[Eck]

PychoUnc,

Naah. I have an ATI Radeon 9600XT on the Asus A7V880 you see down in my signiture with Windows XP Home, and an Asus Radeon 9550GE on the Asus A7V333 with Windows 98SE. (I also occasionally play with an old Abit KT7A with a Voodoo 5 5500 AGP.) I install the latest official Catalysts available from ATI for both and generally leave the settings alone, apart from setting DirectX to use 75 MHz refresh rates instead of the random or 60 it'll use by default.

I used to be a heavy gamer years ago (I mean the beginnings of video gaming). I still have my Nintendo consoles (NES, both regular and NES2, GameBoy original and color, SuperNES, the original and another later edition for backup, and the N64) along with all the games I bought back then. I'm mostly at my computer now, so if I want to revisit the games I usually just use FCEUltraNES or SNES9x rather than firing up the old boxes, but I sometimes want to use the original controllers so at times I do use the consoles.

When I bought my first computer I was still into seeing what it could do in gaming so I also have a lot of PC games circa 97-2001. I got more interested in building my own machines and tinkering with Dos and Windows to get stuff (including games) to work than in playing the games themselves.

Now, I mostly listen to mp3's and play DVD's for leisure. My favorites for occasions when I want to game are simple arcade stuff, pinball games, and some old Ms-Dos games. Having to sit and master a game's controls and solve a long adventure doesn''t interest me anymore. I like up, down, left, right, A, B, and maybe left toggle, right toggle. I have no interest in teaching my fingers to use 10 or more gamepad buttons to play a game.

I never got excited by 1st person shooters so all the interest in high frame rates and overclocking to get them never came my way. I want the card to be able to process fast, but I'm more concerned with stability and keeping everything working smooth. Personally, I'd rather have stuff look better than go faster. (In games, not computers!)

So, okay, I got a little boring with my gaming after playing everything that was out there in the old days! I look at new stuff and say,"I played the same thing with not as good graphics." And I'm certainly not going to spend limited funds to buy them with my shelves filled with a lot of games I never even got to yet.

Oh, and I never install Option 3. I use Option 2. If I wanted Windows Me Shell I'd install Windows Me. I just want the good improvements that Me had transferred to 98. 98 always was faster and more reliable than Me and I think one of the reasons was the graphical tricks used by the Me Explorer and Shell that slowed things down. I don't consider that one of the "improvements" I want. If I want to temporarilly make things look different I'll just use a Theme.

[Wolf_Demon]

is it a bad thing if win386.swp doesn't get backed up?

[PsycoUnc]

-eck: yeah, I'm more of an Old School gamer myself, too... I like em simple, too stressed 'n crusty for most of the "involved" games today... Dinosaur I am, I miss the atari 2600's joystick w/only ONE button! (tho I used to be a Master arcade gamer, way back b4 all the arcade games turned into boring "street fighter" style games ; actually won a 10-speed once, accidentally, didn't even know there was a contest on for that game; almost won 2! And every week I won foot-long coneys (6 of em!) and 4 dozen donuts, at the local strip mall, just playin... ah, fun!) -MAME32's oldieMoldies DOS arcade games work for me, along with "just 20 BOTs w/knives" cstrike1.6... And don't forget VERY simple yet suprisingly addictive Jardinains! (really gets fun, after Round 250... on round 700+ now...)

-well, about option 3, looks like I'll be reviewing the notes regarding exactly what improvements are gained, and if stability IS increased, then I'll stick w/it; on my main system here any performance loss is unnoticeable and the stability improvement is VERY noticeable, so we'll see...
>;]

[Eck]

Others will have to fill you in on specifics. For me, the Explorer, Shell, and System Health stuff was what was bad about Windows Me. The updated system files were what was good, and why I used Me for a 9x system until these folks started coming out with 98SE service packs and stuff.

Now, there's no question that 98SE is the most updated 9x system available as Windows Me's System File Protection has made it too much of a hastle for folks to bother putting together updates for. Plus the fact that many folks never bothered buying Windows Me. I'm glad I did since for a long time it was the most advanced 9x system and now I have the cd so I can use 98SE2ME!

I hadn't played games for a while (except for Baseball Mogul and Microsoft Baseball 2001) so you lit up a little fire in me! I installed Microsoft Entertainment Pack, Atari 80 Classics, Activision Anthology Remix, Microsoft Return Of Arcade, and Microsoft Revenge Of Arcade after getting done replying to you. I also installed all the Carmen Sandiego games. See what you did? Now I'll be wasting time playin' instead of workin'!

Played a little JezzBall, Galaxian, Pac-Man, Pole Position, and the old version of Where In the USA Is Carmen Sandiego already. Geez, I haven't scratched the surface. This stuff could take up day and night. Cool!

I remember in the late 70's when I was managing a gas station/candy store type of place and we had a deal with a video game guy. Once every couple of weeks he would swap out a machine and we would share the quarters 50/50. I played a lot of the old arcade games for the first time on those machines, but I was a little peeved that my boss got my quarters! (All's fair. I was playing on his company time!)

[randiroo76073]

Hate to breakup the reverie, but just noticed the ME[legal copy] I have is a ME upgrade disk, has a shiny surface that you have to turn in light just right to read. Please tell me I don't have to go swapmeeting[altho enjoy it] to look for a full retail ver again, to do a clean install 98se/sp2/982me. TIAFAI

[PsycoUnc]

-the Upgrade disc should have all the ME CABS.... so 98se2me should be good 2 go...

-now, reinstalling 98se first, that'll take a 98se disc (upgrade or not) -or- the 98se CABS on hard drive, prob at \windows\options\cabs...

This post has been edited by PsycoUnc: 18 June 2005 - 11:31 AM

[MDGx]

Eck, on Jun 16 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

It's strange that the file MSCONFIG.EXE in the W98SEOLD folder is a 4.90.3000 then.

Is is there probably because u installed a 98SE2ME edition older than 6-14-2005, which installed Tihiy's msconfig.exe in %windir%\system BEFORE making the c:\w98seold backup.
This is because modded msconfig.exe + regenv32.exe are installed as part of mandatory components, BEFORE the backup is created. But starting with the 6-14-2005 edition, msconfig.exe is renamed to meconfig.exe and then installed in %windir%\system , so it does not replace the 1 u already have anymore, whichever version that is.
So if u used 98SE2ME from before 6-14-2005 u have Tihiy's msconfig.exe [4.90.3000 = please note that build number is identical with original file from WinME CD] in c:\w98seold .
Please see READ1ST.TXT for details:
READ1ST.TXT

Eck, on Jun 16 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

The version of Themes.exe installed by the Microsoft 98 Plus! cd is an updated one that fixes the issue of the program not displaying the Title Bar colors correctly.  When running 98SE2ME this is replaced by another version (probably from Windows Me) that fixed other problems in the original 98 version of Themes.exe.  However this again breaks the title bar color.  They appear solid dark blue instead of the correct dark blue on the left fading to light blue.  I now must extract the version on the 98 Plus! cd to fix the problem.
Perhaps you can use the one from the 98 Plus! cd as one of the forced updates in the 98SE2ME batch file?  It works perfectly, fixed the same problems that the one in Windows Me fixed, but it doesn't have the title bar color problem.

Thanks a lot for noticing.
I'll update 98SE2ME to remove WinME setup CD themes.exe + themes.cpl files, because the ones from Plus! 98 are newer.
I won't include the files from Plus! 98 because u need to have the Plus! 98 CD to install them [legal license issues].

Eck, on Jun 16 2005, 07:54 PM, said:

Heh, heh, my dos games seem to need a reboot to start again after I close them.  If I try to run them again, the screen goes to black (trying to open the game full screen-it does this for most games whether or not I check the pif's full screen box), then immediately returns to Windows desktop.  Then Explorer crashes (I think it's related to winoldap.  I remember having problems with that in the days before XP and Dosbox and vdmsound).  So, if I exit a dos game I need to reboot to run it again.  Even with clean booting using msconfig (whatever version it is I have) with just the Windows stuff running.  Perhaps it's my Radeon 9550 driver getting confused with the resolution changes, who knows.

This is probably a video hardware problem, not related to 98SE2ME.

Hope this helps.

[MDGx]

randiroo76073, on Jun 18 2005, 04:04 AM, said:

Hate to breakup the reverie, but just noticed the ME[legal copy] I have is a ME upgrade disk, has a shiny surface that you have to turn in light just right to read. Please tell me I don't have to go swapmeeting[altho enjoy it] to look for a full retail ver again, to do a clean install 98se/sp2/982me. TIAFAI

U can install 98SE2ME no matter which version of WinME CD u have: Full, Upgrade, Update, OEM, MSDN etc.
Please see READ1ST.TXT, the "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT" chapter for more details:
READ1ST.TXT

Hope this helps.

[MDGx]

PsycoUnc, on Jun 16 2005, 09:00 PM, said:

MDGx, on Jun 16 2005, 08:34 PM, said:

To my knowledge the differences [added WinME files] between early + current 98SE2ME editions should not slow down UI loading.
This is true only if 98SE2ME option 3 is not installed, in which case you would have the slower ME explorer + shell.
I'm testing + using all files from 98SE2ME on my PC, and also personally installed 98SE2ME [various editions] on 10+ other computers, and never noticed slower performance, unless option 3 is installed.

? -option 3 slows down performance? Then it's only there for increased stability? I thought it was there for both... ?

Option 3 only adds "annoying" WinME UI interface to 98SE, which in most cases is slower than "normal" 98SE UI interface.
Does nothing to increase performance, that's why I keep it separate from all other options.

This post has been edited by MDGx: 18 June 2005 - 04:24 PM

[randiroo76073]

Thnx PsycoUnc & MGDx, you just saved my doggies from barkin Dldg latest 982ME now, everything else is already on hdd, will start this eve, w/lotsa coffee & patience & printcopy of SP guide & 982ME handy[for some reason haven't got em memorized]

[MDGx]

Wolf_Demon, on Jun 17 2005, 03:59 PM, said:

is it a bad thing if win386.swp doesn't get backed up?

No. This is actually a good thing, cuz the SWP file may contain private data that can be harvested by viruses/trojans/worms.
And this file is recreated every time your OS boots up anyway.

[PsycoUnc]

MDGx, on Jun 18 2005, 06:15 PM, said:

Option 3 only adds "annoying" WinME UI interface to 98SE, which in most cases is slower than "normal" 98SE UI interface.
Does nothing to increase performance, that's why I keep it separate from all other options.

-ok, but does option 3 increase/decrease stability at all? (I perused your readme.1st again, but didn't notice an answer to this question...)

[MDGx]

PsycoUnc, on Jun 19 2005, 04:24 AM, said:

-ok, but does option 3 increase/decrease stability at all?  (I perused your readme.1st again, but didn't notice an answer to this question...)

ME shell + explorer probably do decrease stability, because it is possible that certain ME API functions may not be properly supported by 98SE.
That's the other reason why I keep option 3 separate.
READ1ST.TXT, under the "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT" + "98SE2ME.PIF COMPLETE GUIDE" [the "* Option 3:" paragraph] chapters, contains a little hint:

CAUTION:
WinME files installed by option 3 may change/lose Win98 SE interface
functionality!

You may also want to ask Tihiy, he's the author of Revolutions Pack, based on API functions from ME + XP.

UPDATED 6-19-2005:
I just updated READ1ST.TXT:
READ1ST.TXT
to include this statement:

CAUTION:
WinME files installed by option 3 may change and/or lose Win98 SE interface
functionality, stability and/or performance!

under the "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT" + "98SE2ME.PIF COMPLETE GUIDE" [under the "* Option 3:" paragraph] chapters.

Hope this helps.

[charly]

MDGx, on Jun 19 2005, 04:55 PM, said:

PsycoUnc, on Jun 19 2005, 04:24 AM, said:

-ok, but does option 3 increase/decrease stability at all?  (I perused your readme.1st again, but didn't notice an answer to this question...)

ME shell + explorer probably do decrease stability, because it is possible that certain ME API functions may not be properly supported by 98SE.
That's the other reason why I keep option 3 separate.
READ1ST.TXT, under the "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT" + "98SE2ME.PIF COMPLETE GUIDE" [the "* Option 3:" paragraph] chapters, contains a little hint:

CAUTION:
WinME files installed by option 3 may change/lose Win98 SE interface
functionality!

You may also want to ask Tihiy, he's the author of Revolutions Pack, based on API functions from ME + XP.

UPDATED 6-19-2005:
I just updated READ1ST.TXT:
READ1ST.TXT
to include this statement:

CAUTION:
WinME files installed by option 3 may change and/or lose Win98 SE interface
functionality, stability and/or performance!

under the "EXTREMELY IMPORTANT" + "98SE2ME.PIF COMPLETE GUIDE" [under the "* Option 3:" paragraph] chapters.

Hope this helps.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MDGx,
How do you back out of option 3-- I reinstalled explorer+shell32+comdlg32 and ran your ZIP files -- the one "To fix the Start button issue" W98SE.BAT(W98SE.INF)
and this made START button work except SEARCH, but MY COMPUTER default is
now -SEARCH- and FOLDER when you click are the default OPEN HERE COMMAND.
How do you change the default for MY COMPUTER and FOLDERS--right click and
you can select OPEN and it works, but can't set as default--this is not set in register
anywhere and FILE TYPES can't set it? Does this have anything to do with DESK.CPL? Versions for the explorer,shell32 and comdlg reinstalled from 98CD
with SFC.
Any HELP here for this?

[MDGx]

charly, on Jun 19 2005, 05:46 PM, said:

MDGx,
How do you back out of option 3-- I reinstalled explorer+shell32+comdlg32 and ran your ZIP files -- the one "To fix the Start button issue" W98SE.BAT(W98SE.INF)
and this made START button work except SEARCH, but MY COMPUTER default is
now -SEARCH- and FOLDER when you click are the default OPEN HERE COMMAND.
How do you change the default for MY COMPUTER and FOLDERS--right click and
you can select OPEN and it works, but can't set as default--this is not set in register
anywhere and FILE TYPES can't set it? Does this have anything to do with DESK.CPL? Versions for the explorer,shell32 and comdlg reinstalled from 98CD
with SFC.
Any HELP here for this?

U can restore 98SE original files from:
Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> select "98SE2ME Option 3: Restore
Win98 SE Explorer + Shell32" -> click Add/Remove button -> reboot.
This works only after u already installed option 3 by running 98SE2ME.PIF.
Most [if not all] 98SE shell + UI functions should be restored this way.
This restore funtion does not use 98SE CD, all necessary files were renamed in %windir%\system when u ran option 3.
This procedure is fully detailed in READ1ST.TXT [see "* Option 3:" paragraph]:
READ1ST.TXT
If u care to see exactly how this works, just open RSTR3F.INF in Notepad.
The command to copy RSTR3F.INF to %windir%\INF and to add the proper entry to Add/Remove Programs are run during option 3 installation from these 98SE2ME.BAT lines:

C:\9!M\START/W RUNDLL32 %windir%\SYSTEM\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection C:\9!M\RSTR3F.INF,3M
IF EXIST %windir%\INF\RSTR3F.INF C:\9!M\ATTRIB.COM/B +A -H -R -S %windir%\INF\RSTR3F.INF>NUL
IF EXIST C:\9!M\RSTR3F.INF COPY/Y C:\9!M\RSTR3F.INF %windir%\INF>NUL

As ar as I know DESK.CPL has nothing to do with this, because CPL files cannot be registered by regsvr32.exe, so they can't change UI functionality, except Control Panel UI for the respective CPL file.

Hope this helps.

[RJM]

Mystery solved.

Quote: eidenk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2|SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\VarLDID
Not sure of course this is the cause of your problem.

PS : I am a Win ME user.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I started over last weekend with an old backup, windows add/remove worked,
installed Gapes SP2.01, windows add/remove worked, backed up my registry
and then ran 98SE2ME.Windows add/remove did not work. I restored my registry
from the backup and it still did not work. I then went to my unmodified version
of WIN98SE on another machine and compared the registry entries under VarLDID.
In the version that I had run 98SE2ME on the entries28720, 29600, 29601, 29602, 30400
were missing before I had run the update. When I was looking for this problem
on the web I could only find this problem as being a Windows ME problem.
It seems that Windows 98SE does not care if these five registry entries are missing
but with the updated files from Win ME it does. Below are the correct registry entries
for VarLDID for Windows 98SE. In case this problem ever shows up again as I could
only find the entries for Windows ME VarLDID on the web.

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\VarLDID]
"28700"="C:\\PROGRA~1"
"28701"="C:\\Program Files"
"28702"="C:\\PROGRA~1"
"28710"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\ACCESS~1"
"28720"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\ACCESS~1\\HYPERT~1"
"28730"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1"
"28732"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1"
"28740"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1\\MICROS~1"
"28742"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\COMMON~1\\MICROS~1"
"29000"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1"
"29001"="C:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer"
"29002"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1"
"29400"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1\\CONNEC~1"
"29401"="C:\\Program Files\\Internet Explorer\\Connection Wizard"
"29402"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\INTERN~1\\CONNEC~1"
"29600"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\Chat"
"29601"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\Chat"
"29602"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\Chat"
"29800"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\NETMEE~1"
"29801"="C:\\Program Files\\NetMeeting"
"29802"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\NETMEE~1"
"30000"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\OUTLOO~1"
"30001"="C:\\Program Files\\Outlook Express"
"30002"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\OUTLOO~1"
"30100"="C:\\WINDOWS\\system"
"30400"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\Plus!\\Themes"
"30800"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\WINDOW~1"
"30801"="C:\\Program Files\\Windows Media Player"
"30802"="C:\\PROGRA~1\\WINDOW~1"

[PsycoUnc]

-RJM: I've never seen (or heard) of your Add/Remove problem b4... -it's probably user-specific (nice way of saying it's something you've done to your system, not 98se2me )... -have ya tried doing a "clean" w98se install (no extra frills; just std stuff), and then take it one step at a time, watching Add/Remove?

...and on a different note:

-MDGx: thx again for all your excellent, detailed help. -as for option 3, I'm not sure which UI I prefer, and I've been enjoying such wonderful stability w/#3... I'll have to experiment, remove #3, see how that affects stability/UI...

>;]

[RJM]

PsycoUnc,

What I am trying to say, is that as eidenk said back on page 10 about this problem, is that some registry cleaners will remove registry entries in VarLDID. While this was not an issue for Win98 users it was for Win ME users, as a web search will confirm. And as there is no posting of the VarLDID section of the registry on the web for Win98 as there was no problem with the add/remove windows components with Win98. I decided to post it here as the problem will probably surface in the future as more people try 98SE2ME.

This post has been edited by RJM: 20 June 2005 - 05:23 AM

[Excalibur007]

MDGx, on Jun 16 2005, 08:34 PM, said:

krnl, on Jun 15 2005, 02:21 PM, said:

I have not used 98SE2ME since one of it's early first versions. Back then, as MDGx promised, it delivered super speed, with Windows  98se ready to go as soon as the desktop appeared. But the latest version is actually slower than a clean install of Win98SE followed by Gape's service pack. The cursor stays busy for a good 10 to 15 seconds and  windows don't open as fast either. Any other folks having this problem? Has speed been sacrificed for compatibility and latest file versions?

Thanks for your feedback.
I've never heard of such problem before.
To my knowledge the differences [added WinME files] between early + current 98SE2ME editions should not slow down UI loading.
This is true only if 98SE2ME option 3 is not installed, in which case you would have the slower ME explorer + shell.

But if anybody else can confirm similar experience, I'll look into it.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a similar problem. My 98SE runs pretty fast, but after using 98SE2ME (without option3) I've noticed some slowdown from a fresh boot and it just gets worse from there. I find myself needing to reboot after doing only a few tasks or else it feels like I'm using my old Commodore 64 again.
If I install option3, I tend to get wierd glitches that end up crashing my system. I like the UI, but I can't use it for long. Yesterday, I gave it another shot and it ended up giving errors on every file I'd try to open, saying it could not be found. I tried to open Control Panel to uninstall that option, but Control Panel wouldn't open due to a runtime error. A similar problem occurred after installing Tihiy's Revolution's Pack.

I've tried installing the 98SE2ME several times, but each time I find myself having to restore shortly after. I've ordered a DVD burner so I can back up my HD, reformat, and do a clean install of Win98SE. I'm hoping it will help. Before using this, I had Windows running pretty smooth, but since I've tried this, things haven't been quite right. For example: I'm experiencing the reboot hangups (try to restart and it exits windows and hangs) again and can't seem to get rid of it no matter what.

Here's my specs:
1GZ AMD Athlon
512 MB RAM
64MB Nvidia GEForce4 MX 420 (so I chose to "avoid using 32bit icons" with RP3.6)
Win98SE 4.10.2222A
BIOS - AST Research 10/12/00

BTW, I've installed all the updates available through Windows Update, as well as the Unofficial SP 2.01. I keep my PC pretty clean as far as viruses, spyware, and adware are concerned... so I know there's no problem there.

Also, I've read through the included documents several times and read through much of mdgx.com, but I'm still unclear about this.... After installing 98SE2ME, just what updates/fixes/etc. are there left to do from the lists? ex: Do I need to do the XP SP2 functionality serperately?

Thanks for all the work you've done. I'm sure I'll get it working right eventually.

Best Regards,
-Ex

[PsycoUnc]

RJM, on Jun 20 2005, 07:04 AM, said:

PsycoUnc,

What I am trying to say, is that as eidenk said back on page 10 about this problem, is that some registry cleaners will remove registry entries in VarLDID. While this was not an issue for Win98 users it was for Win ME users, as a web search will confirm. And as there is no posting of the VarLDID section of the registry on the web for Win98 as there was no problem with the add/remove windows components with Win98. I decided to post it here as the problem will probably surface in the future as more people try 98SE2ME.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

-yes, that's what I mean, using some over-zealous registry cleaners caused potential probs in your system, which were made evident when 98se2me was installed... Every registry cleaner I've tried (with the single exception of MS Regclean 4.1a) has caused problems, sometimes delayed or hidden until something "triggers" it later... if you hadn't used the cleaner, this problem wouldn't be here... even tho it took 98se2me to trigger the prob, the potential for the prob was still there, and only because of the registry cleaner... which means, there very well could be (& prob are) more potential probs lurking w/in your registry, because of the cleaner, just waiting for another trigger... not good... and that's why I called it "user specific", cause many reg cleaners are VERY well known to cause just such problems, and should be avoided like the plague, IMHO... >;]