Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Requesting Windows 95 Updates, Tools, etc.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#26
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

...when push comes to shove, you can use the PE Timestamp (see this, this, this and this) to sort things out,...

I tried examining GDI.EXE with MiTeC EXE Explorer, and there didn't seem to be anything like a timestamp or compilation date anywhere inside. Also tried PEDUMP with the syntax you posted in the other threads, it generated no output whatsoever, even tried redirecting output to a .TXT file, and it was blank. eXeScope didn't find anything either.

GDI32.DLL did yield some results however. Each version seems to have two instances of "TimeDateStamp," but they are usually within a few seconds of each other.

GDI32.GLL version 4.00.1112 for OSR2 from Q229670:
TimeDateStamp: 398F4DE4 -> Mon Aug 07 20:01:40 2000
TimeDateStamp: 398F4DDD -> Mon Aug 07 20:01:33 2000

GDI32.DLL version 4.00.954 for 95 Original from Q229670:
TimeDateStamp: 39C2632F -> Fri Sep 15 13:58:07 2000
TimeDateStamp: 39C2632C -> Fri Sep 15 13:58:04 2000

GDI32.DLL version 4.00.955 from Q247578:
TimeDateStamp: 39D4D9EF -> Fri Sep 29 14:05:35 2000
TimeDateStamp: 39D4D9EC -> Fri Sep 29 14:05:32 2000

GDI32.DLL version 4.00.970 from MSAA:
TimeDateStamp: 32346E9C -> Mon Sep 09 15:23:08 1996
TimeDateStamp: 32091696 -> Wed Aug 07 18:20:06 1996


Going by these results it would seem that the MSAA versions are actually the oldest. :blink:

Q247578 is the newest, but it supposedly not for OSR2.

The Q229670 KB article claims it should have versions 4.01.971 for 95 Original (but doesn't?), so does that mean that Q229670 version 4.00.1112 for OSR2 is the OSR2 equivalent of Original 4.01.971? If so, then the Q229670 HotFix must contain the last version for OSR2.

The version discrepancy between the Q229670 KB article and the actual files it contains is puzzling. It should contain 4.01.971 files for 95 Original, but does not. In fact, there does not seem to be any GDI32.DLL version 4.01.971, and the only GDI.EXE with that version is in the W95EURO package and has an earlier timestamp than all of these other files.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 23 January 2011 - 02:36 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

GDI.EXE is a NE executable, hence it has no PE Timestamp.
But since it always comes together with GDI32.DLL, which is a PE executable, the latter's PE Timestamp may be used to date both.
The PE Timestamp you should consider is the first that PEDUMP shows, the one in the File Header, which is written last during the linking process.
The fact that there are two such dates separated by a few seconds reflects the fact that compilation and linking aren't and instantaneous process, the "exports table" being created just a little time before the creation of the "File Header", which is the last step, and, for all purposes, the best estimate of when the file was actually written to disk in final form, for the first time, so that is its true "birthday" of sorts. Sometimes, relinking already created parts can result in a wider timespan between the "exports table" and the "File Header".

MS often revises the hotfixes, but rarely does so with their corresponding articles. Of late, they indicate the revisons by adding -v2-, -v3-, etc., to the filename, but that's a more recent practice, so that the hotfix' contents not corresponding to what is stated in the article is not totally unexpected.

The Q229670 KB article claims it should have versions 4.01.971 for 95 Original (but doesn't?), so does that mean that Q229670 version 4.00.1112 for OSR2 is the OSR2 equivalent of Original 4.01.971? If so, then the Q229670 HotFix must contain the last version for OSR2.

Yes. That's the correct conclusion. And they may have decided not to release 4.01.971 for some reason (maybe because they decided to stop supporting Original at that point). I'd think it's a fair bet that GDI.EXE/GDI32.DLL 4.00.970 are the latest extant files for Original.

#28
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

The GDI.EXE madness continues.

In order to have support for the Euro € symbol in Character Map, one has to use the GDI.EXE from W95EURO.EXE.
It makes sense to a point because it does have the latest version number... but on the other hand has the earliest timestamp.

The GDI.EXE's from Q229670 and MSAA do not display the Euro € symbol in Character Map.

It would seem that the last GDI.EXE (4.01.971) for 95 is inside W95EURO.EXE, and the last GDI32.DLL (4.01.970) is probably the one from MSAA.

Leave it to Microsoft to make things overcomplicated, I wonder why they started a "4.00.1111" style versioning for OSR2 in Q229670 and then reverted back to the Original 95 style versioning?


EDIT:

It appears Q229670 has been the victim of some "editing" by Microsoft. The Hotfix file for Windows 95 does not contain the proper versions for 95 Original as I mentioned before, and also the files inside for OSR2 do not match the size attributes listed in the article. The Hotfix versions for 98 and 98SE seem to match the attributes in the article. I believe Microsoft may have purposely crippled this particular update for 95... :unsure:

Also, bristols sent me a copy of this Hotfix earlier, and it is totally different from the one available now, and apparently somewhat older than the one described in the article. Anyone else have a copy of this?

Edited by LoneCrusader, 28 January 2011 - 01:59 AM.


#29
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 441 posts
  • Joined 24-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

It appears Q229670 has been the victim of some "editing" by Microsoft. The Hotfix file for Windows 95 does not contain the proper versions for 95 Original as I mentioned before, and also the files inside for OSR2 do not match the size attributes listed in the article. The Hotfix versions for 98 and 98SE seem to match the attributes in the article. I believe Microsoft may have purposely crippled this particular update for 95... :unsure:

Also, bristols sent me a copy of this Hotfix earlier, and it is totally different from the one available now, and apparently somewhat older than the one described in the article. Anyone else have a copy of this?


A while ago, Erpman (erpdude8 here) announced that he would remove his NT4 and 9x updates pages from his website (he has since restored the latter page, with several updates removed). Before he did, I took the opportunity to download everything there that I didn't already have for Windows 95. The updates that were listed there, as well as those listed by MDGx (and one or two listed at Lightspeed's now defunct Win95 page), account for everything I downloaded for the OS. A few of the updates were produced by Erpman - at least, a few of the NT4 ones were, but possibly also some of the 95 ones.

Anyway, I suspect I got Q229670 from Erpman's site, if not that of MDGx. It would be good to get the Erp's input here. Unfortunately WayBack Machine doesn't seem to have indexed his 9x page when it was at its fullest.

Edited by bristols, 30 January 2011 - 11:41 AM.


#30
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Time to resurrect this thread. :lol:

I'm searching for a specific HotFix file for Windows 95 RTM, ESDI_506.PDR version 4.00.956.

It was part of the original REMIDEUP.EXE (and possibly other packages) before it was later edited to include ESDI_506.PDR version 4.00.1116 instead.

Anyone out there happen to have this? :angel

Edited by LoneCrusader, 17 May 2013 - 10:05 PM.


#31
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I'm searching for a specific HotFix file for Windows 95 RTM, ESDI_506.PDR version 4.00.956.

It was part of the original REMIDEUP.EXE (and possibly other packages) before it was later edited to include ESDI_506.PDR version 4.00.1116 instead.


:blink: Wow! That'll be a hard one to get! :wacko:

According to this, you'll need to get a version of REMIDEUP.EXE from before Nov 19, '97!!!

REMIDEUP.EXE 19 Nov 97 Removable IDE Driver Update
Esdi_506.pdr 4.00.1116 Voltrack.vxd is only installed
Voltrack.vxd 4.00.954 on Windows 95 and Windows 95a



#32
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

:blink: Wow! That'll be a hard one to get! :wacko:

According to this, you'll need to get a version of REMIDEUP.EXE from before Nov 19, '97!!!

REMIDEUP.EXE 19 Nov 97 Removable IDE Driver Update
Esdi_506.pdr 4.00.1116 Voltrack.vxd is only installed
Voltrack.vxd 4.00.954 on Windows 95 and Windows 95a

Yikes... :ph34r:

Even this old copy of the MSKB article references the version I need, but then proceeds to claim the package contains 1116.

Last reviewed: March 17, 1998 Article ID: Q160800 The information in this article applies to: Microsoft Windows 95 Microsoft Windows 95 OEM Service Release version 2

SYMPTOMS
When you are using an Intel motherboard with an AMI/Intel BIOS or an Iomega IDE Zip drive installed on the secondary IDE channel, you may receive a "Fatal Exception Error" error message when you start the computer without a disk in the Zip drive or you eject the disk from the Zip drive.

CAUSE
This problem can occur if the following conditions exist: The computer has an IDE removable drive that uses Media Status Notification (the Iomega IDE Zip drive is one such drive). The computer's BIOS unmasks the PIC for the IRQ on the controller on which the drive is located. The drive is accessed with no disk in the drive. The BIOS touches the Alt Status register when an interrupt is vectored to it. When these conditions exist, an interrupt may be reflected to the BIOS, which can cause a fault.

STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in Microsoft Windows 95. An update to address this problem is now available, but is not fully regression tested and should be applied only to computers experiencing this specific problem. Unless you are severely impacted by this specific problem, Microsoft does not recommend implementing this update at this time. This issue is resolved by the following updated files for Windows 95:
Esdi_506.pdr version 4.00.956 (dated 5/14/96) and later Voltrack.vxd version 4.00.954 (dated 3/6/96) and later
To install this update, follow these steps:
1.Download the Remideup.exe file from the online service listed below to an empty folder.
2.In My Computer or Windows Explorer, double-click the Remideup.exe file you downloaded in step 1.
3.Follow the instructions on the screen.
The following file(s) are available for download from the Microsoft Software Library: ~ remideup.exe (size: 147096 bytes)
For more information about downloading files from the Microsoft Software Library, please see the following article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
ARTICLE-ID: Q119591 TITLE : How to Obtain Microsoft Support Files from Online Services

The following files are installed by Remideup.exe:

File name Version Date/Time Size Destination folder
---------------------
Esdi_506.pdr 4.00.1116 8/25/97 11:16a 24,426 Windows\System\Iosubsys
Voltrack.vxd 4.00.954 3/6/96 9:54a 18,518 Windows\System\Iosubsys

NOTE: The Voltrack.vxd file is installed on Windows 95 computers only. This file is not installed on computers running OSR2.



#33
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

It appears to still exist inside Nest.zip, a superseded driver still present at the DriverGuide.
But since they now refuse to let one download without installing their Downloader, I'll not be able to download it to ascertain whether the old remideup.exe is truly there.
I'd have to back-up my system, download, then restore my back-up image to remove the last trace of DriverGuide's crappy downloader... I'm sorry but I don't have the needed spare time to do it right now.

#34
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

It appears to still exist inside Nest.zip, a superceeded driver still present at the DriverGuide.
But since they now refuse to let one download without installing their Downloader, I'll not be able to download it to ascertain whether the old remideup.exe is truly there.
I'd have to back-up my system, download, then restore my back-up image to remove the last trace of DriverGuide's crappy downloader... I'm sorry but I don't have the needed spare time to do it right now.

:w00t:

No problem. I have a VM specifically for that. :lol:

Thanks for the link, on my way to get it and investigate.

#35
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

OK. Keep me posted, please.

#36
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

OK. Keep me posted, please.

:no:

It contains ESDI_506.PDR version 4.00.1112. :(


EDIT:

Ugh, who knows how many "updates" REMIDEUP.EXE has gone through. :wacko: :wacko:
This is an earlier copy of a KB article about it. With a different KB number, and references to even earlier versions for 95 RTM, but still listing the 1116 version.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 18 May 2013 - 12:43 AM.


#37
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

:no:

It contains ESDI_506.PDR version 4.00.1112. :(

:(


EDIT:

Ugh, who knows how many "updates" REMIDEUP.EXE has gone through. :wacko: :wacko:
This is an earlier copy of a KB article about it. With a different KB number, and references to even earlier versions for 95 RTM, but still listing the 1116 version.

The one with v. 1116 is easy to find: it seems to be the last. It has CRC32: C90D2429 and MD5: CFF50F370D3A5D050DA7158728CF7A37 and it's size is 147,096 bytes.

#38
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

The one with v. 1116 is easy to find: it seems to be the last. It has CRC32: C90D2429 and MD5: CFF50F370D3A5D050DA7158728CF7A37 and it's size is 147,096 bytes.

Yes, I think I already ended up with 7 copies of that one. :lol:

Problem is that version is completely useless, unless the included VOLTRACK.VXD is the last version for 95 RTM.

MS apparently issued 1116 for RTM and OSR2, but it does not solve the "Windows Protection Error" on fast CPUs. 1118 was issued for this, once again in packages for both RTM (FLOPUPD5.EXE) and OSR2 (AMDK6UPD.EXE). However, while 1118 and the final 1119 work fine on OSR2, they cause crashes on 95 RTM.

EDIT:
Incorrect information struck through. 1119 and 1119 work on 95 RTM.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 24 May 2013 - 09:27 PM.


#39
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Posted Image Got it!
It's inside zipremid... accept the agreement, download it and use 7-zip to open it. Inside there's a remideup folder, containing the unpacked remideup files and a further copy of the original remideup.exe. B)

#40
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

It's inside zipremid... accept the agreement, download it and use 7-zip to open it. Inside there's a remideup folder, containing the unpacked remideup files and a further copy of the original remideup.exe. B)

:o

It seems to be version 4.00.954 rather than 956 :(

But it's definitely a big step in the right direction. At least it is in the RTM .95x codebase rather than the OSR2 .111x one. :angel

#41
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I found it. Turns out that particular version is actually buried in a folder on the 95 OSR 2.5 CDROM... in the same folder with a copy of the newer REMIDEUP.EXE. :blink:

So it may actually have never been in REMIDEUP.EXE at all, even though the various KB articles linked with REMIDEUP.EXE refer to version 4.00.956.

Thanks for the help! :thumbup

Edited by LoneCrusader, 18 May 2013 - 02:03 PM.


#42
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,013 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I found it. Turns out that particular version is actually buried in a folder on the 95 OSR 2.5 CDROM...

I confirm it: it's at <other\updates\voltrack\>... so we both had it all the while!!! :D
And it's inside ideup.exe, on the same folder, too: and that may be a preserved renamed version of the particular remideup.exp we were after...

#43
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,580 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
O4CripeSake! I looked for it too for you. Yep, right there next to the USB folder.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#44
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I confirm it: it's at <other\updates\voltrack\>... so we both had it all the while!!! :D
And it's inside ideup.exe, on the same folder, too: and that may be a preserved renamed version of the particular remideup.exp we were after...

Now I feel like a fool :blushing: but I never expected to find a 95 RTM HotFix on the 95C CD... Who knows, it's Microsoft after all. :rolleyes:

O4CripeSake! I looked for it too for you. Yep, right there next to the USB folder.

I figured you or jaclaz would turn it up about the time the rest of us had given up... :lol:

#45
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 47 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

does anyone have a list of official updates that were issued for windows 95 osr 2.5 ( version c )? i have acquired almost all updates i believe but i would like to make sure i have the right updates, espicially the right dates because i already have an existing checklist document i made for myself of all released updates / hotfixes and i wanna make sure that the updates are installed in the right order. i was gonna make a new thread for this but i thought it would be more appropriate to just bump this thread. i think there may be a few updates that i acquired that may not be legit or not the exact ones that microsoft released or some of them are not necessary maybe. 

 

other than making sure i have the right updates and all of them, i would also like to try to fix some issues i have had within the operating system. one problem being an illegal operation in firefox 2.0.0.20 which happens after asking for certificates over and over. i tried to make the browser automatically accept certificates but it still does the same thing. i also found that youtube would give the illegal operation error and sites like oldapps or oldversion would give the "disallowed key characters" message and files would not download, to fix this, i had to disable allowing cookies for all sites except for youtube.com in the exception list. of course, the illegal operation errors still comes when i first load the browser on certain sites, but after going on them and accepting the certificates several times, the errors seem to go away. i was wondering if people had similar issues and what routes they used to fix them.  

 

one thing i would like to accomplish is getting a higher resolution from the video card / monitor. the computer im working on has a geforce ti 200 64 MB video card and the max resolution is only 1024 x 768 i believe, but i feel like its a little small for some websites in displaying information and in general and i would like to see if its possible to get it to a higher one such as 1366x768. i tried to download the monitor driver and it actually installed through device manager, its a lcd 18.5 inch widescreen monitor made my samsung, so fairly modern. however, that didnt really do anything i believe, i was still not able to access any other resolutions past 1024x768. 



#46
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

does anyone have a list of official updates that were issued for windows 95 osr 2.5 ( version c )? i have acquired almost all updates i believe but i would like to make sure i have the right updates, espicially the right dates because i already have an existing checklist document i made for myself of all released updates / hotfixes and i wanna make sure that the updates are installed in the right order. i was gonna make a new thread for this but i thought it would be more appropriate to just bump this thread. i think there may be a few updates that i acquired that may not be legit or not the exact ones that microsoft released or some of them are not necessary maybe.

 

 

I never got around to compiling a list beyond what is listed already in this thread, either in my posts or in the various linked pages. I doubt that you will find a more thorough attempt at this anywhere else, because even here at MSFN Windows 95 is followed and used by only a small handful of users compared to the 98/ME crowd. If you want to provide a list of what you have it might help in figuring out what you are lacking, if anything, and may provide some information that is lacking here if I have not covered everything.

 

 

other than making sure i have the right updates and all of them, i would also like to try to fix some issues i have had within the operating system. one problem being an illegal operation in firefox 2.0.0.20 which happens after asking for certificates over and over. i tried to make the browser automatically accept certificates but it still does the same thing. i also found that youtube would give the illegal operation error and sites like oldapps or oldversion would give the "disallowed key characters" message and files would not download, to fix this, i had to disable allowing cookies for all sites except for youtube.com in the exception list. of course, the illegal operation errors still comes when i first load the browser on certain sites, but after going on them and accepting the certificates several times, the errors seem to go away. i was wondering if people had similar issues and what routes they used to fix them.

 

When installing Firefox 2 on Windows 95 you should do as many updates as you can first, and then you have to take some careful steps when running the installer and BEFORE running Firefox. There are a couple of threads out there about this, but some of them take unnecessary steps. Here's a set of instructions I wrote down some time ago for making it work.

Install Firefox 2.0.0.x on Windows 95

1. Update Windows 95 with Microsoft updates to the fullest extent possible.
i.e. - DCOM, DX8a, DUN14-95, IE4.01 SP1, IE5.5 SP2, WINSOCK2, & others

2. Run the Firefox 2.0.0.x installer, choose Custom Install, uncheck:
"DOM Inspector" and "Quality Feedback Agent"

3. BEFORE RUNNING FIREFOX - Go to Start > Find > Files or Folders - search for
"nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js"
Delete both of these files.

4. Run Firefox, it will ask to import settings from Internet Explorer, choose
"Don't Import Anything"

5. Install Addons and Plugins as usual.

Once you have done this see this thread for Flash issues.

 

one thing i would like to accomplish is getting a higher resolution from the video card / monitor. the computer im working on has a geforce ti 200 64 MB video card and the max resolution is only 1024 x 768 i believe, but i feel like its a little small for some websites in displaying information and in general and i would like to see if its possible to get it to a higher one such as 1366x768. i tried to download the monitor driver and it actually installed through device manager, its a lcd 18.5 inch widescreen monitor made my samsung, so fairly modern. however, that didnt really do anything i believe, i was still not able to access any other resolutions past 1024x768.

 

 

I can't help you here; if your video card cannot produce higher resolutions then there's no way around it unless you replace the card. There's an outside chance a program such as PowerStrip might help you, but I have no experience with it.



#47
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,787 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

You can try VBEMP and/or UNIVBE and/or SciTech Display Doctor:

http://bearwindows.boot-land.net/

http://bearwindows.b...d.net/vbe9x.htm

ftp://alter.org.ua/incoming/soft/vbe/win9x/vbe9x.htm

http://www.vogonsdri....php?fileid=346

 

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

jaclaz



#48
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Maybe the video driver (the .inf, more exactly) can be edited to add nonstandard (at the time) resolutions such as 16:9, the way it was/is with the unofficial 82.69 driver. A 64MB video card should theoretically be able to go as high as 1866x1050x32bit with the proper driver but it's always a matter of native monitor resolution. Ironic how the newest technology keeps crippling the abilities of the devices - put two monitors side by side, a CRT and an LCD/LED,throw the same 640x480 picture on both and see which one displays better.

 

Can't help with the other issues but LoneCrusader seems to be on the right track. Good luck!



#49
cov3rt

cov3rt

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 47 posts
  • Joined 24-January 15
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 

does anyone have a list of official updates that were issued for windows 95 osr 2.5 ( version c )? i have acquired almost all updates i believe but i would like to make sure i have the right updates, espicially the right dates because i already have an existing checklist document i made for myself of all released updates / hotfixes and i wanna make sure that the updates are installed in the right order. i was gonna make a new thread for this but i thought it would be more appropriate to just bump this thread. i think there may be a few updates that i acquired that may not be legit or not the exact ones that microsoft released or some of them are not necessary maybe.

 

 

I never got around to compiling a list beyond what is listed already in this thread, either in my posts or in the various linked pages. I doubt that you will find a more thorough attempt at this anywhere else, because even here at MSFN Windows 95 is followed and used by only a small handful of users compared to the 98/ME crowd. If you want to provide a list of what you have it might help in figuring out what you are lacking, if anything, and may provide some information that is lacking here if I have not covered everything.

 

 

other than making sure i have the right updates and all of them, i would also like to try to fix some issues i have had within the operating system. one problem being an illegal operation in firefox 2.0.0.20 which happens after asking for certificates over and over. i tried to make the browser automatically accept certificates but it still does the same thing. i also found that youtube would give the illegal operation error and sites like oldapps or oldversion would give the "disallowed key characters" message and files would not download, to fix this, i had to disable allowing cookies for all sites except for youtube.com in the exception list. of course, the illegal operation errors still comes when i first load the browser on certain sites, but after going on them and accepting the certificates several times, the errors seem to go away. i was wondering if people had similar issues and what routes they used to fix them.

 

When installing Firefox 2 on Windows 95 you should do as many updates as you can first, and then you have to take some careful steps when running the installer and BEFORE running Firefox. There are a couple of threads out there about this, but some of them take unnecessary steps. Here's a set of instructions I wrote down some time ago for making it work.

Install Firefox 2.0.0.x on Windows 95

1. Update Windows 95 with Microsoft updates to the fullest extent possible.
i.e. - DCOM, DX8a, DUN14-95, IE4.01 SP1, IE5.5 SP2, WINSOCK2, & others

2. Run the Firefox 2.0.0.x installer, choose Custom Install, uncheck:
"DOM Inspector" and "Quality Feedback Agent"

3. BEFORE RUNNING FIREFOX - Go to Start > Find > Files or Folders - search for
"nsSearchService.js" and "nsSafebrowsingApplication.js"
Delete both of these files.

4. Run Firefox, it will ask to import settings from Internet Explorer, choose
"Don't Import Anything"

5. Install Addons and Plugins as usual.

Once you have done this see this thread for Flash issues.

 

one thing i would like to accomplish is getting a higher resolution from the video card / monitor. the computer im working on has a geforce ti 200 64 MB video card and the max resolution is only 1024 x 768 i believe, but i feel like its a little small for some websites in displaying information and in general and i would like to see if its possible to get it to a higher one such as 1366x768. i tried to download the monitor driver and it actually installed through device manager, its a lcd 18.5 inch widescreen monitor made my samsung, so fairly modern. however, that didnt really do anything i believe, i was still not able to access any other resolutions past 1024x768.

 

 

I can't help you here; if your video card cannot produce higher resolutions then there's no way around it unless you replace the card. There's an outside chance a program such as PowerStrip might help you, but I have no experience with it.

 

 

i did apply all those steps you mentioned in order to install and make firefox 2.0.0.20 to work. i may give powerstrip a try but the resolution problem is just an optional thing so that is the least problem. for the updates folder i have, i have 59 collected, but i do also have some on the side not in that specific folder with the 59 updates which includes directx 8.0a, ms config ( windows 98 version for use on windows 95 ), cleanmgr ( disc cleanup from windows 98 on windows 95 ), and others. 

 

here is the list of just the 59 updates below, they are not in order, just listed, also, if your not sure on a certain update, i may have more information of the specific update like if its a security update, critical update, etc, oh and i forgot to the mention that there were a few updates that i removed because they simply didnt work or were not applicable for my system  -

 

    2_4date         

    50comupd         

    168115us5     

    236926usa5

    238453US5

    245729us5

    249070USA5

    249973USA5

    256015USA5

    259728usa5

    265334US5

    266772USA5

    273727USA5

    273991USA5

    CDVSDUPD

    crlupd

    DC95Inst

    dcm9xCfg

    DISKUPD

    dlc32upd

    dun14-95

    DX904706

    FrancFix

    hhupd

    instmsi

   Jet40SP8_9xNT

   mdac26sp1

   MSAA_13_SDK

   msdun12

   msdun13

   msxml3

   nwredup4

   OAINST

   prnt5upd

   Q175629

   q240308

   Q245213

   q329414

   remideup

   ROOTSUPD

   secupd2

   SOCKSVUP

   speu

   SYSDMUPD

   unicows

   VC6RedistSetup_enu

   vipup11

   vipup20

   VPWRUPD

   vrdrupd

   vtdapi95

   w95filup

   W95ws2setup

   WM9Codecs9x

   wmi9x

   wmp6cdcs

   wmv9VCMsetup

   WPNPINS

   y2kvdhcp



#50
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 876 posts
  • Joined 11-May 09
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

... for the updates folder i have, i have 59 collected, but i do also have some on the side not in that specific folder with the 59 updates which includes directx 8.0a, ms config ( windows 98 version for use on windows 95 ), cleanmgr ( disc cleanup from windows 98 on windows 95 ), and others. 
 
here is the list of just the 59 updates below...


The better portion of those updates are listed in my first post in this thread.

Out of your list, these were not listed specifically by me previously:

238453US5
249973USA5
259728usa5
265334US5
273991USA5
crlupd
dcm9xCfg
FrancFix
Jet40SP8_9xNT
mdac26sp1
msdun12
msdun13
msxml3
OAINST
q240308
q329414
remideup
ROOTSUPD
speu
VC6RedistSetup_enu
vipup20
w95filup
wmi9x
wmp6cdcs
y2kvdhcp


However a good many of these are either superseded by a later update (ex. msdun12, msdun13), installs as part of another package (ex. OAINST), possibly irrelevant depending on your system configuration (ex. wmi9x, wmp6cdcs), or apply to an "external component" (ex. Jet, MDAC, MSXML); these I would put in the category of DirectX/etc, as being separate add-on packages - this makes sorting the updates much simpler.

The best advice I can give you is to have a look at the list of file versions given by Petr that I linked to in my first post. Extract the updated files from each HotFix package (ex. 238453US5) using WinZip, WinRAR, etc, and compare the file version of the updated file inside to Petr's list to determine whether or not you have the last available version. If an update contains only one file that is later superseded by another update, you can safely ignore that update and use the later one.

Check out MDGx's website for most of the updates I listed in my first post if you don't have them. If you have a question about a specific update, post it here and we will try to help. I did find several packages and updates that I did not have previously thanks to your list. :thumbup


Edited by LoneCrusader, 10 April 2015 - 02:04 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users