[Dave-H]

Just tried downloading and installing this.
Did have the August 2007 version installed already.

Won't install.
It extracts OK, but when I run DXSETUP.EXE and say OK to the legal stuff, I then get an error message -
"An internal system error has occurred, see the files dxerror.log and directx.log in your Windows folder for more details"

Needless to say, those files tell me nothing, because neither of them have been updated since 2006!
Tried installing on Windows 2000 (dual boot machine) and needless to say it worked fine.
Tried reinstalling the August 2007 version on Windows 98, also worked fine.

Anyone any ideas?
The MS download page says quite clearly that this update still supports Windows 98.
I am using the offline installer package.

[thydreamwalker]

Possibly await New Auto-Patcher "Due by end of June'08" this may contain appropriate DX9.0c updates we hope!

[RetroOS]

I installed it okay on my current 98SE.
However, I have recently installed a fresh 98SE on a test PC.
This installed December 2006 and August 2007, but June 2008 had the mentioned internal error.
In the DXError.log file the reason for failure is extracting the cab files.
I'm concluding that I have a newer cab extraction dll on my current PC.
I will have to isolate the file and determine where I got it from...
It looks like the June 2008 cab files use a newer format.
I noticed that between DirectX releases, the cab files were identical except additional and updated ones.
However, the June 2008 cab files are all different.

[Dave-H]

Thanks RetroOS, that's good to know. As I said, my error log files gave no clue at all, and didn't appear to have even been written to!
If you can isolate the dll(s) that needs to be updated for this to work that would be great.

[RetroOS]

Dave-H, I think I've found the solution...
I found that cabinet.dll in my Windows was the release that came with Windows XP Service Pack 2.
After searching through various updates, I found that MDGx's 98MP10 update contains this file.

So... Try installing 98MP10 from http://www.msfn.org/board/98MP10-WMP10-XP-...lac-t89934.html

[Dave-H]

Thanks RetroOS.
My Windows 98 version of cabinet.dll is 5.0.2147.1, which looks like a Windows 2000 file to me!
I tried the version of cabinet.dll from my Windows 2000 installation, which is 5.0.2195.7000.
That didn't work!
I then tried version 5.1.2600.2180, which I downloaded.
The version in 98MP10 seems to be the same.
That didn't work either!
Exactly the same error message.

Even with my original cabinet.dll file, all of the cabinets in the Windows\Temp folder after extraction seem to open OK if I double click on them, with no error messages.

Any more ideas?

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 27 June 2008 - 03:48 PM

[RetroOS]

Okay... DirectX uses ADVAPI32.DLL...
I have version 4.90.0.3000 from Windows Me.
This was installed by MDGx's 98SE2ME pack...
I believe this is why I can install the June 2008 update.
On a test PC with all Auto-Patcher 98 updates installed (except manual installs), it would not work.
The only difference was that I did not have 98SE2ME installed.

So, it must be ADVAPI32.DLL 4.90.0.3000 that is needed!

This post has been edited by RetroOS: 04 July 2008 - 04:06 PM

[aqcww]

RetroOS, on Jul 4 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Okay... DirectX uses ADVAPI32.DLL...
I have version 4.90.0.3000 from Windows Me.
This was installed by MDGx's 98SE2ME pack...
I believe this is why I can install the June 2008 update.
On a test PC with all Auto-Patcher 98 updates installed (except manual installs), it would not work.
The only difference was that I did not have 98SE2ME installed.

So, it must be ADVAPI32.DLL 4.90.0.3000 that is needed!

you mean if i install that dll file,i will setup dx successfully?

[Dave-H]

Thank again RetroOS!
I found a copy of ADVAPI32.DLL version 4.90.0.3000 and put it in my windows\system folder.
Unfortunately, still no difference!
I'm still getting exactly the same error message when I run dxsetup.exe.

I tried the version from my Windows 2000 installation too, which is 5.0.2195.7038.
Windows 98 wouldn't even start with that installed, just BSOD...........

Incidentally, the 98SE2ME pack doesn't actually seem to include the ADVAPI32.DLL file, it seems to assume that you have a Windows ME installation disk, which I haven't!

Any more ideas.................?

[thydreamwalker]

Checked in XPsp3 or RP7 files?....i've seen that .dll somewhere recently ...but not sure where?

[RetroOS]

Hi Dave-H,
I really am stumped now...
I have a test PC that I've just rebuilt with a fresh install of Windows 98SE.
I'm going to install pack by pack until DirectX June 2008 installs without error...
I'll let you know when it installs!

[Dave-H]

Thanks very much, let me know how it goes.
I still don't understand why we are having problems with this upgrade, when MS clearly state on their download page for it that it is compatible with Windows 98!
I could understand it if one of the unofficial upgrade patches had broken compatibility, but if it won't install on a clean new vanilla install of Windows 98 that is really puzzling.

[jglori]

I'm going to be waiting for the developments as well. I first saw this file in FileHippo and it did say that it's compatible with all Windows versions. Though I'm quite puzzled that this same file was listed as being compatible only with Windows 2000 and above at Softpedia.

Anyway, sure hope Retro-OS will find the solution to this.

This post has been edited by jglori: 08 July 2008 - 10:33 PM

[BenoitRen]

All versions? What nonsense. It sure as hell won't work with Windows 95.

[Dave-H]

BenoitRen, on Jul 9 2008, 07:25 PM, said:

All versions? What nonsense. It sure as hell won't work with Windows 95.

Indeed not, Windows 98FE is the earliest OS quoted on the MS download page.

[shae]

How are recent DX9 versions useful for 9x, actually? Won't the new software that might make use of it or need it probably not run on 9x anyway?

[RetroOS]

The core DirectX files for Windows 98/Me have not been updated since December 2006.
In fact, Microsoft removed the core 9x files from DirectX redists several releases ago.
This means having already installed an older version like Dec 2006 before installing the latest.
Or... adding the two missing files (DirectX.cab, BDA.cab) from Dec 2006 to the lastest fileset...
Since Dec 2006, the only changes are to Managed DirectX for .NET Framework.
Unless you have a .NET application that uses Managed DirectX, there's no real advantage...
Of course, you need .NET Framework 1.1 and/or 2.0 installed, otherwise the updates won't even install...
I install the updates anyway for completeness.

[shae]

RetroOS, on Jul 10 2008, 07:17 AM, said:

The core DirectX files for Windows 98/Me have not been updated since December 2006. ... Unless you have a .NET application that uses Managed DirectX, there's no real advantage...

I'm in the clear then. :)

[jglori]

@RetroOS

Quote

The core DirectX files for Windows 98/Me have not been updated since December 2006.
In fact, Microsoft removed the core 9x files from DirectX redists several releases ago.
This means having already installed an older version like Dec 2006 before installing the latest.
Or... adding the two missing files (DirectX.cab, BDA.cab) from Dec 2006 to the lastest fileset...
Since Dec 2006, the only changes are to Managed DirectX for .NET Framework.
Unless you have a .NET application that uses Managed DirectX, there's no real advantage...
Of course, you need .NET Framework 1.1 and/or 2.0 installed, otherwise the updates won't even install...
I install the updates anyway for completeness.

So let me get this straight...I must install .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0 first to make the Directx 9 June 2008 redistribute to work in my Win98SE machine?

[Dave-H]

jglori, on Jul 12 2008, 03:27 PM, said:

So let me get this straight...I must install .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0 first to make the Directx 9 June 2008 redistribute to work in my Win98SE machine?

I have .NET Framework 1.1 installed, and the update still won't work for me.

I did have 2.0 installed as well, but I removed it to clear the registry a bit.
I doubt if that has caused the problem though.