[AbyssHunted]

Okay, I think I'll keep the WinME suff.

Thanks, MDGx!

[Drugwash]

Normally I'd agree, but personally I had some experience with a friend's system that I enhanced with 98SE2ME and the shutdown sequence is a bit confusing, because the machine is AT not ATX, hence it does not shutdown automatically.

I had performed a few tweaks on that system, including deleting temporary files and such on shutdown, which creates certain HDD activity and when the logos are missing, the user is uncertain as to how long should they wait until pressing the Power button to actually shutdown the machine.

I believe this is one situation when those logos (or at least logos.sys, the last one) do prove to be useful. Maybe anonymous or somebody else could tweak those system files to at least allow logos.sys to be displayed on shutdown.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

?

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 19 April 2008 - 07:00 PM

[computerwizkid]

One Question:

Why can you only use 98SE2ME on 98SE and not 98FE?

[galahs]

Is there a reason why this couldn't be made a Full Install patch (update files included)?


The unofficial patches for Windows 98 SE found in Gapes Unofficial Service Pack offen contains files from newer operating systems, so why not make a complete 98SEME patch with all of the latest unofficial updates and the newer WinME files?

[WebMatze]

French version, based on the original from 9-26-2007

you can find it here:

http://rapidshare.co...2ME_fr.rar.html

HIH

[Arminius]

MDGx, on Oct 29 2007, 02:55 AM, said:

AbyssHunted, on Oct 24 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

MDGx, on Oct 24 2007, 04:15 AM, said:

Not that I'm aware of, unless you have had erratic mouse cursor problems, like I used to have when I was using Win98 SE USER*.* files, that were fixed by the WinME USER*.* files.

Recommended:
If using 98SE2ME option 3, you may want to keep the WinME USER*.* files.

HTH

I did install option 3...
So do you I reccomend I keep my system unable to view shutdown logos if option 3 is installed?

It's all up to you, whichever you prefer...
1. see the logos when you shut down Windows or
2. keep the features installed by 98SE2ME option 3 [and the rest of WinME files].

P.S.:
IMHO: I keep the WinME files, I don't care about any wait-to-shut-down +/- shut-down logos, the only logo I want to see is the startup/bootup logo [C:\LOGO.SYS], which is not affected by the WinME USR*.* files.

HTH

For what it's worth, I used Win 98 FE for six years and only ever saw LOGOW.SYS flashed on the screen very briefly a handful of times. I usually only saw LOGOS.SYS.

When I finally got around to installing 98SE I did a clean install and have never seen either LOGOW.SYS or LOGOS.SYS appear on the screen despite having installed both of the official 98SE shutdown patches, and that was BEFORE I installed USER.EXE from WinMe. When the computer powers down the screen just goes black and that's it. Now I have two computers running 98SE and it's the same story with both of them, no LOGO files on shutdown even though they are installed. Both are Gateways, one with a 440BX motherboard and the other with a i810e chipset. Some systems just seem to work that way.

[Arminius]

dencorso, on Jun 29 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

Dear MDGx:
I do appreciate your 98SE2ME a lot.
But the modded SYSDM.CPL 4.90.3001 included in it, besides saying "Microsoft Windows 98 Second
Edition", instead of "Microsoft Windows ME", suppresses the display of the version info to avoid the
old "4.90.3000 A" version mistake from appearing. But there it remains...
So I decided to try my hand at it and modded once again the SYSDM.CPL 4.90.3001, which I got from
ME280800.EXE, for it to say "Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition", but did not suppress the version
info display. All I accomplished up to this point was to get the "4.90.3000 A" version apearing once more...
But, it turns out that SYSDM.CPL gets its version info from inside USER.EXE (of which I use 4.90.3001,
of course!). In fact, the ASCII string "4.90.3000" can be found inside it exactly three times. The last one
is part of the version info resource, so I let that one alone and hexedited the other two to be "4.10.2222",
and, bingo!, now SYSDM.CPL shows the windows version correctly as "4.10.2222 A". I have been using
these two modded files on my system for over a fortnight now, and have detected no adverse effects
from the above described mods. So I feel confident they are safe. Hence I decided to post here about
my modded files, in case you, or any other member of the forum, find them interesting.
They can be uploaded at http://rapidshare.co...8442/Nu_Mod.zip
Keep on the great work!

I wanted to see if it was really necessary to mod two of the strings or whether one was enough. The first one occurs at hex offset: 00080D40. I changed the "4.90.3000" to "4.10.2222" in USER.EXE and installed it. No change, the version number in the System Properties dialog box still read "4.90.3000 A".

On the second try I changed the second incidence at hex offset: 00083220 from "4.90.3000" to "4.10.2222" and left the first one unchanged. When I installed it the version number in the System Properties dialog box read the correct 98SE version number 4.10.2222 A. It is only necessary to mod the second one.

There are quite a few other strings where the second incidence of the version number occurs so it looks as though its function is purely cosmetic. Don't know about the first one though.

As I was looking at the System dialog box with the correct 98SE version number I thought it doesn't look right somehow given the fact that I replaced so many of the 98SE file with those of WinMe. So I modded the WinMe USER.EXE again this time to "4.10.3000" in keeping with the spirit of the 98SE2ME project. The version number now appears as "4.10.3000 A" in the System Properties dialog box on my computers.

If I decide later to install Option 3 with its more WinMe-like interface I'll mod USER.EXE again so the version number reads "4.90.2222 A". A nice touch I think.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

As you may know because dencorso
have patched Vxdmon.vxd, WinME System Restore now works on Win98SE
now i was thinking these files you had on the DoNot install list is it possible to re-test
these files using the dencorso file technique

BIOS.VXD
DFS.VXD
ENABLE2.VXD
ENABLE4.VXD
FILESEC.VXD
FIOLOG.VXD
ISAPNP.VXD
MMDEVLDR.VXD
MSSP.VXD
NDIS.VXD
NDISWAN.VXD
NTKERN.VXD
PCI.VXD
SERENUM.VXD
SERIAL.VXD
UNIMODEM.VXD
VMM32.VXD
VNETSUP.VXD
VPOWERD.VXD
VREDIR.VXD

[dencorso]

Hi PROBLEMCHYLD!

DFS.VXD, NTKERN.VXD, UDF.VXD and VNETSUP.VXD are the next files I intend to patch and test,
as soon as I release those I'm still testing.
VMM32.VXD is a compressed compilation of VXDs, created during windows install procedure, so
patching it afterwards is impossible. If all its components are patchable and work ok it would be
possible to recompile a new VMM32.VXD from the individual VxDs, but that's another story entirely.
All others may work. And may even enable other files to work, that depend on them.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 11 December 2007 - 03:05 PM

[eidenk]

Install windows ME straight away guys, as it seems that's what you are going to end up with at the end of all those transplants.

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 12-12-2007

Enjoy.

[wrayal]

Just incredible work as always MDGx
Though I did have a question - I've not yet performed a manual installation by myself but, would it be possible to use glaurung's native slipstreamer to add in the contents of 98SE2ME natively? That is, are all the files to install direct replacements? I assume not, as I know you can add games and so on not originally in 98 - are these the only exceptions?
Also, is the list on your site of files to replace (under '... And finally, here are the "goods":') still complete?

Many thanks,

Wrayal

[MDGx]

wrayal, on Dec 13 2007, 06:01 PM, said:

Just incredible work as always MDGx
Though I did have a question - I've not yet performed a manual installation by myself but, would it be possible to use glaurung's native slipstreamer to add in the contents of 98SE2ME natively? That is, are all the files to install direct replacements? I assume not, as I know you can add games and so on not originally in 98 - are these the only exceptions?
Also, is the list on your site of files to replace (under '... And finally, here are the "goods":') still complete?

Many thanks,

Wrayal

Thanks for being so kind.

I'm glad you found 98SE2ME useful.

I have not tested glaurung's slistreamer [yet], maybe I'll do that 1 sunny day, and if I do, I'll post results here.

The problem is that 98SE2ME is not based on M$'s "standard" iexpress installer, but a mixed collection of BAT + INF files, which runs 1 from within another, and also depends on rebooting 1's computer in order to complete the install of most options.
Therefore I have no idea how that might fit into glaurung's slipstreamer.

This list:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#FME
is always [as often as I can keep up updating it] up to date.

Best wishes.

HTH

[wrayal]

Glaurung's slipstreamer only works for files that already exist in the 98 install files, so, thinking perhaps naively, I figured out which ones could be replaced: I found 628 files could be replaced directly using the slipstreamer, but 197 couldn't (so it would seem you have over 800 new files in this package!). Would I be naive to attempt a direct replacement for the first 628, and use a modified version of the method suggested in the FAQ section of your read1st document for the remaining 197, i.e. add

Quote

[DefaultInstall]
RunPostSetupCommands=98SE2ME:1
[98SE2ME]
"X:\9!M\InstallExtras.BAT"

To my msbatch.inf, and in InstallExtras, manually copy in the extra required files?

It occurred to me I am getting a little ahead of myself - I need to slipstream in gape's SP and all the autopatcher files first I think but, do you think this is along the right lines?

Many thanks,

Wrayal

P.s. You probably already have them in the process of making 98SE2ME, but the attached files are the files that are/are not able to be replaced by glaurung's slipstreamer, in case anyone is interested

Attached File(s)

•  DOExistIn98.txt (7.68K)
  Number of downloads: 9
•  DontExistin98.txt (2.88K)
  Number of downloads: 9

[galahs]

Good work!!!


I really think if we can nail this we are well on the way to creating a slipstreamed and ultimate version of Windows 9x !!!

What better way to tie up Win9x than with version of Windows which is a rolled combination of the best of Win98SE and WinMe that is achieved by just a simple install.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

?

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 13 April 2008 - 06:20 PM

[Arminius]

MDGx, on Dec 16 2006, 05:18 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Dec 14 2006, 01:54 AM, said:

I think IPROP.DLL from unofficial dcom is newer than the 1 from WinME

I'm not sure.

These are the ones I have [using getver.exe = http://lbrisar.htmlp...d32.html#getver]:

IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.326 stamp 11-18-1999 96016 Bytes = from WinNT4 SP6a
IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.4 stamp 6-8-2000 110592 Bytes = from WinME CD-ROM [identical with the 1 from Win98 SE CD-ROM]
IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.6 stamp 8-20-1997 96016 Bytes = from DCOM98

If 326 is considered greater than 4 [as in 004] or than 6 [as in 006], you're right, 326 is newest. [?]
But if 6 [as in 600] is considered greater than 326, the 1 from official DCOM98 is newest. [?]
So which way is the right way?
Does anybody have any ideas how this actually works?
Thanks in advance.

I have been looking into the IPROP.DLL situation in part because I recently installed DCOM98 onto a 98SE computer and was confused about the best version to keep.

I extracted fresh copies of IPROP.DLL from 98FE, 98SE, and ME cab files.
While all three copies of IPROP.DLL are all the same size and have the same version number 4.0.1381.4 they are NOT identical. I compared them using a hex editor and all three files have numerous differences in their hex values. Looks like a couple of hundred differences between IPROP.DLL from 98SE and ME, fewer when comparing the ones from 98SE to 98FE.

I next wanted to look at IPROP.DLL from Win95 ORS2.0 but to my surprise was not found in the Win95 cab files. I then checked an ORS2.5 CD and again IPROP.DLL was not found in the Win95 cab files. However I did find IPROP.DLL inside the IE4_S2.CAB and the version number was 4.0.1381.6 size=96,016 bytes. The same version number and size as the one from DCOM98.EXE. However once again the two files had numerous hex differences and were not identical. Then I compared IPROP.DLL from DCOM95 and DCOM98 it turns out they are absolutely identical. I checked the IE3.01 installer on the Win95 ORS2.0 CD and there was no IPROP.DLL inside.

It looks as though the inclusion of IPROP.DLL in IE4 was because it was one of the files installed during the OSR2.0 to OSR2.5 upgrade that occured when IE4 was installed.

I am leaning toward IPROP.DLL from ME being the correct version to use with 98SE2ME instead of the version from the official DCOM98.EXE or the WinNT4 SP6a version that is included in the UNofficial DCOM98 update despite the apparently higher version numbers. The ME and 98SE versions of IPROP.DLL are not identical and the ME version was released later.

Curious footnote on IPROP.DLL in DCOM98, IPROP.DLL is not included in the file list in the release notes (relnt98.txt) inside the DCOM98.EXE installer. One can only wonder why?

[Max_04]

@ Mdgx:

It's better to open a new topic, I don't understand more nothing.

[geoc]

I have 98SE2ME already on my PC.It works fine thank you!
how can I update "control.me"on this instaled 98SE2ME?
Thanks!