopefully we do not need to use the incompatible section too much...
As time rolls on and MS try to quietly exclude 9x (9x? I hear MS saying), this section might expand...

Viv' la Windows 9x!

May I suggest a new section: Update(er)s to avoid at any cost.

DANGEROUS UPDATES

Not because of the updated files themselves but basicaly because the installer is not working and the author (who wants to remain anonymous) doesn't understand the risks of playing with system files (and would better not to).

U891711.EXE
Q891711.EXE
Q891711F.EXE
EXPLOR98.EXE
KB918547.exe

Especialy Q891711 (and all the *891711 flavors)

For the second time (same problem as with the previous version 2 months ago) my computer was unable to restart and I had to reinstall windows.
It said "unable to load user.exe" then shut down in 1/10th of a second. Clack! (You know, the sound when the PC power is turned off). I didn't have the possibility to restart it! ===> Boot Floppy!

Q891711 IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS UPDATE: DO NOT USE IT

Fredledingue,
The Q891711 problem was resolved in a 26 Sep update.
See this post.
It was only an issue if Revolutions Pack was installed.
Before this update was fixed, I resolved my crashed Windows by booting to a command prompt and replacing user.exe and user32.dll with the Revolutions Pack versions.

My dear Fredledingue:

I do respect your grief, and I do respect you. You have my sympathy. But some things must be said!
1)I have installed the updates you mention in more than 10 systems, including my own machine, since they were released, with no problem at all. What you are experiencing must be due to some quirk peculiar to your installation.

2)The files user.exe/user32.dll 4.10.0.2233 (in Q981711); and gdi.exe/gdi32.dll 4.10.0.2227 (in Q918547) are mods by anonymous, while explorer.exe 4.72.3612.1710 is a mod by erpdude8, AFAIK. All these files work flawlessy and don't cause any problem whatsoever, in my experience. And you seem to confirm it yourself as you do blame the installers! Furthermore the mods by anonymous work as advertised and resolve problems MS didn't care to solve for us. Hence, if the installers do have a problem, we have, in this forum, lots of expertise to improve them. This is a case in which we can light a candle instead of cursing the darkness... But we cannot afford to alienate the few code modders and coders we have among ourselves, especially over an installer issue! It's too bad we've lost LLXX already! Let the coders code. We all can help debug installers, once we know there is a problem, no matter how rarely it manifests itself. And in the meanwhile, if the installer doesn't work, it's just a case of installing the files by hand, in DOS mode, until a better installer is released.

3)Don't be overly dramatic. If you did backup before applying new patches, it was a matter of no more than 20 min, probably less, for you to get back to your previous working system state. If you didn't, and really had to reinstall from scratch as you seem to imply, blame it on yourself alone! There are plenty of disclaimers everywhere telling you to backup first, and, ultimately, that whatever you do to your system you do solely at your own risk, and that YMMV. And do not tell me backuping takes lots of times more than 20 min. If it does, you should try an alternative backup strategy: there are many, and I'm sure I can help you find one that will provide you with a backup in 20 min or less, every time you need one. But if you want to discuss backup strategies, I suggest we start another thread, so as to not drift off-topic here.

All the same, thanks for the heads up! All best wishes.

dencorso,

First I must say that backing up your entire system every time you apply a patch is silly: Just see how many there are.
I have counted 26 only after uSP3-alpha was released or that were not included in it!

Maybe my system is special, maybe I did something wrong, maybe the moon wasn't in the right phase, I don't know and I don't want to know because installer for essential system files like these should be 100% safe whatever is the case.
I think it's the installer because when I checked after the crash, user.exe had disapeared. Extracting in DOS user.exe from the original cab files didn't solve the problem maybe because I didn't know I had to extract user.dll too.

see also my reply here on the MDGx thread

About EXPLOR98.EXE and KB918547.exe, I didn't have problem with them but MDGx comments make clear they are dangerous in some cases.

What I intended to do was not bashing the anonymous guy, but to list patches which have caused problems or could potentialy cause some, and list those who are wellknown to be safe.

So you are certainly speaking about TI891711 and not about U891711 as the latter does not replace user.exe and user32.dll.

You should find your original user.exe and user32.dll in your your sysbckup folder if I am not mistaken.

Sorry, Fredledingue, but I disagree. I'm responsible for 6 Win 98SE machines and also service on an irregular basis 4 more Win 98SE machines, besides one Win ME machine that was recently upgraded to XP and 3 other XP machines...
All 10 Win 98SE machines I've set up originally in 2001, and never ever had to reinstall from scratch, up to the present day! I gladly accept being called overly paranoid, but to backup often, and certainly before adding system critical updates, for me is far from silly: it makes sense! Now, I don't say one should backup before and after every single update one applies, but nothing prevents one from collecting some updates, say 3 to 6, backing up, applying them, letting users use the system for one or two weeks, and if nothing goes wrong, repeating this procedure all over again. If something does go wrong, one can reinstall the back up and then hunt down which update was responsible for what went wrong. BTW, this has allowed me to have up and running again, in less than 2h, machines which hard disks went dead because of hardware problems. It happened twice already. And all I needed to do was to get a new hard disk from my spare parts collection, physically install it and put the backup back in. DVD-R's are cheap and don't occupy too much space. And happy customers are priceless.


I now understand your original intention clearly and find it highly commendable. But, since your original post might be understood as a tottaly unwarranted bashing, I felt bound to reply as I did. If I overreacted, my apologies. All best wishes.

Surely LLXX could come back with a new User ID (and a masked IP if necessary).

We need her expertise badly.

So how many variants of 891711 exist ?

The official MS one. U891711 which appears to be a hack of the MS one by anonymous. Both of those are only adding files.

And Tihy's one and the one finally posted by Fredledingue in the other thread, both of which replacing user32.dll and user.exe.

So it seems there are 4 different ones.



No you should not find them there in fact as I wrongly believed that 98SE's wininit.exe was automatically backing up files it deletes or replace as it does on Win ME.

The only way AFAIK, to automaticaly back up your system files in W98 (without external application) is to set a command in scanreg.ini so that scanreg back up some system files. But I'v never heard of anyone using it.

Scanreg automatic registry backup has saved my a$$ a few times. It's not set to backup system files, but common-sense always told me to back the files up manually, at least. I created the folder C:\Backup and I toss in there any current system files that would be upgraded/replaced by a hotfix or whatever, so in case of a failure I'd easily be able to restore them in DOS mode. Scanreg.ini configuration on my machine is as follows:

The best way is indeed simply copy the windows folder somewhere else. (use tcopy)
Then moving files back in dos mode in case of problem.
You can also extract individual files from cabs on the original w98 CD using extract.exe but that's more complicated than simply moving the files and you won't have the last one installed.

Details here:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/q891711.php
Relevant paragraph:More details here:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.TXT

Please note that install/rename INF problems for all installers have been resolved [to my knowledge] as of 10-24-1007:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581

HTH

Nov 6, 2007:
- added lots more localized editions of updates

* Added:
- Sun Java Runtime Environment 1.5.0 Update 13,
- IE939653
- kb938977
- DirectX Aug 2007

* Updated:
- DXM9x
- Q891711
- Shell98
- RichEd9x
- OleUp

* Now obsolete:
- IE937143
- kb933360

see first post for more detail

Hi soporific,

883939 (an old IE Cumulative Update) seems to contain the latest version of MSPATCHA.DLL - 5.2.9354.0. This supercedes the version from the MSI 2.0 update. The update is otherwise obsolete.

Apologies if this has been covered already. Thought I'd just mention it...

Edit: MSPATCHA.DLL is in the latest IE CU - 939653. Oops. I hadn't realised because for me, for whatever reason, Maximus-Decim's IE6 Component Updater either did not install the latest MSPATCHA.DLL, or either Gape's latest beta Unofficial Service Pack or indeed Auto-Patcher overwrote the DLL with an earlier version. I haven't fully investigated which is the culprit...

q254660 mentions a hotfix for mice with extra buttons, but I don't see that in your list.

sorry, i didn't say ... thanks for this. I added it a few days ago to the list. Cheers.

latest additions and changes

Jan 5, 2008:
- Added to Hotfixes: Q942763, Q271277, USBFDD98, Q304708, Q301453, SCR579X, SCR569X
- added to Addons: DX CPL tools, TTFPAK
- Updated: 98KRNLUP, RichEd9x, Explor98, 98MP10

Dec 23, 2007:
- Added to Hotfixes: Flash 9.0.115, WM936782, Q272991,
- Updated Hotfixes: NativeUSB

it whould be a good idea to do all these files in 1

Huh?
Do you mean like soporific's Auto-Patcher 98 or Gape's 98 SE Service Pack?

deleted. too negative.

deleted. too positive.

[do ya think this is anywhere close to the world record for a delayed reaction?]

soporific,

I have updated the updates page:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=46581
Please take a look at your convenience.

Best wishes.

HTH

243450USA8.EXE updates esdi_506.pdr to, 4.10.2225, was it superseded? to my knowledge , no?