[sp193]

Quote

Taskbar is broken in UberSkin since shl8.dll checks shell32 DllGetVersion.

Yes, that's quite probable cause, since SHELL32 would now report itself not as version 4.0.x but 4.72.3612.

Quote

Now I will try Tihiy's fix, I agree that it's probably not shell behavior, just that confuses Uberskin as to which shell it's in...

I suppose that since 98lite/ROM/ROM2 users have the ability to install Uberskin, the programmers should detect and patch their program pior to installation. Otherwise I would have to rewrite the SHELL32 functions that cause that issue... which may break EXPLORER.exe.

Quote

I don't seem to have IE6 anymore....is this by design? Launching doesn't cause an error, just nothing happens!!!

That's NOT by design, and is certainly a problem!
IE6.0 SP1 is working properly for me, maybe you should first try to reinstall it(Run IEridicator 2001A, then reinstall IE6.0)? I've also install KEX 0.40 on my system, still no problems.

I am using a SHELL32.DLL version 4.0.1112, EXPLORER.exe 4.0.950 (But I also tried 4.0.951) and COMDLG32.DLL version 4.0.950. IE 6.0 is still working 100%.

I formatted my system last year, during the development of SH95UPD, and I did not have your issue; So I suppose that this incompatibility is not widespread.

Thanks for letting me know; It may actually be a highlight of a dawn of a new big error... XD

Quote

Also, now have installed latest Kex. This caused a problem launching mailto: protocols in KMeleon ( not up to date however, v1.13 ) i had to disable Kex for KMeleon

Yea, I also noticed that certain programs would crash (Illegal operation caused in UNICOWS.dll; The program I tested was FFDSHOW) if I don't disable KEX extensions.

Seems like the only proper way is that I somehow "integrate" KEX with SH95UPD properly, so that there won't be such a resource problem again... currently the only solution is that I don't ever link SHELL32.dll with UNICOWS.dll, or risk serious crashes with KEX is installed, hence all functions have to be UNICOWS-independent.

Quote

I wonder if this points to some incompatibility between SH95UPD and Kex ? Just llisting it to make a record of the info....

Yes there is. Originally, SH95UPD v0.0.7 was intended to have a much more robust unicode system(From KEX0.36a), but that conflicted badly with KEX. It seemed to be because UNICOWS was already loaded by KEX. (Hence all crashes would disappear with KEX extensions were disabled)

So I redesigned SH95UPD v0.0.7(The original and rev. A) pior to it's release to greatly reduce that side-effect, although I was cetain that I had totally resolved that issue beforehand... now I think that I'm wrong.

Quote

Best of luck on your exams !

Thanks!

BTW: Geocities SG would be going offline from 2009/010/26 onwards, hence my files would be unavailiable for a while. When my exams are over(In the 1st week of November), I'll upload them to my Linkbucks blog.

This post has been edited by sp193: 25 October 2009 - 04:31 AM

[snuz2]

Shell32.dll 4.00.1111
comdlg32.dll 4.00.951
Explorer.exe 4.00.950

somehow i doubt this is the problem...i think it lost some critical registry entry? bcuz it worked with these components earlier. i will try to "repair IE6" from the control panel....

[snuz2]

IE6 repair would not complete:
here's a screen shot of what IE6 repair reports.
so, I updated these .dll's from old backups and then ran repair.
unfortunately, repair completed without error but still same behaviour from IE6!
launch it and nothing happens. nothing!

somehow i don't think that sh95upd would mess with any of these files, i did update adobe reader from 6.0.1 to 6.0.6 which may have done this, but i doubt that, it has it's own copy of atl.dll in its folder.

i'm thinking that installing and then uninstalling Kex may have been the problem. and here's another weird thing, i have only one app that requires Kex so far, i uninstalled Kex, but now the app runs without it! seems like it didn't fully uninstall. i think i will post this to KEx forum 2moro and see if anyone can make sense of it.

don't want to reinstall ie6 if at all possible bcuz it needs so much patching...

Attached File(s)

•  ie_6_sux.jpg (36.01K)
  Number of downloads: 17

This post has been edited by snuz2: 26 October 2009 - 12:06 AM

[sp193]

SH95UPD v0.0.7A would only tamper with SHELL32.dll, and no other file.
Only those extremely old versions of SH95UPD (Like v0.0.1) would also tamper with KERNEL32.dll.

Quote

Shell32.dll 4.00.1111
comdlg32.dll 4.00.951
Explorer.exe 4.00.950

somehow i doubt this is the problem...i think it lost some critical registry entry? bcuz it worked with these components earlier. i will try to "repair IE6" from the control panel....

Your COMDLG32.dll is newer than mine. I never knew that there was a v4.00.951 (I want one! XD).
However, I have EXPLORER.exe 4.00.951 and SHELL32.dll 4.00.1112.

I won't rule out that there is a damaged/incorrect registry value issue here though.

Quote

don't want to reinstall ie6 if at all possible bcuz it needs so much patching...

I know what you mean.
Maybe this problem isn't really caused by KEX nor SH95UPD. What other modifications did you install?

I think that I also encountered something similar before, when Scandisk trashed all the long filenames on my PC(Including IE6's). The repair won't complete, even with SH95UPD v0.0.6 and KEX uninstalled(Not a system file problem, but just fails with no error I think...). So I had to format the entire installation...but I think that was more severe than your case.

However, I am not sure whether SH95UPD or KEX is really to blame for this as I only install/uninstall/reinstall IE6 without any modifications installed.

Can any other SH95UPD user confirm if this IS a real problem?

Offtopic: Maybe I should post links for SH95UPD to upgrade all their Win95 files... (Newer is better in this case)
For now, please search MDGx's site for updates.

This post has been edited by sp193: 27 October 2009 - 07:40 PM

[snuz2]

This just gets more and more interesting. Even though I uninstalled KEX a week ago, the program that depended on it still runs. Now, this app can update itself from the web, and did, so I assumed the newer version just did not require KEX ( the app is advertised to run on 98). The shell extension properties tags are gone, so I guess it's really uninstalled? I had almost forgotten about it, but read on...!!

Trying to find out what happened to IE6, I switched back to my W98 shell chubby configuration. Now IE6 will launch, I switch back to W95 sleek shell, no launch, back to 98, launch. Well, maybe it's my URL hook that keeps it from launching? No, setting it back to shell32 has no effect. In any case, it's the same URL hook for both shells.

Now it gets even weirder ! I try to uninstall SH95UPD, IE still doesn't launch, but - programs that depend on SH95UPD like adobe 6... wait for it ... yes! they still run as well ! Now, it is Halloween but I don't know what is haunting my box here !! Only thing I can say is that I Reshacked shell32.dll ( the 95 one ) after installing SH95UPD. I was getting rid of the annoying "Shortcut to %1.lnk" prefixing annoyance. Now, SH95UPD thinks it's uninstalled, but apparently still installed???

So, this is totally haunted machine !!! It seems that SH95UPD did not restore the old version, it's clearly my reshacked shell32.dll. So I manually switch back to original W95 shell file from CD. Okay, now Adobe 6 will not run. And, ... yes ... IE6 can launch. I install, SH95UPD and IE6 is dead again, uninstall, it's alive again. Iexplore.exe is version 6.00.2800.1106 btw. So, now some sanity returns here and it seems that Sh95UPD is somehow killing IE6 launch... sorry!

This post has been edited by snuz2: 31 October 2009 - 02:01 AM

[sp193]

Quote

Now, SH95UPD thinks it's uninstalled, but apparently still installed???

This means that "SH95UPD.dat" in your "X:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM" is missing/damaged. SH95UPD looks at that file and determines whether it's installed. Maybe I should implement a permanent version information function in SHELL32.dll like KUP did for KERNEL32.dll to prevent your issue from occurring again.

Quote

Iexplore.exe is version 6.00.2800.1106

I am using the same version.

Quote

So I manually switch back to original W95 shell file from CD. Okay, now Adobe 6 will not run. And, ... yes ... IE6 can launch.

This is adequate evidence that SH95UPD may be the root cause.

Quote

So, now some sanity returns here and it seems that Sh95UPD is somehow killing IE6 launch... sorry!

So that means that there IS still a major bug in SH95UPD.

However, I forgot to ask you earlier: how did you launch your IE6?

Is it:
1. Through the IE6 icon on your desktop (Actually a registry entry which was installed by the IE6 setup program)?
2. Through a shortcut on your desktop?
3. Through a Quicklaunch bar command (Leftover from the old Windows 98 shell)?
4. Through a shortcut from your Startmenu?
5. Launched directly?

If it's through an icon that was placed by IE6's install, then yea, there may be a bug (I can't verify that as the IE6 setup never creates that icon for me anymore after I deleted it, but I remember that it did work when I was developing older versions of SH95UPD). I launched my IE6 through a shortcut from my Startmenu.

Somehow, it seemed like after I added the ability for SHELL32 to return it's version, IE6's reaction to the version number actually varied.
When I got SHELL32 to return it's version as 5.10.2800 (Windows NT 5.1), all the icons in IE6 disappeared. When I set it to around 4.00, IE6 would display the IE startup logo (Windows 95 behaviour). If I set it to 4.72.3612, then I got Windows 98 behaviour. XD

Maybe SH95UPD isn't really ready to allow SHELL32.dll to return it's version as a v4.72 compatible...

Offtopic:
I am now upgrading my shell files to:
EXPLORER.exe -> 4.00.951
SHELL32.dll -> 4.00.1112 (No change)
COMDLG32.DLL -> 4.00.951

EDIT - I've finally uploaded a link on my Linkbucks blog. Check the first post of this thread for links

This post has been edited by sp193: 03 November 2009 - 12:32 AM

[snuz2]

I tried launching it from a shortcut and directly from IExplore.exe itself. No dice either way with SH95UPD, both works without it. I can't get ( and don't want) that desktop thing anymore either. Maybe you just need to find the magic version number to return that's high enough for 98 programs but low enough not to confuse IE somehow... or maybe we can find where IE stores this version string and hack it?

Or is using KEX with Sh95UPD enough to prevent this version aversion haha...anyway thanks again for help.

[sp193]

Strange... you said that you tried to launch IE6 throgh a shortcut and directly.... but nothing happens?
I do that all the time, and it works perfectly.

After my "final" 2 papers (Tomorrow, there is actually one more but it's only MCQs), maybe I'll try to re-enact this issue which you've encountered.

I'll try to purge IE6 (with IEradicator 2001A), then reinstall it on top of a fully running system(WIth KEX and SH95UPD).

I'll let you all know what happens.

About the version number returned by SHELL32:
It returns it's version as 4.72.3612, which is Windows 98SE's SHELL32.dll version, so it should actually not really cause any problem with Win9x (And it didn't for me...yet).

This post has been edited by sp193: 03 November 2009 - 12:38 AM

[bristols]

sp193, on Oct 28 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

Your COMDLG32.dll is newer than mine. I never knew that there was a v4.00.951 (I want one! XD).

You can find it in the Windows 95 Service Pack 1 Update:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/143003
ftp://ftp.microsoft....FILES/SETUP.EXE

sp193, on Oct 28 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

However, I have EXPLORER.exe 4.00.951 and SHELL32.dll 4.00.1112.

Also just FYI, there's an unofficial v4.00.953 EXPLORER.EXE that incorporates Dr Hoiby's 256 Colour Icons patch:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/explor9x.php
http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPLOR95.EXE

Hope your exams went well!

[bristols]

@sp193:

I used SH95UPD to patch the 98lite Sleek-installed SHELL32.DLL, and then installed MDGx's 98SE2ME. Your patch made the workaround documented here unnecessary (it's about 3/4 down the page, under the text "replaces Windows 98 SE EXPLORER.EXE with older Windows 95/OSR2 version"). After applying your patch, I didn't need to swap EXPLORER.EXE for a later version in order to install 98SE2ME. The installation went without any important hitches (there was a WinOldAp error at the end of the extraction of ME files, which seemed to be a failure in the reboot routine. A manual reboot was all that was needed for the installation to continue as normal).

I hope that this is good to know.

Thanks!

Edit: I confused SHELL32.DLL with EXPLORER.EXE. I've re-read your documentation. I slap my own wrists in your absence, sp193.

This post has been edited by bristols: 24 November 2009 - 01:53 PM

[snuz2]

I tried to rerunning the IE6 installer also updated to latest 2.8 SP, still doesn't run. You wouldn't happen to have that IE radicator file handy would you? Also is there some way I could just hack SHELL32 and try to have it report another version? I couldn't find the "4.72.3612" string in there anywhere...

[sp193]

Posted a link to LitePC's site where IEradicator 2001 is hosted at on the 1st post.

You can't hack the version number, as it's not a string, but an array of variables hard coded into SHELL32 after SH95UPD is installed (Unless you use a disassembler to check where it's offset is).

But I've more or less comfirmed this theoritically: The version number should NOT confuse any program anymore (i think that the one in v0.0.7 did). If it does... then some other function added by SH95UPD is broken, or some incompatible function in the Windows 95 SHELL32.dll was called (e.g. Export ordinal 194).

All modifications that uses/modifies the Windows SHELL32.dll must be installed on top of SH95UPD. Failure to do so may result in some strange, unwanted behaviour. This applies even when upgrading SH95UPD to a newer version.

The bottom line: SH95UPD must always be installed below all modifications that are linked/dependent on SHELL32.dll. This means that you have to uninstall all modifications installed on top of SH95UPD before uninstalling/upgrading SH95UPD.

example:

If I want to upgrade SH95UPD v0.0.6 to 0.0.7A but I have KernelEx installed over it:

I have to:

1. Uninstall KernelEx (And any other modifications that are linked to SHELL32.dll) and reboot.
2. Uinstall SH95UPD and reboot.
3. Install the new SH95UPD and reboot.
4. Re-install KernelEx and other modifications you wish to have.

I know that this is just a blind guess... but I just want to be sure that you really did NOT break your system by upgrading SH95UPD (You mentioned that you found a old version there before upgrading)... and that there really is a major issue caused by SH95UPD.

Tips for those who experience crashed with certain programs after installing KernelEx: Make sure that the "Disable KernelEx Extensions" is checked for that program in question. This applies exclusively to programs that experience crashes that are related with UNICOWS.dll.

Quote

I used SH95UPD to patch the 98lite Sleek-installed SHELL32.DLL, and then installed MDGx's 98SE2ME. Your patch made the workaround documented here unnecessary

Good to know that my software has helped you. Thanks for your feedback.

Quote

Also just FYI, there's an unofficial v4.00.953 EXPLORER.EXE that incorporates Dr Hoiby's 256 Colour Icons patch:

I use the hacks listed at his site. I didn't download his pre-hacked version... but modified EXPLORER myself.

Quote

The installation went without any important hitches (there was a WinOldAp error at the end of the extraction of ME files, which seemed to be a failure in the reboot routine. A manual reboot was all that was needed for the installation to continue as normal).

Interesting... I thought that the reboot routine was fool-proof. However, since it's a "WinOldApp" error... I got a feeling that the SHExitWindowsEx function introduced by SH95UPD is responsible. Could you please provide a screenshot, or post here the entire error message contents?

Somehow I think that a "WinOldApp" error actually means that the MS-DOS console subsystem in your system had encountered an error... but the SHELL32 functions do not use a MS-DOS console window...

Hence I somehow think that it was 98SE2ME's setup that had a problem. Someone correct me if my hypothesis here is incorrect...

Offtopic:

Thanks to all who were concerned about my exams. I did my best, and the exams were so-so. Right now I can have fun while waiting for the release of my results next year...

However, now I have to live with the "normal" loading speed that comes with Windows NT 6.1..... I'm going to miss my Win98 installation. (More on what I mean here is on the 1st post).

I found a old Windows 98SE (Japan locale) installation on a old laptop's HDD, but I can't boot it from my laptop's USB connection as this laptop has WAY too much RAM for Windows 98 to handle.
I tried adjusting the page file sizes...but the notorious "Out of memory" error message that occurs at startup keeps appearing. Guess that 3GB of RAM can really doom a Windows 98SE installation.

This post has been edited by sp193: 22 December 2009 - 12:58 PM

[rloew]

sp193, on Dec 22 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

I found a old Windows 98SE (Japan locale) installation on a old laptop's HDD, but I can't boot it from my laptop's USB connection as this laptop has WAY too much RAM for Windows 98 to handle.
I tried adjusting the page file sizes...but the notorious "Out of memory" error message that occurs at startup keeps appearing. Guess that 3GB of RAM can really doom a Windows 98SE installation.

Windows 98, 98SE and ME does work with 3GB of RAM but you will need the Patch I wrote to support it. The only alternative is to limit the amount of memory that Windows 9X sees.

[dencorso]

rloew, on Dec 22 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

sp193, on Dec 22 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Guess that 3GB of RAM can really doom a Windows 98SE installation.

Windows 98, 98SE and ME does work with 3GB of RAM but you will need the Patch I wrote to support it. The only alternative is to limit the amount of memory that Windows 9X sees.

RLoew is right! That's the way to go. It's possible to use 3GB or even more. See my > 1 GiB list, for which a link is in my signature. I use RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch and so does Dave-H, and we're both very satisfied customers.
Then again, be advised that to boot Win 9x from USB is not a trivial task, either.

[rloew]

dencorso, on Dec 22 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

Then again, be advised that to boot Win 9x from USB is not a trivial task, either.

Booting Windows 9X from USB is not very hard.

The following procedure will install Windows 9X on a USB Drive.

1. Set your BIOS to disable other Hard Drives and boot from CD.
2. Attach USB Drive or Key.
3. Insert Windows CD.
4. Boot.
5. Install Windows to the USB Drive.
6. When Disk Access Error Messages appear, press RESET.
7. Boot into Safe Mode.
8. Disable all USB drivers.
9. Reboot.
10. Continue installation.

[sp193]

Quote

Booting Windows 9X from USB is not very hard.

The following procedure will install Windows 9X on a USB Drive.

1. Set your BIOS to disable other Hard Drives and boot from CD.
2. Attach USB Drive or Key.
3. Insert Windows CD.
4. Boot.
5. Install Windows to the USB Drive.
6. When Disk Access Error Messages appear, press RESET.
7. Boot into Safe Mode.
8. Disable all USB drivers.
9. Reboot.
10. Continue installation.

Thanks guys, but I won't be able to try that any time soon. My HDD case got wrecked (USB port got ripped off, and I can't solder it back on), and I won't be getting a replacement as that HDD is just too old, too small and I don't have $$$. Not to mention that it may already have suffered damage from my PC's faulty USB 2.0 hardware (It just seems to be the cause of all the damaged USB enclosure electronics of other cases)

I DID boot Win9x (Windows 95, 95A, 95B, 96(Nashville) and 98SE) from a USB device before, even from PCs that do not support booting from an external USB device.

I can't clearly remember, but I think that that error was so bad that it extended into safe mode (Meaning that I can't even access safe mode without hitting that error). But I CAN boot into MS-DOS mode, just not any mode that loads win.com (Running "win /D:M" would also cause that error to appear). This was what I meant by 3GB can kill this installation, not that it can kill any proper Win98 installation with the right adjustments made.

At any rate, I think that I'll just find another device (Somehow), and install Win98 again. Then I'll limit the memory, or patch it.
BTW: Won't just limiting the size of the swap file also fix this? Somehow I got this impression that I can from a Microsoft KB.

Upcoming SH95UPD v0.0.8 features:
-Some core modifications to make modifications easier to make
-Separate uninstaller(?)
-Add export 680 (IsUserAdmin). It was actually already in Win98 as export 680.

This post has been edited by sp193: 23 December 2009 - 10:34 PM

[rloew]

sp193, on Dec 23 2009, 11:30 PM, said:

At any rate, I think that I'll just find another device (Somehow), and install Win98 again. Then I'll limit the memory, or patch it.
BTW: Won't just limiting the size of the swap file also fix this? Somehow I got this impression that I can from a Microsoft KB.

Limiting the size of the Swap file will not fix any of the large RAM issues.

[dencorso]

dencorso, on Dec 22 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

See my > 1 GiB list, for which a link is in my signature.

In Day-to-day running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM you'll find actual working examples of how it's done, even without patching, If you limit the RAM memory.
You can boot Win 9x directly from USB if the BIOS has USB-HDD mode, or in various roundabout ways if the BIOS has just USB-ZIP or USB-FDD mode, the simplest being to boot the devide as A:\, create a ramdisk, move the boot files, command.com and some devices to the ramdisk, jump from autoexec.bat to a batch in the ramdisk, load DOS USB 2.0 drivers, adjust the path and the comspec and run win.ini. However you'll not be able to use Win USB drivers and will have to do without USB hot-plugging. But it's possible and has been done in various ways.

[sp193]

SH95UPD v0.0.8 is now released.

As it has major core changes, it IS an "Ultra beta" - a much bigger beta than v0.0.7 with it was initially released.

Changes for SH95UPD v0.0.8 24/12/2009
-Added the following functions:
-IsUserAdmin (Export ordinal 680)
-SHFlushSFCache (Export ordinal 526, alias of the SHFlushSFCache that was already present in older SH95UPD releases)
-GetRealDriveType (Export ordinal 524)
-SHBindToParent

-Fully implemented SHGetSettings
-Seperated the uninstaller from the main program.
-The uninstaller is now the resident manager of SH95UPD, which has a smaller footprint.
This may seem unimportant, but now the full uncompressed SH95UPD is already 366KB in size (Compared to the uninstaller’s 144KB uncompressed).
-Added the ability for SH95UPD to alias a function that was only exported by ordinal.
-Added the ability for SH95UPD to export a function by ordinal.

IMPORTANT! SH95UPD v0.0.8 has some extreme core changes done to it (View the changelog for details).
Hence you can consider it to be a “Ultra Beta”, a much bigger beta than v0.0.7 when it was initially released.

Frankly, I have not really heavily tested this, but I have yet to encounter any flaws. Please report any _new_ crashes you may encounter here.

Please refer to the first post of this thread for downloads.


A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the MSN community!

This post has been edited by sp193: 24 December 2009 - 12:25 PM

[snuz2]

Tried using IEradicator and reinstalling IE6, same problem: starting is blocked by SH95UPD.

On the bright side, no problems with version 0.0.8.