• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
cyberthug

Win98 Resource Kit

162 posts in this topic

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

This topic starts to get hot.

With FileZilla v3.5.3 under WinXP I got once the generally agreed-upon quantity of 2382 files and 91 folders :) . Subsequent downloads with this FTP software and others got varying quantities, especially after the initial run, maybe there is some caching, or I just don't know how to use FTP software properly. To know the definite quantities involved, I would guess that someone would have to check the probably existing TechNet CD with the Win98 Resource Kit, which was perhaps the source of the upload to the MS Server. Maybe something happened when stuff from a CDFS was put on the MS server.

With Flashget under Win98SE, when I tried to download, not by selecting the folder \Reskit\ in the top right window, but by first opening \Reskit\ and then selecting the content of \Reskit\ (25 folders and files) in the top right window, I got maybe 2400+ files, and the content of the target folder was very different from the content of the source folder, some files were copied flat from subfolders into \Reskit\ and the structure of the subfolders was very different. I repeated the experiment, the same thing happened, and then I stopped because I was afraid to corrupt my HDD.

Nero InfoTool lists for another TechNet CD I have, Windows Millenium Beta 1 of December 1999, X05-36910 on the rim of the CD, as follows: ISO9660, Joliet, Date: 22 September 1999, Publisher: Microsoft Corporation, Application: CDIMAGE 2.39 (12/04/97), Data CD (Mode 1), Closed finalized.

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/ seems to be a marvelous site for learning about FTP. I am currently trying to download the site with Total Commander v7.57 under WinXP, but it has skipped already one file with the message "Post Command failed". BTW, Total Commander v8.0 came out on May 23.

My speculation is that there is some kind of file system corruption on that MS server, maybe related to Unicode or to fine differences between the Win98 and WinXP file systems, and your Amiga sees the stuff on the FTP server a little different. Or there is actually some stuff on this server which is hidden, but visible to the Amiga ...

Another possibility could be that downloading from that server causes some kind of crashes, so that sometimes there is a timeout at random files. Ancient Teleport Pro v1.29.1981 apparently doesn't work with FTP, it couldn't retrieve anything. Maybe a good FTP spider software could be helpful.

Edited by Multibooter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unix" :w00t:

Also note that you had INITIALLY discovered a "reskit" AND a "Reskit". Betting the "paths" (hence the folders+files) differ between the two. I would be interested to see that "list" from rloew...

edit - OUCH!!! There appears to be TWO Win98 folders - "win98" AND "Win98"... The "lower case" one apparently gives INDEX.HTM for the Folders but files are inside. The "Upper Case" one is the one that can apparently be mass-downloaded. (FlashGet).

I'll try "copying" it instead (SLOWWWW!).

edit - thought I'd include this

Posted 25 May 2012 - 10:48 PM

The download link displayed in posting #1 is very interesting.

1) The link is misspelled. There are apparently 2 folders on the MS server with this name, one with a CAPITAL R "Reskit" and the other with a SMALL r "reskit"

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look with FileZilla in the ftp.microsoft.com/Services/TechNet/samples/PS folder I only see the folders:

MSDOS

WIN95

Win98

WinCE

Same if I look there with my browser.

Cheers and Regards

Edited by bphlpt
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(sigh....) I can give a screenshot... wait one... (MAN this is becoming a REAL ISSUE - I am doing this on 2K3).

See the "w" vs "W"??? Please note that I entered the site in... WINDOWS EXPLORER. Win7 has an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT way of browsing (drove me crazy). Different way of "settings" in IE6 v IE8/9, ok? I encountered this when my brother "upgraded" his IE once.

edit - the "mystery" deepens. Copying from "W" then from "w" and comparing against each other - EXACT SAME CONTENTS. Comparing (either) against previous FlashGet - SAME!!!! (ref. the Directory List).

generally agreed-upon quantity of 2382 files and 91 folders
vs
I got 2389 Files in 95 Directories
And.. please note the link I gave to a REFERENCE to the APRIL MSDN Libraries (remember that post?). I will SUSPECT that THAT one was the "source" of the FTP site contents (note the folder dates) and NOT the OCT one. (strike that - date is not even close...)

Errr, I don't think this is worth pursuing any further.

edit2 - AHA!!!! rloew PROBABLY got the "y2k" folder also!!! "7 files, 1 folder" - putting them BOTH BENEATH a "new" folder yields... "2389 files, 94 folders" (excluding the "new" folder").

I'd say this horse has been beat to death... let's have a bar-b-que!

post-72994-0-15079600-1338327188_thumb.j

post-72994-0-09340800-1338327510_thumb.j

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it isn't beat to death, it's definitely on it's last legs. :)

No one is saying that either you or Multibooter is saying anything that you have not seen - you both have shown screenshots to prove it. And I think you nailed it that we all are using different OS/browser/FTP client combinations. It is very odd that they are not consistent in what we see and or download. As such, I know it is driving Multibooter crazy not knowing how to verify that he has the correct content after downloading, which I suppose was the real gist of what began several days ago:

... But, is there a way to download all the Resource Kit files together and with the proper directory structure? ...

I guess this is a perfect example of how having downloadable content compressed into a single file, with a published size and MD5 can eliminate a whole lot of confusion. As it is, just being able to see the directory structure using any of the various means we have all utilized hasn't been much help since we have seen different things at times. But considering it was all supposed to have been deleted over six years ago I guess we really can't complain.

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Services/TechNet/samples/PS/Win98/Reskit is the address with the actual case on the server. If you paste the address as it is in the first post of this topic (ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/reskit/) it will show you the tree structure with the case you've used but when you navigate up and then down again it will then display the folders with the actual case in addition which is kinda confusing and it's only when using the refresh command that the FTP client eliminates the folders with the wrong case from the tree structure it shows. That's what happens with FTP surfer anyway, I haven't really much tried with other clients but I guess it should be similar. If some FTP servers can have case sensitive files/folders than it makes some sense that FTP clients behave like that. Edited by loblo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if it isn't beat to death, it's definitely on it's last legs. :)
Hi bphlpt,

Perhaps, perhaps not. It looks like we are in unknown territory, no idea what will come out of this discussion. Here 3 more thoughts:

1) Reading from this bad FTP server reminds me of reading from a bad damaged CD/DVD (see the postings in "Archiving software CDs under Win98" ):

- different quantities of files and directories are recovered from the bad FTP server during various read attempts

- different FTP programs recover different files, just like different burners/CD software have varying success reading CDs/DVDs with bad sectors

- endless timeouts occur reading from the FTP server, just like from a burner reading bad sectors

- on a CD/DVD the same files can be accessed under various systems like ISO9660 and Joliet, on the server with small and capital letters

2) My speculation about the cause of this FTP server corruption is the following:

- \Reskit\ resides already 5 directory levels down from the server root. A file-copy of a CD was copied into \Reskit\.. The CD itself contains at least 6 sub-directory levels, so we have a nested structure with at least 11 levels.

- I once created a similarly deeply nested directory structure under FAT32 by copying with Beyond Compare into a deeply nested directory the content of a deeply nested CD. The result was a file system corruption on the FAT32 partition: I could not erase the files under WinXP. Under Win98 I was not able to erase these files either, except in a DOS window where I deltreed the corrupt top-level folder - using its short DOS name.

BTW, the System Commander 9 CD comes with similarly deeply nested folders, most likely intentionally to make the installation from a copied sub-folder unsuccessful, the people at V-Com were nifty and knew their stuff. If I remember right there are differences between CDFS and FAT32 regarding the number of permissible nested levels and the total name length including the path.

It just occurred to me, maybe some of the problems copying from this MS FTP server may be caused by running Win98 and WinXP on FAT32 partitions, as I do. Perhaps there are no problems downloading from the MS Server if the FTP client is run under NTFS.

3)

But considering it was all supposed to have been deleted over six years ago I guess we really can't complain.

- Maybe the current people at Microsoft were not able to delete this particular bad section on the FTP server when they deleted their Win98 stuff. Or they did not want to risk potential collateral damage by making a file cleanup on their FTP server under Win98 or DOS, and just left the stuff.

- The folder modification dates on the server are 29-Apr-2010, so perhaps MS tried to wipe out the corrupt files on 29-Apr-2010 by uploading again and overwriting the corrupt file entries. This could perhaps explain why there are folders with 2 different names. But again, everything here is pure speculation.

To experiment with file system corruption on a FAT32 HDD/parition, one would just have to copy in Beyond Compare a deeply nested CD (root e.g. in right pane) to the lowest level of a deeply nested folder on the HDD (lowest level is the starting point on the right pane in Beyond Compare).

Edited by Multibooter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(sigh...) as I said - UNIX! AFAIK, only Unix-like systems allow TWO folders with same name CASE DEPENDENT! You may then create a "junction" (?) between the two. If you look back in "history", you'll find that MS used Unix for their servers long ago (not now, though I believe). Look it up... (a "reference" here.)

Besides, I think it's irrelevant now. The "proof" of Flashget downloading FOLDERS instead of INDEX.HTM (in the Site Explorer part) kind of shows that. (try it and see... ;)).

Bottom line - get it while you can. The Folders/Files count has been proven accurate. :)

edit - More here. I already responded to someone else about their ZA Firewall and Akamai. MS utilizes Akamai Servers and many are... UNIX UNIX UNIX!!!!

@Multibooter - I have Copied BOTH "folders" AND used Flashget TWICE! (on the "good" folder)!! It always comes up the same. You are blaming "corruption"... I blame your Software. Try the OTHER folder and see what happens.

edit - Linux Path Lengths info. I'm sure some Linux/Unix Guru will correct me...

File System Compares Wiki

Try this (halfway down) - Map a Drive to the FTP site as indicated (2K and up). See if that makes any difference. Just like your own HDD. ;)

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, there's also Win2k Resource Kit over there
Yep, and others too. Got them all... (the links are given within this topic)

a followup to my previous post MS FTP site IP address -

ftp://64.4.17.176/

HTH...

edit - in FF using IP address - "win98"=bad (doesn't even show) / "Win98"=good

In explorer "buggy" Unix-like access? (shows up in FlashGet too and does not work - INDEX.HTM's).

Seriously - lets COOK this horse on a spit!

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is a perfect example of how having downloadable content compressed into a single file, with a published size and MD5 can eliminate a whole lot of confusion. As it is, just being able to see the directory structure using any of the various means we have all utilized hasn't been much help since we have seen different things at times. But considering it was all supposed to have been deleted over six years ago I guess we really can't complain.

Cheers and Regards

bphlpt,,

Yup -- it really is remarkable that the files are still available in any form or fashion so many years later.

But at least the discussion was instructive.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The y2k Directory was included in the totals. I had downloaded the different OS sets and did a Count on the WIN98 Directory.

I did not see any corruption or differences. I downloaded the entire set twice. There were three failures, one on the first download and twice on the second, but selecting Retry resumed the download. The two copies were identical.

I transferred the files to my Windows 98 Computer over a LAN. I got the same count, so no questionable File Names were present.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
Hi bphlpt,

Thanks a lot, I had never thought of making an upgrade install via Universal Extractor and file copy/Beyond Compare. Yesterday I did make the upgrade of licensed FlashGet v1.72 to licensed v1.73 in this way under Win98. I am attaching a screen shot of the About screen.

This method of updating to a newer version, via Uniextract and file copy, is very interesting and probably useful for other programs, e.g. where just the installer is not compatible with Win98.

Yesterday I used this version updated to v1.73 under Win98 to download ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/ and with this version I got twice the 2400+ files and corrupt directory structure when I selected the opened content of \Reskit\ for download. I will test this version for a while, it may be Ok.

There may be many other potential culprits for this FTP download issue under my setup. To sum up, Flashget is great as a tool for downloading regularly a few individual files, with a nice log (filename, date, URL, folder where downloaded to) and an easy way to download a file again. But downloading whole FTP sites with 1000's of files just clutters up this great download log.

It is probably better to download FTP folders and FTP sites under WinXP, because of the folder dates. FileZilla v3.5.3 under WinXP looks like a good choice, except for the folder dates. Beyond Compare v2.5.3 gets the folder dates right, but its FTP takes forever and a year. Any suggestions?

Edited by Multibooter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It is probably better to download FTP folders and FTP sites under WinXP, because of the folder dates. FileZilla v3.5.3 under WinXP looks like a good choice, except for the folder dates. Beyond Compare v2.5.3 gets the folder dates right, but its FTP takes forever and a year. Any suggestions?

I think submix8c would agree with me that folder dates don't seem to be enough of an issue to not use a solution that is otherwise successful, fast and convenient. I don't think that either he or I would worry about the folder dates at all, but it's up to you. I just don't see the point. What exactly is gained by having the folder dates match? If you really insist, there are apps that are able to change a folder's, or file's, timestamp and since I would think the folder's will all have the same date I wouldn't think it would be too hard to adjust them, but I still probably wouldn't bother.

Be careful about using your new "toy" (expanding an installer and just copying the files into place). That works fine in this case, and will in others, but you'll have problems if creating or deleting shortcuts or registry entries is involved that don't match what was previously in place. This method is often used successfully in exactly the circumstances you describe, when the installer is the problem, you just have to be aware of the other issues and be prepared to overcome them in other ways - it can be done.

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loads of bollocks about non-existent server corruption

:angel

ftpyf.png

Please read my post on top of this page instead of ignoring it and carrying on with the senselessness. :yes:

:hello:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is what I see in GetRight ...

FBIyQeZ.png

Maybe there is some kind of filtering of alias links that GetRight does ?

EDIT: Just for comparison I fired up CuteFTP (v4.something) and it pretty much looks the same even after I tried all the various options concerning display of symbolic links. Now where did I put that darn WS_FTP.

EDIT2: updated image URL

Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi loblo,

I love your screen shot , great.

Your FTP client came back stoned with 7 entries for \reskit\, but if your FTP client got already stoned by just looking at all these goodies at MS, can you be sure that the files it brought back are good? We generally agree that \reskit\ contains 2382 files in 91 folders, but can one trust what a stoned FTP client brings back, i.e. is your downloaded stuff really good? Ultimate certainty would only provide a binary compare of the downloaded stuff against the probably underlying TechNet CD "Microsoft Plus! 98, Windows® 98 Resource Kit" (Part No. X05-34597, January 2000, Disc 6) "http://web.shinmin.tc.edu.tw/administrative/cc/data/msdn/cdtable(012000).htm" Maybe not just this index of CDs, but also the CD itself is on that university server in Taiwan, who knows, I didn't check.

Unfortunately I don't have this TechNet CD, only for example the TechNet CDs "Windows 2000 Professional Resource Kit" (February 2000, X05-51766) and "Windows 2000 Server Resource Kit" (January 2000, X05-43228).

Now a silly question: Are the utilities on the book CD still of any use, in 2012? Does anyone here in the forum actually use them? The index to the utilities can be downloaded here ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/HELP/WIN98RK.CHM

Edited by Multibooter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multibooter, I was just pondering the same "silly question" ---and was hesitant to ask!

Now that we have this valuable antiquity recovered from the tomb---what do we use it for?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cyberformer,

I was referring to the utilities on the CD. The file on the CD containing the manual, Rk98book.chm , is a must-have for reference, for people who want to delve deeper into Win98. Appendix C "Windows 98 INF Files", for example, is an excellent documentation of the INF file layout.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added the KILL.EXE to the Service Pack, but it doesn't have its original attributes. Can someone help me?

I don't want to download a file just to download a file. :realmad:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got 2389 Files in 95 Directores.

Confirmed as counted from the \Win98 folder.

With FileZilla v3.5.3 under WinXP I got once the generally agreed-upon quantity of 2382 files and 91 folders

Confirmed as counted from the \Reskit folder.

I also downloaded with FileZilla 3.5.3 under XP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have added the KILL.EXE to the Service Pack, but it doesn't have its original attributes. Can someone help me?

How so? What do you mean by "but it doesn't have its original attributes"?

BTW, kill.exe is more useful when one also has tlist.exe present, because tlist.exe lists process IDs in the right format for use with kill.exe. All existing versions of those programs, whatever their version, have matching versions, to show they work right together.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this (halfway down) - Map a Drive to the FTP site as indicated (2K and up). See if that makes any difference. Just like your own HDD. ;)

For the record:

http://www.itlisting.org/5-windows/9a87b563686a2140.aspx

;)

Would that work in 9x through LMHOSTS/whatever?

BTW the linked to Win2K thingy seems like being taken from this:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726981.aspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726981.aspx#EHAA

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? What do you mean by "but it doesn't have its original attributes"?

What I mean is that the KILL.EXE has the date/time stamp 02/26/1997 01:53PM on MS server

but when you download the file you get the most recent such as today's date .

BTW, kill.exe is more useful when one also has tlist.exe present, because tlist.exe lists process IDs in the right format for use with kill.exe. All existing versions of those programs, whatever their version, have matching versions, to show they work right together.

I really don't need the TLIST.EXE, because I'm only using KILL.EXE to kill a few processes. Thanks I'll test the tool and see

what it brings to the table. Sorry I wasn't clear. After a 13hr train ride with no sleep, everything probably sounded like gibberish.

Edit: You can also find IVIEWERS.DLL 2.1.0.59 in Windows 2003 Server Resource Kit.

This version is included in SP3

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just repeated an attempt to download the stuff from ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/services/technet/samples/ps/win98/Reskit/ with Beyond Compare v2.5.3 under WinXP SP2 on my 11-year-old Inspiron 7500 laptop, using an old Belkin F5D5010 CardBus Card connected via Ethernet cable to an ancient Linksys Router BEFSR41.

Beyond Compare transferred the folder structure and folder dates, and 2262 files in 91 folders, in 3 hours 41 minutes. The transfer of 39 files was terminated by Beyond Compare with the following messages:

- Data channel timed out; or:

- The semaphore timeout period has expired; or:

- Connection closed.

What these messages tell me, is that something didn't work :). The agreed upon quantity is 2382 files and 91 folders. This still leaves 81 files (2382 - 2262 - 39) which were not transferred and for which Beyond Compare did apparently not display a message.

Repeating the file transfer for several of the skipped files individually resulted in the same error messages, but no additional files on my hard drive. I then changed the settings in Beyond Compare:

-> Tools -> Options -> FTP, and in the window "FTP Settings" I changed the Link Resolution from a default selection "Fast" to "Complete".

Pressing F1 Help in Beyond Compare displayed the following for the "Complete" selection:

"BC will use it's internal representation of the FTP structure to determine what the target is. This will detect broken links and can require fewer operations than "Simple", but can get caught by recursive links".

After this change I exited Beyond Compare, restarted it and then was able to transfer more files individually. More files were now displayed on the source pane in Beyond Compare. So apparently what Beyond Compare sees on the server is determined by the options selected, not by what is actually there.

I had also changed the default value for "Local Cache" from 4096 KB to "40960 KB".

A further restart of Beyond Compare, with another changed setting in window "Advanced FTP Settings" (I had also selected under LIST Options: "Show hidden"), displayed even more files on the source/server pane,

With these new FTP settings I was able to download individually all missing files (quite easy with Beyond Compare), except for the following:

- NSSERVER.EXE, about 7MB

- NSTOOLS.EXE, about 4MB

- DRREN1MB.ASF, about 30 MB

- STEM288.ASF, about 3MB

- AFRICAT1_96K44100S.ASF, about 2MB

Beyond Compare displayed for these 5 files the error message: "The semaphore timeout period has expired".

More information about such an error message is here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/itprovistanetworking/thread/c3fc9f5d-c073-4a9f-bb3d-b7bb8f893f78 , where someone posted: "Microsoft are no help at all, they know this problem exists yet ignore all requests of help to find a solution"

So my problem with Beyond Compare seems to have been that I had wrong settings. But I am still not quite there, Beyond Compare got 2377 out of 2382 files, 5 more to go. Any suggestions?

I have attached screenshots of my FTP Settings in Beyond Compare.

Beyond Compare v2.5.3 [last version for Win98] uses sfFTPLib.dll v1.5.8.23 of 24-Aug-2006 by SmartFTP. Does Beyond Compare v3 (not compatible with Win98) have a better FTP? There were changes with SmartFTP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartFTP Here is a description of the various version of this DLL: https://www.smartftp.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8534-ftp-library-1x-change-log/

post-183045-0-69692400-1338488947_thumb.

post-183045-0-39060700-1338488963_thumb.

Edited by Multibooter
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.