New Features of Version 2.0
Posted 25 February 2005 - 12:22 PM
security patches for IE6 SP1 under Win98/ME will be made after that date.
IE6 SP1 for Win2k sp3-sp4/xp sp1 will be supported until MS abandons support
for Win2k sp3/sp4 and WinXP Sp1. Win2000 is supported 'til june 30, 2010.
Luckily I have Firefox 1.01 (just released yesterday), Mozilla 1.75 and Opera 8.0 beta 1
installed on my brother's xp machine and on my WinME machine. Mozilla 1.76 will
be out soon and so will the beta releases of Firefox 1.1 and Mozilla 1.8. Check the
Mozilla.org site on upcoming releases.
Posted 25 February 2005 - 05:24 PM
with some IE6 SP1 files. look in the iew2k_1.cab, iew2k_2.cab and so on files and
look in the ie_s1.cab, ie_s2.cab and so on files. you'll see what I mean.
Why do Win98/ME users get "hanging" problems with IE6 Sp1 when deleting a very
large number of files in Windows Explorer?
And why do Win2000 users NOT get "hanging" problems with IE6 Sp1 when deleting
large number of files in Windows Explorer.
and besides, jasinwa, the IE 5.5 sp2 browseui.dll file version 5.50.4807.2300 has
PLENTY of security flaws. I don't use that one if I were you. I get browseui.dll file
from the 'other' KB867282 update (the IE 5.5 Sp2 kb867282 patch). The newer
browseui.dll file from IE 5.5 Sp2 kb867282 update is version 5.50.4948.700 and
fixes a lot of security bugs.
Posted 26 February 2005 - 04:32 AM
Posted 26 February 2005 - 10:06 AM
BUT the Win2k/XP SP1 version of the IE6 SP1 KB867282 update uses a vastly different
setup file (update.exe) to install IE6 SP1 files AND the update will no longer appear in
the IE6 SP1 'About' dialog box. The Win98/ME version of the IE6 SP1 KB867282 update uses
ieupdate.exe to install the files and does display the update in the IE6 SP1 dialog box.
See question 'Why are the command line installation switches different for Windows 2000 and Windows XP operating systems for this release when compared to MS04-025: Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer?' by expanding the 'Frequently asked questions (FAQ) related to this security update' section of security bulletin MS05-014:
Also see the 'Security Update Information' section of that article and expand all details.
But least the updated files are exactly the same (meaning binarily identical) for IE6 SP1
for both versions of the updates.
Reading MS article 867282:
if you want the IE6 SP1 update to install the 'RTMQFE' version of the updated files
add this registry entry in Registry Editor:
QFEInstalled should be a DWORD value and set it to 1. If QFEInstalled is set to 0 or
does not exist, the IE6 SP1 update will install the 'RTMGDR' version of the updated
files. If it is 1 or higher than the update will install the 'RTMQFE' version.
Posted 16 March 2005 - 04:17 PM
soldier1st, on Feb 1 2005, 02:07 PM, said:
i got a better one that looks like the win 2000/xp one
How 'bout tryin' Tihiy's Task Manager app mentioned here:
wonder if this will be included in W98se SP v2.0.
Posted 17 March 2005 - 12:57 AM
This is my first time posting, so I want to make sure I say this first and say it good: This service pack project is THE BEST thing to happen to ANY M$ product EVER. I've been using it for client PC builds and it has helped build my company. Thanks to this pack, I can actually rollout "reliable" M$ systems.
Now that I've said that, I have noticed one thing that makes my users hesitant to stick with 98SE+SP vs. the XP beast. It simply boils down to aesthetics - "XP is prettier" is the common thread. My thinking is that since this is a +1 upgrade, it would be cool if one of the major features was an enhanced interface. In the world of funky shells, many programs are doing this - XP with its huge buttons, WindowBlinds (at a cost of course) to 98, and of course KDE with Linux.
I like the idea of the animated "98SE" splash screen at boot, but I would really like to see the entire shell improved. btw - The theme of Windows2000 is a great start.
Keep up the unbelievable work!
Posted 22 March 2005 - 02:20 AM
superscotty19, on Mar 17 2005, 12:57 AM, said:
*steps up on soapbox*
Personally, I think the XP UI looks like a f**king clown car. Who thought that purple, orange, blue, red, and green was a good color scheme? Hell, while they were at it, they should have thrown in some fuschia. It sure couldn't make it uglier. And what's up with the ridiculously large window close, minimize, and maximize controls?
Posted 24 March 2005 - 04:32 PM
Give them a pre-build appearence sheme that looks nice (even no SP needed for that).
I made myself a sheme with peach windows, and gree-blue to dark-blue fade away in the title bar.
Then I installed Eppie and I added my nicely colored self-made control buttons.
It looks terrific. I even didn't install the 2000 themes from the SP.
You can also give the opposite effect by selecting "High Contrast White" or "High Contrast Black" sheme.
Check also Tihy's Revolution Pack. Sounds promising...
Posted 24 March 2005 - 04:46 PM
large number of files in Windows Explorer?
It's hanging only when you use M$ Explorer. For that reason, you must use an alternative file manager and the problem is solved. (I use Explorer2 Lite)
Posted 24 March 2005 - 07:12 PM
Welcome, I hope you like it here! You will find a a lot of experts here (I'm not one ).
"XP is prettier"
Yes, 98 SE looks a bit retro for a virgin OS installation. But after USP2RC2 and 98SE2ME and a little sprucing up (themes, Webshots, etc..) my 98 SE looks gorgeous. XP always feels klunky, unresponsive, and akward, so it is kinda hard to enjoy how it looks.
And Tihiy's Revolutions makes 98 SE look absolutely fantastic, but I've had trouble with recent versions...
WindowBlinds (at a cost of course)
It costs money but there is also a cost of having painfully sluggish GUI performance
Posted 26 March 2005 - 04:49 PM
Thanks for that, azagahl ...
You don't have to convince me about the downsides of XP - I agree 110% and then some! I guess that's just my point though - if 98SE could have the responsiveness that it does (thanks to USP) but the option of being more skinnable, it will really have some punch.
I have no doubt that USP2RC2 will bring all sorts of new and exciting features, but from what I've seen, 982ME and Revolutions doesn't seem as stable as the USP - is this correct (no offense intended to the developers of these packs)? Also, are they both freeware? Aside from what I've read about them on this forum, I know nothing about them.
Posted 28 March 2005 - 09:04 AM
superscotty19, on Mar 26 2005, 04:49 PM, said:
To answer your questions about 98SE2ME [which I develop + maintain]:
1. It is completely free solely for educational purposes, with only 1 condition: you must post any corrections/improvements you may come up with in this forum, so we can all can benefit from them.
2. It is very stable. Let's just say I use these > 600 WinME system files for > 4 years on my PC without problems.
And besides, you have the option to allow full backup creation of your Win98SE OS before installing any WinME files, and you can restore from there anytime.
On top of that, every option [except 1 + 2 which make full OS backup] backs up the file(s) it replaces.
3. Of course, same as XP, 2000, 2003 etc, all Win9x/ME OSes are copyrighted to MS which means that u must have the OS to which 98SE2ME applies already installed on your local HD from a legally obtained Setup CD [English only], and in order to install options 1, 2 + 3 you must also have a legal copy of WinME Setup CD [English only].
Of course you can copy/burn/borrow/whatever stuff on your computer from whatever sources, but piracy is NOT condoned by me nor by this forum.
Therefore same applies to [examples] and all similar upgrades/packs/SPs: 98SE SP 2.0 RC2, 98SE/ME Revolutions Pack, AutoPatcher XP, AutoPatcher 2000, XP Security Pack, Windows XP Post-SP2 Update Pack, XP Longhorn Transformation Pack, XPize Transformation Pack etc...
That's 1 of the main reasons they are all unofficial.
To learn everything about 98SE2ME, please see READ1ST.TXT:
To learn about Tihiy's Revolutions Pack + Gape's SP 2.0 RC2, you need to contact their authors, @ the respective forums.
Hope this helps.
Posted 31 March 2005 - 09:02 AM
MS released yesterday Windows 2003 Server SP1 RTM.
You know what this means... HTML Help 1.41 is finally out of beta.
Hope you can add these files to the next SP 2.0 release.
They contain most current MS security patches.
Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME/NT4 HTML Help v1.41 HHSETUP.DLL, ITIRCL.DLL, ITSS.DLL + HH.EXE + HHCTRL.OCX Update build 5.2.3790.1830 from Windows 2003 SP1 Final (RTM/Gold) [681 KB, English]:
How to install HTML Help 1.41 on Windows 98/98 SE/NT4:
Download + install HHUPD.EXE .
How to install HTML Help 1.41 on Windows ME:
1. You MUST disable System Restore: open Control Panel -> System -> Performance Tab -> File System -> Troubleshooting area -> check the "Disable System Restore" box -> click OK -> reboot.
2. Download + install CoolKill [797 KB, freeware]:
3. Run COOLKILL.EXE -> right-click on the CoolKill icon in Taskbar Tray -> highlight STMGR.EXE -> left-click on it to terminate this process.
4. Download + install HHUPD.EXE (see above).
5. You may want to reenable System Restore: open Control Panel -> System -> Performance Tab -> File System -> Troubleshooting area -> uncheck the "Disable System Restore" box -> click OK -> reboot.
Posted 31 March 2005 - 11:20 AM
Posted 04 April 2005 - 07:05 PM
Tihiy, on Mar 31 2005, 11:20 AM, said:
Please try the 4-4-2005 98SE2ME edition:
Most of these issues should have been resolved.
PS: Please note that 98SE2ME was never meant to be installed on/used with any 98SE editions other than English because that's the only 1 I can test it on.
Posted 05 April 2005 - 09:13 PM
Posted 05 April 2005 - 11:52 PM
os2fan2, on Apr 6 2005, 05:13 AM, said:
This prevents Win9x from overwriting diskette labels from other vendors.
Interesting fix. I think I can add this fix into the next SP (2.0.1 or 2.1).
Posted 11 April 2005 - 11:12 PM
MDGx, on Mar 28 2005, 09:04 AM, said:
Hi MDGx! And thanks for such an informative reply!
I completely understand 982ME now (thanks again). As for the rest of them, I know you gave me links to the other forums, but since you seem to be a one stop font of knowledge I was wondering if you know this off the top of your head ... I've noticed that Revolutions does utilize some files from ME, correct? I assume this would imply that the user requires a valid copy of ME ... ? I checked the Revolutions forum and found this:
A: No. You don't need ME for using it. But it uses some ME files included. If you surely need only 32-bit icons support, you should manually extract from shellupdate.exe:
and place into \system dir.
Whoa whoa whoa!!! I've never even heard of half of those patches/programs! Do you have links to the ones that apply to 98SE (excluding 98SE SP, Revolutions of course) and that don't require a valid copy of another OS?
Thanks again for all your help. For what it's worth, I own a technology consulting firm, and I'm trying to utilize all the tools you guys make as much as possible when I build systems for my clients. Your work is oustanding and deserves to be given some push!
- ← Win95/97 drivers project for HD Audio?
- Windows 9x Member Projects
- My little hex hacks to complement KernelEx →