[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 07 December 2011 - 08:10 PM, said:

Prozactive, on 07 December 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:

how would you accomplish that (copying IO.SYS to a specific cluster(s)/location on the HDD)?

Given a partition that has just been formatted, if you just copy IO.SYS alone to it, using DOS, it'll be copied as a single continuous image, starting at cluster 2 (the first cluster). Now, to put in a continuous image of any file, starting at an arbitrary cluster number, especially when the partition in not empty anymore, that requires a lot more calisthenics and patience, but can be acomplished by hand, with a good hexeditor/sector-copier, by anyone who has a really strong reason to do it (like learning how-to, for instance).

Or you can use bootpart (as said) to "rewriteroot" (i.e. to put the IO.SYS as first file).
A set of related handy (though a bit complex to use/potentially dangerous) are here:
http://www.partition...m/utilities.htm


@egrabrych
Sometimes (read often) reality becomes a myth, the fact that traditionally an OS behaves in a given way makes people assume that the new version will behave the same (actually this happens often) but some things "remain" and little by little it becomes a myth.
Recently while doing a few experiments with DOS FORMAT /B I found another little quirk (obslete info perpetuating).
I will post this in a new thread as to not clutter this one.

jaclaz

P.S.: OK, posted here:
http://www.msfn.org/...at-b-and-label/

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 08 December 2011 - 03:11 AM

[Prozactive]

jds, on 08 December 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

Prozactive, on 06 December 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

Yes, I thought I could go straight from the original 23 Apr 1999 version of IO.SYS to the latest patched version from rloew but that's apparently not the case. It's a prerequisite to install the 311561USA8.EXE update first to update IO.SYS to that version before the new patched version is manually installed.

This seems strange. I'm pretty sure I've done this (with my version of phelum's patches) without any dramas. Did you immediately reboot after changing 'IO.SYS' (just in case some copy of 'IO.SYS' in memory gets reloaded and then code addresses have changed, or some such confusion)?

Yes I was quite surprised too. It seems quite definitive though, at least on my laptop. I booted up into DOS from a boot diskette, renamed and replaced IO.SYS with the latest patched version from rloew via dencorso's patch file (had to change file attributes for IO.SYS with the ATTRIB command to do so), then immediately rebooted into Win98 whereupon I got the previously cited Windows system registry error. Restoring IO.SYS to the original Win98SE (23-Apr-99) version immediately eliminated the error, as did running the 311561USA8.EXE update *before* manually updating IO.SYS. I assumed that the 311561USA8.EXE update must've made some required registry changes to accommodate the new IO.SYS it installed.

EDIT: I should also note that the same Windows system registry error also recurred after the automatic DOS-based registry checker fixed some registry error(s) after the first mandatory reboot. And again, the file sizes of IO.SYS are different between the two versions.

I plan to repeat this update process with my desktop PC soon and I'll report back if there are any differences. Over the years, there *have* been some differences in how things work between the two systems even though they both run Win98SE and are configured very similarly. I assumed they were probably due to hardware differences.

This post has been edited by Prozactive: 08 December 2011 - 11:55 AM

[Dave-H]

I've been following this discussion with interest, and decided to see what's on my Windows 98SE installation.

I have two IO.SYS files on the system, one in the root of C:\ which is dated 23/04/99 22.22, which I assume is the 98SE original version.
I also have a copy in my Emergency Boot Disk folder, which is dated 01/12/01 09.37.
The two files are not the same as they are slightly different sizes.

I've not had any problem accessing drives, so should I worry about applying any or all of these patches?

[dencorso]

Prozactive, on 08 December 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

Over the years, there *have* been some differences in how things work between the two systems even though they both run Win98SE and are configured very similarly. I assumed they were probably due to hardware differences.

And "bit rot"... bit rot is the informatics equivalent to material's fatigue, or, in other words, bit rot is the cumulative collection of small non fatal registry errors and file corruptions that can happen on a system over a really long time. To fight it, using periodical images to fall back to, whenever something perceptible is noticed, is part of the game, but the problem are those small damages that don't lead to any symptoms, until activated by some other such "harmless-in-itself" damage. My current main Win 98SE was originally installed back in 2001, and never reinstalled so far, so I do think I'm fighting bit rot effectively, but one can never really know for sure.

[rloew]

Dave-H, on 08 December 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

I've been following this discussion with interest, and decided to see what's on my Windows 98SE installation.

I have two IO.SYS files on the system, one in the root of C:\ which is dated 23/04/99 22.22, which I assume is the 98SE original version.
I also have a copy in my Emergency Boot Disk folder, which is dated 01/12/01 09.37.
The two files are not the same as they are slightly different sizes.

I've not had any problem accessing drives, so should I worry about applying any or all of these patches?

The EBD Folder Version is the Updated IO.SYS. Use that one with my Patch. Then use the resulting File to replace the C:\IO.SYS File.

@Prozactive: I have never used the 311561USA8.EXE Patch on any system. I just used the File inside, so the registry is not the issue.

This post has been edited by rloew: 08 December 2011 - 04:21 PM

[egrabrych]

Dave-H, on 08 December 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

I have two IO.SYS files on the system, one in the root of C:\ which is dated 23/04/99 22.22, which I assume is the 98SE original version.
I also have a copy in my Emergency Boot Disk folder, which is dated 01/12/01 09.37.
The two files are not the same as they are slightly different sizes.

It just may be correct. The original file IO.SYS with Windows 98SE Polish version has a volume of 222,390 bytes, while the volume of the IO.SYS file after you apply hotfix 311561 is 222,670 bytes - in both cases is good.

jaclaz, on 08 December 2011 - 02:56 AM, said:

Sometimes (read often) reality becomes a myth, the fact that traditionally an OS behaves in a given way makes people assume that the new version will behave the same (actually this happens often) but some things "remain" and little by little it becomes a myth.

Of course I agree with the above finding.

[jds]

dencorso, on 08 December 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

And "bit rot"... bit rot is the informatics equivalent to material's fatigue, or, in other words, bit rot is the cumulative collection of small non fatal registry errors and file corruptions that can happen on a system over a really long time. To fight it, using periodical images to fall back to, whenever something perceptible is noticed, is part of the game, but the problem are those small damages that don't lead to any symptoms, until activated by some other such "harmless-in-itself" damage. My current main Win 98SE was originally installed back in 2001, and never reinstalled so far, so I do think I'm fighting bit rot effectively, but one can never really know for sure.

Yes, that's the best theory so far!

Joe.

[Prozactive]

Well, I finally updated IO.SYS on my desktop PC using the same procedure (from DOS) without loading the 311561USA8.EXE update beforehand and everything seems to work fine, at least so far. I didn't get the immediate Windows registry error that I did on my laptop for some reason, which is quite puzzling. I understand the "bit rot" concept but I really don't think that's the situation with my laptop. I routinely run System File Checker, registry scans, and numerous other system utilities to ensure things are in order. Of course, that's no guarantee but I feel quite confident about the OS integrity overall.

I was hoping the updated IO.SYS would solve the annoying bug in Windows Explorer of having multiple entries for discs mounted in my CD/DVD drives but that's not the case, as those multiple entries still occur. And yes, the original Win98SE IO.SYS has a file size of 222,390 bytes while the updated IO.SYS installed by the 311561USA8.EXE update is 222,670 bytes.

[rloew]

Prozactive, on 09 December 2011 - 11:07 AM, said:

I was hoping the updated IO.SYS would solve the annoying bug in Windows Explorer of having multiple entries for discs mounted in my CD/DVD drives but that's not the case, as those multiple entries still occur. And yes, the original Win98SE IO.SYS has a file size of 222,390 bytes while the updated IO.SYS installed by the 311561USA8.EXE update is 222,670 bytes.

This is an unrelated problem. Try disabling any DOS CD/DVD Drivers in your CONFIG.SYS File.

[Prozactive]

Thanks Mr. Loew. There are no drivers in my CONFIG.SYS file. it's not a showstopper but it is somewhat annoying.

[I41Mar]

About R.Loew PATCHPAR.EXE (and the other patches), for greater clarity:
I do not know if I understood correctly, but this (R.Loew PATCHPAR.EXE)

1) is the latest patch and then all the other patches (by jds , Saunderson, the first by R.Loew by hex editing [Quote of the post#72 by rloew on 04 December 2011, 06:28 PM : This Patch is "complete"]) have to be applied and then lastly this one too,

or

2) is equivalent to the previous R.Loew by hex editing,

or

3) is an all inclusive cumulative patch and I should apply only this one (bugfix for all problems)?

Excuse me if I am misundestood something, but i'm beginning to have a headache!
Thank you all.

[rloew]

I41Mar, on 12 December 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

About R.Loew PATCHPAR.EXE (and the other patches), for greater clarity:
I do not know if I understood correctly, but this (R.Loew PATCHPAR.EXE)

1) is the latest patch and then all the other patches (by jds , Saunderson, the first by R.Loew by hex editing Quote of the post#72 by rloew on 04 December 2011, 06:28 PM : This Patch is "complete") have to be applied and then lastly this one too,

or

2) is equivalent to the previous R.Loew by hex editing,

or

3) is an all inclusive cumulative patch and I should apply only this one (bugfix for all problems)?

Excuse me if I am misundestood something, but i'm beginning to have a headache!
Thank you all.

The Patch is complete. You do not need any other Patch. It is recommended that you use the Updated IO.SYS from 311561USA8.EXE as your starting point.
It is not truly cumulative as I created a single Patch that solves the issues dealt with by all of the prior patches, so the earlier ones are not present.
It is the same as the Hex Editing instructions for the 311561USA8.EXE version only. It will insert slightly different Patches into the original IO.SYS and possibly localized versions as it uses an adaptive algorithm.
My previously posted Patch, not the Hex Edit, is obsolete and should not be used.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

OK, now I'm a little confused. Which patch is obsolete?

dencorso, on 05 December 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:

Here is RLoew's complete patch, as a patch pattern, so that those interested may create the patched IO.SYS.
patch -p winboot.98s IO_RRL.PAT IO.SYS

rloew, on 07 December 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

Use the following commands to perform the Patch.

C:
CD \
REN IO.SYS IO.OLD
PATCHPAR IO.OLD IO.SYS

[dencorso]

Rloew's original patch, linked to from my post #49 in this thread, required also jds' version of the phellum patch. The combined patches should be aplied to the Q311561 version of IO.SYS. These combined patches were superseded by RLoew's complete patch, released in his post #67, then converted to a patch pattern to be used with the IO.SYS from Q311561, in my post #80, and then presented as an adaptive standalone patcher by RLoew himself, in post #98

[schwups]

Is it possible to make the patch for Win ME, too? Till now I've hidden phantom drives. 

[Dave-H]

Just wanted to report that I patched my IO.SYS using the MS patch and then rloew's latest patch, and no problems.
I was a bit apprehensive as the last time i tried anything like that all my drive letters got scrambled!
http://www.msfn.org/...post__p__768159
Fortunately all OK this time, I guess I'll never know what happened before!

[loblo]

schwups, on 13 December 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Is it possible to make the patch for Win ME, too? Till now I've hidden phantom drives. 

Rloew wrote a decompressor for WinMe's IO.SYS: http://rloew1.no-ip.com/prerel.htm

So I guess it should be possible to make a patch for it without too much difficulty.

I've never seen phantom drives on my ME system, perhaps because, since I encountered those ugly things in my distant win95 days, I always zero a drive before (re)partitioning it (with Paragon Partition Manager 2000 if that's relevant).

[rloew]

schwups, on 13 December 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Is it possible to make the patch for Win ME, too? Till now I've hidden phantom drives. 

I have updated my PATCHPAR Program to Patch the Unpacked Windows ME IO.SYS as well. You will need to get the Unpacker from my Website.
Let me know if it solves your problem.

[LoneCrusader]

schwups, on 13 December 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Is it possible to make the patch for Win ME, too?...

rloew, on 13 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

I have updated my PATCHPAR Program to Patch the Unpacked Windows ME IO.SYS as well....

For completeness sake, is it possible to get these bugfixes applied to the Windows 95 IO.SYS from Q185301 KB Article HotFix?

(I believe that's the last official version for 95, but I'm not at my usual "project machine" so I can't check right now.)

[rloew]

LoneCrusader, on 14 December 2011 - 08:53 PM, said:

schwups, on 13 December 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Is it possible to make the patch for Win ME, too?...

rloew, on 13 December 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

I have updated my PATCHPAR Program to Patch the Unpacked Windows ME IO.SYS as well....

For completeness sake, is it possible to get these bugfixes applied to the Windows 95 IO.SYS from Q185301 KB Article HotFix?

(I believe that's the last official version for 95, but I'm not at my usual "project machine" so I can't check right now.)

It appears to work for both of the Hotfix files as well.