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

Modified SYSDM.CPL 4.90.3001 for 98SE

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#101
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

Haha, hex-editing is even trivial. I read some hesitation here because it's a .cpl file. Somebody said it could be renamed to .dll, which is the correct way to do (identical structure). Then you can work with it with your tool of choice.

No, a .CPL is not completely "identical" to a .DLL. And in any case, the problem here is that we do not know WHAT to fix, even if we had a tool to fix it.


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#102
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,866 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Moreover, 16-bit .exe, .dll, .cpl and .drv usually are NE executables, not PE executables. NE executables are totoally different animals. The best way to add resources to them is to use the MS Resource Compiler (rc.exe). To remove/edit a resource is another problem entirely. Sometimes MS VS 6.0 can do it right. Sometimes the (non-free) eXescope can do it. Sometimes nothing seems to work right. Go figure! :blink:

#103
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Well, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is SYSDM.CPL 4.90.0.3001 is now working on my system. The icon bug is gone :thumbup The bad news is, I don't know what I did to get rid of it. Look at the screenshot for proof. You'll see the Disable System Restore option which is not present on Win98 along with no buggy icon in device manager. BTW, the link to the none System Restore version is broke.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  USB.JPG   118.43KB   31 downloads

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD, 14 April 2013 - 07:20 PM.

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#104
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I found the bug. :thumbup It is NOT the file SYSDM.CPL 4.90.0.3001.

In order for USB drivers to silently install you need these keys, and they do NOT work on the Win98 version of SYSDM.CPL

1. HKLM,System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\USB,"SilentInstall",,"1"
2. HKLM,System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Class\USB,"SilentInstallNotify",,"1"

but wait, registry key (2) is the culprit. When that key is removed, the icon bug disappear, but wait, when that key is removed the icon bug is gone and everything installs silently and you don't get the New Hardware Found box that shows the USB drivers installing because everything installs in the background. This only happens when updating the .SYS drivers. USB flash drives devices shows the New Hardware Found box. This is not a bug since the whole purpose is to let drivers detect silently without the users input. If users are using NUSB 3.6, just remove key (2) up above, remove all drivers in safemode.

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#105
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

Well, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is SYSDM.CPL 4.90.0.3001 is now working on my system. The icon bug is gone :thumbup The bad news is, I don't know what I did to get rid of it. Look at the screenshot for proof. You'll see the Disable System Restore option which is not present on Win98 along with no buggy icon in device manager. BTW, the link to the none System Restore version is broke.

Hmm... Sounds interesting. I will have to experiment with this.

Link in previous post fixed, and here again for reference:
SYSDMCPL.ZIP - 156.9 Kb

Of course it comes with the same disclaimer I've said before - this file is experimental and MAY cause unexpected behavior, especially regarding CONFIG.SYS if you have any special settings specified there. It has not been tested under such conditions.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 14 April 2013 - 08:39 PM.


#106
TmEE

TmEE

    Mega Drive Modding Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Joined 17-September 08
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
That is some really good info !
Posted Image Mida sa loed ? Nagunii aru ei saa ;)

#107
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Is it possible to patch the Win98 version SYSDM.CPL to act like the Windows ME version? I know the Windows ME versions keep the CPU info which is broken in Win98. Maybe one can dump the CPU info and add it to the Win98 version. IDK, just a thought.


Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#108
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

Is it possible to patch the Win98 version SYSDM.CPL to act like the Windows ME version? I know the Windows ME versions keep the CPU info which is broken in Win98. Maybe one can dump the CPU info and add it to the Win98 version. IDK, just a thought.

Can you post a screenshot of what you're talking about? I'm actually working on a different issue, but there may be a correlation.

 

Normally the CPU information works fine on my 98SE, however, if the Windows ME UPDATE.SYS or Petr's patched UPDATE.SYS files are used on a 98SE system during installation, no CPU information will be displayed (or properly created in the Registry).



#109
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

The missing CPU info is not cause by UPDATE.SYS but SYSDM.CPL from all Win98SE updates except the original Win98 SE file. There is a screenshot in post 103 that displays the CPU info using the Windows ME version. When using the Win98 SE updated versions, it is missing.


Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD, 12 July 2013 - 03:26 PM.

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#110
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

Are you running your experiments in a VM? I HAVE seen the CPU info be missing when running under VMware, regardless of the SYSDM.CPL or UPDATE.SYS version.

 

The missing info in the situations you are encountering may not be caused by UPDATE.SYS, but it IS caused by UPDATE.SYS in the situations I am working on.

 

The 98SE HotFix version of SYSDM.CPL does not have any issues displaying the CPU info. I know this, because I have that version in my slipstreamed build, and it works fine. The problem is elsewhere.

 

EDIT: Some "not entirely correct" information struck through.


Edited by LoneCrusader, 22 November 2013 - 12:52 AM.


#111
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Here is what I'm talking about. It has been discussed many times in the Win9x forums http://www.msfn.org/...tem-properties/

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#112
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

Here is what I'm talking about. It has been discussed many times in the Win9x forumshttp://www.msfn.org/...tem-properties/

This seems to be quite a mystery. blink.gif

I set up an unmodified 98SE installation, and then installed ONLY the SYSDM.CPL HotFix. The CPU info on the System Properties tab does indeed disappear under these conditions.

However, if one extracts the HotFix SYSDM.CPL to the \WIN98 folder before installation, therefore causing the HotFix version to be used during the original SETUP, then the CPU info is displayed properly. wacko.gif

So, the 98SE HotFix files are NOT broken, but they must be used in the original SETUP to work properly. There must be some other "link" between SYSDM.CPL and the registry entries it uses to get the CPU information.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 12 July 2013 - 10:45 PM.


#113
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

However, if one extracts the HotFix SYSDM.CPL to the \WIN98 folder before installation, therefore causing the HotFix version to be used during the original SETUP, then the CPU info is displayed properly. wacko.gif

So, the 98SE HotFix files are NOT broken, but they must be used in the original SETUP to work properly. There must be some other "link" between SYSDM.CPL and the registry entries it uses to get the CPU information.


Update...This issue only seems to get stranger the more I work on it.wacko.gifwacko.gifwacko.gif

The 98SE HotFix version of SYSDM.CPL that I tested in the quoted experiment worked fine for displaying the CPU info - on an AMD system during a clean installation ONLY. It is broken on an Intel system under ALL conditions.

Edited by LoneCrusader, 22 November 2013 - 01:00 AM.


#114
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Apologies for my fuzzy memory, but I vaguely recall something about CPU microcode update - an inf file, a dll or something like that. Maybe the new .cpl requires a newer version of that microcode file or a registry key would have to be created beforehand. A comparison between a vanilla 98SE and an updated one (with the Hotfix or ME .cpl installed, maybe with uSP3 too) might reveal the differences between files and/or registry keys (and their locations).

 

I really don't recall what I did, but my old system that suffered so many updates and whatnot and now has a modded version of the ME SYSDM.CPL, does display CPU information fine (GenuineIntel x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 3). Not sure if activating OEM information (OEMINFO.INI and OEMLOGO.BMP) has anything to do with this, but I do have those files in the SYSTEM folder.

Here's the registry keys on my 98SE system:

Spoiler

 

Apparently unrelated but maybe not so: can anyone point me to detailed information on (re)creation and structure of SYSTEM.1ST, located in the root of the bootable drive? Mine got corrupted a year or so ago and since then boot time increased very much. I wonder if the lack of this file triggers some hardware/software redetection at boot time and if this could help in creating/updating the CPU info displayed by SYSDM.CPL...



#115
LoneCrusader

LoneCrusader

    Resistere pro causa resistentiam.

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

Donator

Apologies for my fuzzy memory, but I vaguely recall something about CPU microcode update - an inf file, a dll or something like that. Maybe the new .cpl requires a newer version of that microcode file or a registry key would have to be created beforehand. A comparison between a vanilla 98SE and an updated one (with the Hotfix or ME .cpl installed, maybe with uSP3 too) might reveal the differences between files and/or registry keys (and their locations).
 
I really don't recall what I did, but my old system that suffered so many updates and whatnot and now has a modded version of the ME SYSDM.CPL, does display CPU information fine (GenuineIntel x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 3). Not sure if activating OEM information (OEMINFO.INI and OEMLOGO.BMP) has anything to do with this, but I do have those files in the SYSTEM folder.
Here's the registry keys on my 98SE system:

Spoiler

 
Apparently unrelated but maybe not so: can anyone point me to detailed information on (re)creation and structure of SYSTEM.1ST, located in the root of the bootable drive? Mine got corrupted a year or so ago and since then boot time increased very much. I wonder if the lack of this file triggers some hardware/software redetection at boot time and if this could help in creating/updating the CPU info displayed by SYSDM.CPL...

I originally thought that the Microcode update/UPDATE.SYS had something do do with identifying the CPU as well, but it doesn't. For some reason I have yet to determine, changing UPDATE.SYS can cause no CPU Info to be displayed at all, but it does not actually create the CPU info displayed on the System Properties tab. It is only responsible for the "Update" related entries in the corresponding Registry key.

From what I have been able to determine so far, when Microsoft issued SYSDM.CPL 4.10.2223 for Q216204, they actually completely broke the CPU ID function rather than properly fixing it. The KB article refers to "incorrectly identified Intel CPUs," but it appears their solution was to have NO identification of Intel CPUs at all rather than fix the bug.

Since HotFixes are cumulative, the botched changes in 2223 that were only intended for Intel systems got carried over into 4.10.2224 for Q272620, which is a "good" HotFix that fixes a bug common to all systems. This probably explains why all CPU info disappears when this HotFix is installed to an existing system.

The "Stepping Data" string is actually NOT correct for identifying an Intel CPU. It SHOULD print a friendly ID string, similar to the one displayed by the BIOS during POST. This "Stepping Data" sting is what Microsoft described in Q216204, and rather than fixing SYSDM.CPL to print the "friendly ID" they broke the ID entirely.



#116
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Admittedly the Family/Model/Stepping string is not of much help but it's better than nothing anyway. I once was interested in the CPUID function and its proper usage but when I saw all that mess I quickly left it for dead. :)

Maybe at some point I'll take on it again and at least build an external tool to fix that string. But for now that's just wishful thinking.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN