Win98 Resource Kit

[bphlpt]

... My setup of Flashget is integrated not just with Firefox, but also with Opera, so it's probably a project to change from Flashget v1.72 to v1.73.

I'm not an expert, but I really can't see why this would be true, or why you believe it. Unless I'm sincerely wrong, when you "integrate" Flashget with Firefox, or Opera, or even Flashgot, all it should do is put a "hook", or shortcut if you will, that points or redirects to where Flashget is installed. Even if there are registry entries involved the same situation should be true. There should be no designation of the version of the individual Flashget files involved at all. If you do not remove v1.72, but rather upgrade to v1.73, which I believe should just install on top of the existing v1.72 files replacing any with the same name, this should not effect Firefox, Opera, or Flashgot at all since as submix8c says - the v1.72 is the same as v1.73 except without "bugfixes". Even if your installation involves a folder in Program Files with 1.72 in the folder name, when you install v1.73 I think you will be given the choice of where to install it, if it doesn't pick up the existing location automatically, so just choose the existing location and you should be good to go. You could probably even avoid the installer completely and just expand the install file using 7-zip or Universal Extractor or whatever works, and simply copy all the files into the existing location, overwriting the existing files. This just should not be the chore you are fearing.

Of course, sacrilegious as it might be, part of what you are running into is simply the possibility of no longer being able to continue to use the apps, and/or OS that you have used for all these years. You can only shoehorn things in for so long as your needs grow and expand and all the software, drivers, etc do not keep up their compatibility, as duffy98 has recently found.

Cheers and Regards

[Multibooter]

... My setup of Flashget is integrated not just with Firefox, but also with Opera, so it's probably a project to change from Flashget v1.72 to v1.73.

... but I really can't see why this would be true, or why you believe it....

Hi bphlpt

I'll give it a try, but I have to back up my system first, so it may take a little while. But I am still a little sceptical, the step from v1.72 to v1.73 was not just a version change, but a change from registered shareware to freeware [i have in my notes about v1.73: "change to already registered freeware"], with possibly quite different registry entries, so installing v1.73 on top of v1.72 may give interesting results.

[ As an aside, FlashGet used to be a favorite of mine for quite some time, though I have not used it in a long time. Looking back through my app collection I see that I have Multibooter's v1.72build128 (fgf172.exe - 9/8/2006 - 2,530,788 bytes), and two versions of v1.73, (fgf173.exe - 9/12/2006 - 3,069,001 bytes) and (fgf173.exe - 2/16/2009 [though flashget.exe is dated 9/11/2006] - 3,224,463 bytes). This last one must be the same version you have submix8c, assuming your size of 3,224,263 bytes was a typo. I have not looked closely at the other version of fgf173.exe, it's just part of the collection. LOL ]

I looked into my archive, and the only good-looking version of v1.73 I have is the version with 3,069,001 bytes, from oldapps, which I had test-installed and rejected nearly 2 years ago. I have to look for the version both you and submix8c referred to (3,224,463 bytes), I have a lot different versions of v1.73 in my archive, but they are already extracted in folders, and I don't know the size ot their original .exe containers.

P.S. I just got this version, thanks to the download date 22-Nov-2006 indicated by submix8c in his posting #33. It can be downloaded from: http://web.archive.org/web/20061125031043/http://down5.flashget.com/fgf173.exe download page is http://web.archive.org/web/20061125031043/http://www.amazesoft.com/en/download.htm The MD 5 checksum of this version of fgf173.exe is AA87B7C2B72228D50368248ACCF4EA37

The most recent file inside of fgf173.exe, when extracted with Uniextract, is jc_link.htm of 27-Oct-2006, so I called this version "Flashget v1.73 (27Oct2006)"

Edited May 28, 2012 by Multibooter

[submix8c]

FlashGOT v1.2.1.18 - Only choice is "FlashGot"...

Again I have FlashGET v1.73 and YES it's installed on all of XP, 2K3, AND 98SE.

IE6SP1 on all 3.

FF 3.6.28 on XP and 2K3, v1.8.(something) on 98SE.

The listing is from Karen's Directory Printer. Are you implying that Long Dates don't work on Win98SE??? IT'S IN THE DIRECTORY ENTRIES!!! Attached is a SNAPSHOT!!!!

Please note that you had used a DIFFERENT "plugin" version...

B-flippin-S that Flashget does NOT store Server dates! How do you think I got them??? GET RID OF THE BUGGY ONE!!!!

The Registry is UNCHANGED when you "upgrade" - the "Registered" becomes... IRRELEVANT! I upgraded MINE the SAME WAY!!! Painless!!! (I DID say I USED to have v1.72, RIGHT?)

My FG1.73 - MD5 and SHA-1

aa87b7c2b72228d50368248accf4ea37

70c479dba1c5980ee68e60fadca2aa39e834ccd0

THAT one you JUST GOT is the LAST ONE AVAILABLE!!!! ALL FIXED!!!

And AGAIN... DISABLE that SINGLE BHO!!!! IT would be your "heartburn"...

(that's a big... WOW!!!! really?)

Edited May 29, 2012 by submix8c

[Multibooter]

FlashGOT v1.2.1.18 - Only choice is "FlashGot"...And AGAIN... DISABLE that SINGLE BHO!!!! IT would be your "heartburn"...

Hi submix8c,

I have attached a screenshot of the window which pops up when I click inside of Firefox on a .exe download link, for example http://web.archive.org/web/20061125031043/http://down5.flashget.com/fgf173.exe .

If "FlashGot" is selected and I click on the Save File button (only greyed out in the screen shot), the link will be passed to Flashget and the Flashget Download window will pop up.

If "Save File" is selected and I click on the Save File button, the Firefox download manager will make the download.

The file downloaded with Flashget will have usually as Date Modified the date the file was modified/uploaded onto the server. The link here to the wayback machine is an exception, it gets a file with the current date, maybe because the .exe link points to a web page, not to a .exe, with the message: "Welcome to Wayback...Loading...http://down5.flashget.com/fgf173.exe... as close to the date: 3:10:43 Nov 25, 2006 as is available...", but the Flashget window pops up immediately after that.

The file downloaded with the Firefox download manager (i.e. by selecting "Save File") has as Date Modified the date the file was downloaded.

I prefer to download via Flashget because of the more informative file date and because in Flashget the actual download location is indicated. Downloading for free from file sharing servers usually works Ok with the download manager built into Firefox, but not with Flashget.

When I click on a .exe file in Opera, the link is passed to Flashget and the Flashget window pops up right away, no intermediate window like under Firefox. To download with the download manager built into Opera I right-click on the download link -> Save to Download Folder

Edited May 29, 2012 by Multibooter

[dencorso]

When installing them, which should be the actual install order? !st FlashGet then FlashGot, or the reverse? TIA

[Multibooter]

Hi dencorso,

I checked my installation log and I had followed the following sequence, here an excerpt::

- installed FlashGet v1.72

- uninstalled the Flashget v1.72 Add-on inside Firefox: -> Tools -> Add-ons -> Uninstall

(Flashget 1.72 was displayed in window Add-ons as "Not compatible with Firefox 3.6.9")

- installed Opera Plug-In for FlashGet v1.1

PROBLEM: Opera doesn't pass all clicks on .exe thru to FlashGet - solve later

- installed FlashGot v1.2.2

[dencorso]

OK. Thanks for the detailed road-map. You rock!

[Multibooter]

Am I right too assume that you made that listing under WinXP? The folder and file dates have as year 4 digits, e.g. :

CDSETUP.EXE EXE 1,833,984 6/8/1998 00:00

while under Win98 the years are usually displayed as 2 digits only? Did you make the successful download with Flashget v1.73 under WinXP or under Win98SE?

Again I have FlashGET v1.73 and YES it's installed on all of XP, 2K3, AND 98SE.

Are you implying that Long Dates don't work on Win98SE???

2-digit years seem to be the default installation values of Win98SE, 4-digit years of WinXP, unless you change them. But I was only guessing whether you downloaded the MS site ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/ under Win98 or under WinXP.

The listing is from Karen's Directory Printer

The folders in the listing in your attachment Reskit_Index.zip have no dates, only the files, and that gave me no clue as to whether you downloaded under Win98 or under WinXP. If you had made the download with Flashget under WinXP, the folder date should have been 29-Apr-2010, under Win98 the current date (e.g. 27-May-2012) :

Z:\WINwork\win98\Reskit_CDRom\SETUP\ [= no date]

ACMSETUP.EXE EXE 331,776 7/11/1997 00:00 282F1C7F530FDC6CF405ED825B183976 61F6FEECE3F14350090A00D196D95FAF0D697D94

ACMSETUP.HLP HLP 19,066 7/10/1997 00:00 484B0499B482F8EFE5F7ADB3176C0856 20A1C382C54CCA54EA70715D943A043D7C9F23E7

Edited May 29, 2012 by Multibooter

[submix8c]

1 - B.S. on the "Folder Date" - it will ALWAYS be the "Download Date", same as if you used Explorer FTP Copy/Paste. I just did it AGAIN using Flashget - Same Effect No Difference. Unless FG1.73 BROKE something in FG1.72. Of course, I HAD the older version and INSTALLED NEWER OVER (I said that, RIGHT?) and it WORKED THE SAME (AFAICR). (P.S. Copy/Paste or Cut/Paste on a Local Disk-to-Disk - note the RESULT - Same! Folder MUST be created NEW! The ONLY way a Folder Date remains is a Cut/Paste on the SAME DISK PARTITION! Copy/Paste WILL ALWAYS make a DATE OF COPY for FOLDERS, but RETAIN File Dates!)

2 - Date Format "Difference" - XP can change the Format to correspond to Win98SE as I just did it.

3 - DirPrn (Karen's Directory Printer) prints the Dates in the Format selected in the OS. Download and Install it (and VB6 Runtime).

4 - DirPrn can Optionally print the Folder Dates - I did NOT select it as it is irrelevant (see #1).

5 - FlashGet is FlashGet - whether used on XP or 98SE is irrelevant. It works the SAME WAY (see #1 and #2).

6 - I tend to "store" the FF Add-On XPI files (actually renamed ZIP files) for later installs. Download (save) to Disk, open FF and browse to it and Open the XPI - It installs!

6a - Install FF

6b - Install the Add-On's/Plug-In's (usually, the associated Software is installed FIRST)

7 - Repeat, I do NOT use Opera and do NOT have it installed. I;m perfectly satisfied with IE and FF. I won't even ATTEMPT to debate something I have NEVER used (including the "Add-Ons" for it)

8 - I provided Hashes to assist YOU in confirming that you have good files (HashMyFiles will provide that as well as DirPrn)

ref. #'s 1->4 - I did JUST THAT!!! Tested THOSE and THAT is my RESULTS! Want additional Prints and Snapshots?

Why on God's green Earth are you disputing me? This is NOT "rocket science". Try it yourself and STOP making ME do it! Provide your REAL results instead of THIS nonsense if you REALLY want to "disprove" my assertions...

Edited May 29, 2012 by submix8c

[dencorso]

@submix8c: Please do not get mad, it's not called for, AFAICS.

I know Multibooter long enough to be sure he's not out there just to contradict or otherwise irritate you.

We're all here just trying to learn something, and, at this point, our Win9x systems are all slightly different, to say the least, so divergent behaviours may happen anytime.

[submix8c]

@dencorso - That being said, I shall not "bandy" technical details that I absolutely know to be true (e.g. - Date Formats, Folder Dates, etc.). Granted, our systems are "slightly different", but seriously, the bottom line is the irrelevancy of that, based upon the fact that they are "simple adjustments" that one might have assumed (my error) that another knowledgeable member would have known about.

I test for proofs before I open my "big mouth" (yes, sometimes very wide...). I would have thought (again, my error) that Multibooter would have done the same before responding as was done.

PLEASE, Sir Multibooter, trust me! I've been using Windows since the early days (NT Workstation, WFW, 95, 98, 98SE) when its was "foisted" onto the U.S.Government during the transition from Mainframe. It's not in my nature to give misinformation.

At this point, I shall leave it, since it serves no more purpose. I've done my "informational" duty.

C-ya l8tr, Multi! (<-sorry, but that's the best apology I can give)

[Multibooter]

Hi submix8c,

I do appreciate your comments. Please don't get impatient with my comments.

Folder dates

1 - B.S. on the "Folder Date" - it will ALWAYS be the "Download Date", same as if you used Explorer FTP Copy/Paste. I just did it AGAIN using Flashget - Same Effect No Difference... (P.S. Copy/Paste or Cut/Paste on a Local Disk-to-Disk - note the RESULT - Same! Folder MUST be created NEW! The ONLY way a Folder Date remains is a Cut/Paste on the SAME DISK PARTITION! Copy/Paste WILL ALWAYS make a DATE OF COPY for FOLDERS, but RETAIN File Dates!)...

4 - DirPrn can Optionally print the Folder Dates - I did NOT select it as it is irrelevant (see #1).

YES, if you user MS Windows Explorer, Flashget and most other tools.

NO, if you use, for example, Beyond Compare or WinRAR under WinXP.

I have attached 2 screen shots:

1) Beyond Compare under WinXP (not under Win98) can be used to transfer files and folders from an FTP server to a local HDD and maintain the server date. Beyond Compare under WinXP maintains the folder modification dates of the source, even if you copy to a different partition or HDD. When you extract folders from a .rar archive with WinRAR under WinXP (not under Win98), the folders will be created with the folder modification date of the rared up source.

2) The 2nd screen shot is that of the folder ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/ on the problematic MS server, after being copied from the server to the local HDD with Beyond Compare FTP. Please note the Date Modified, which is the server date, NOT the download date.

One major reasons that I use WinXP, not Win98, for file copying, backup to external HDD and the creation of .rar archives, is that Beyond Compare and WinRAR under WinXP maintain the original folder modification dates.

When i download stuff from the internet, I always look at the folder modifcation dates in the downloaded archives, or in .exe files (with Uniextract). Stuff which passes Kaspersky Ok and contains old file/folder modification dates is less likely to contain new, not-yet-detected malware.

[rloew]

Windows 98 does not support setting the date on a Directory. If you download or copy a Directory tree, all of the created Directories will have the date the new Directory was created, not the date of the Source Directory. Cut and Paste does not Create any Directories, only renames them, so the original date is preserved.

I was able to get around this limitation in my XFILE Program by bypassing KERNEL32.DLL but Explorer does not.

Incidentally, by downloading the Reskit using the FTP: Driver and XFILE on my Amiga, I got 2389 Files in 95 Directores.

[Multibooter]

PLEASE, Sir Multibooter, trust me! I've been using Windows since the early days (NT Workstation, WFW, 95, 98, 98SE)

Well, there is always an older guy My first computer language was BASIC, the second ALGOL, and I was good at TABOL years before VisiCalc came on the market... And regarding file dates, CP/M had a nice feature for privacy: no file dates. Please stay with the discussion, your input is appreciated.

[submix8c]

Using Beyond Compare FTP in XP clarifies that. Glad you finally got that out of the way. (I have never used it). Different subject entirely (you had noted using it for COMPARE purposes - I use DirPrudence).

Perfectly aware of WinRar. I have it...

The discussion was about FlashGet / FF / IE / Opera / Add-Ons and how they "function" in relation to dependability and datestamps. No more point in beating that up any more. Right is right.

Not sure if "wget -r" would do the trick.

Now for "older guy"... do you REALLY want to go there? 1970 - BAL (you know, putting the Machine Language in in Binary?). That was the Pre-Cursor to Assembly (BAL=Basic Assembly Language). Tested out of 2 qtrs (college) of Assembly in 1978 and 1 qtr of Basic (perfect score) without even attending the couses. Already knew Assembly (see BAL above). Polaris Button-pusher, anyone? Better check my birthday - be glad to give you my Resume and my Polaris Certificates.

Edited May 29, 2012 by submix8c