[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: 8
•  DontExistin98.txt (2.88K)
  Number of downloads: 8

[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!

[dencorso]

Arminius, on Dec 19 2007, 03:30 AM, said:

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 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?

There is no question that iprop.dll v. 4.0.1381.326 is the highest version of iprop.dll to run correctly on Win 9x/ME. Here (link) is Peter's very lucid and quite concise explanation about version numbers. And as for different files bearing the same version (or even various versions of a file, whatever their version, in cases where version becomes suspect), you can order them from oldest to newest by using the file compilation time (a.k.a. PE Timestamp, link: read posts #912, #916 and #917, please).
While iprop.dll v. 4.0.1381.326 should be the file one should use, probably PE Timestamps do support your defense of the Win ME version, don't they?
I guess you've found another conundrum akin to the one concerning OLEAUT32.DLL v. 2.40.4522 vs. v. 2.40.4519...

This post has been edited by dencorso: 03 April 2010 - 04:18 PM

[the_guy]

I'd use version 326.

In fact, I'll most likely put that file in the next version of the MESP unless there's a newer version that also works on ME.

the_guy

[Arminius]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Tried out MiTeK EXE Explorer to see if I could reveal the PE timestamps but got Kernel32 page fault errors when I tried to start the program.

Hard to know why Microsoft released their files the way they did with older file versions being released with newer OS's and not applying updated versions across the board. I suspect some of it might have been "if it ain't broken don't fix it" or simply the knowledge the they were releasing some stable tried and true files in the hope it would be easier to track down bugs in some of the other updated files being shipped with the OS.

I don't have all the service packs for NT4 but SP3 contains yet another "version" of IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.4 weighing in at 96,528 bytes, SP5 has IPROP.DLL 4.0.1381.190 at 96,016 bytes, and the version from SP6a 4.0.1381.326 regarded as the last release in the 4.0.1381.xxx line also weighing in at 96,016 bytes.

Now it is easier for me to see a clear order of progression from .4 to .6 to .190 to .326. At the end of the day it looks as though they all work in 9x but MS was fussier about IPROP.DLL being upgraded in the NT line than it was in the 9x line.

Sometimes MS appears to be sloppy about version numbers. A case in point, L3CODECP.ACM that was distributed with Media Player 10 says it is version 3,3,2,44 in the properties box but the internal version number reads 3.3.0.44. Go figure.

----------------------------------------

On another subject:

I was trying to find an unmodded copy of EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 which is said to have come from the IE4SHL95.CAB that shipped with IE4.01 SP2. I have two copies of the official Win 98 SP1 on different magazine discs and and the IE4SHL95.CAB with that release of IE4.01 SP2 contains EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1700. I have also found IE4.01 SP2 on a few servers on the net and their IE4SHL95 cabs also contain 4.72.3612.1700. If anyone knows where I can find the intact IE4SHL95.CAB file with 4.72.3612.1710 please point me to it.


Thanks,

[WebMatze]

Updated French version 20071212 is here

HiH

This post has been edited by WebMatze: 20 December 2007 - 11:59 PM

[MDGx]

WebMatze, on Dec 20 2007, 10:59 PM, said:

Updated French version 20071212 is here

HiH

Many thanks [again ]:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#92M

* 98SE2ME: Unofficial Killer Replacements: ME -> 98 SE (free open source):
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S
- 98SE2ME December 12 2007 [2.68 MB, French]:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/982MEFR.EXE

[MDGx]

geoc, on Dec 19 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

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

Just do this:

MUST use Windows ME CONTROL.EXE 4.90.3001 Fix [128 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/CNTROLME.EXE
with Windows 98 SE ONLY IF already installed 98SE2ME options 1, 2 and/or 3:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#KRM9S
How to install CONTROL.EXE 4.90.3001 on Windows 98 SE:
1. Create C:\TEMP (example) from a DOS box:
MD C:\TEMP
2. Download CNTROLME.EXE (see above) into C:\TEMP .
3. Run:
C:\TEMP\CNTROLME.EXE /C /Q /T:C:\TEMP
4. Copy CONTROL.EXE into %windir% [%windir% = usually C:\WINDOWS] overwriting the existing one (if any).
5. Delete C:\TEMP .

HTH

[dencorso]

Arminius, on Dec 20 2007, 09:42 PM, said:

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. Tried out MiTeK EXE Explorer to see if I could reveal the PE timestamps but got Kernel32 page fault errors when I tried to start the program.

That's a pity. Never had any problem with it. Then your only easy option is to get Matt Pietrek's PEDUMP.EXE
I explained where to get the latest version here. You'll download PE.EXE, and this is a SFX installer, so you can simply open it with WinRAR, 7-zip or your favorite extractor program and get PEDUMP.EXE from inside it whithou any need to run the installer. After you get it try runing, from a DOS box <pedump <path/nameoffile.ext> | find /i "TimeDateStamp" | find /v "00000000">, where <nameoffile.ext> is the name of the PE executable which date you are interested in, and .ext can be .exe, .dll, .ils, .sys, .mpd or a lot of other file extensions. It only works on PE executables, but if you provide it with a file which isn't a PE executable it'll duly complain and exit.

Arminius, on Dec 20 2007, 09:42 PM, said:

On another subject:

I was trying to find an unmodded copy of EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 which is said to have come from the IE4SHL95.CAB that shipped with IE4.01 SP2. I have two copies of the official Win 98 SP1 on different magazine discs and and the IE4SHL95.CAB with that release of IE4.01 SP2 contains EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1700. I have also found IE4.01 SP2 on a few servers on the net and their IE4SHL95 cabs also contain 4.72.3612.1700. If anyone knows where I can find the intact IE4SHL95.CAB file with 4.72.3612.1710 please point me to it.

I have myself puzzled over this question for a long time too, and here I give you the result of my musings.

If you go to MDGx site, the last two lines of this page state the following:

Quote

Original (BUGgy) EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 installs as part of older MS
Internet Explorer 4.01 SP2 = inside IE4SHL95.CAB .

Then, by using PEDUMP as described above, getver and dir I compiled this table for the patched versions 1700 and 1710:

explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1710 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Mon Feb 08 1999 21:04:25
explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1700 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13

Now, you can get IE4SHL95.CAB from three different sources, AFAIK: IE55SP2, IE55SP1 and IE401SP2.
From each you can extract a version of explorer.exe, but you'll find that those from IE55SP2 and IE55SP1 are identical, according to fc /b. So this leaves us with just two different versions, which analysis is the following:

explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1700 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Mon Feb 08 1999 21:04:25 from IE401SP2
explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1700 size 171.280 PE Timestamp Sat Jan 30 1999 00:00:13 from IE55SP1/2

So far, these are the hard facts. Below is the explanation I concocted that, IMHO, satisfies all known facts.

I believe that explorer.exe from IE401SP2, originally versioned as 4.72.3612.1700 *IS* the unmodded original from which modded explorer.exe v. 4.72.3612.1710 was created, by adding the 256 colors patch and updating some of the icons. Its version was changed to reflect the fact that its compilation date is *newer* than that of the explorer.exe found in IE55SP1/2. A quick and dirty comparison of the relevant files using first eXeScope and then WinHex seems to support my conclusions.

So, AFAIK, you already have the file you are looking for. But this is just my opinion...

This post has been edited by dencorso: 21 December 2007 - 11:54 PM

[eidenk]

dencorso, on Dec 21 2007, 11:53 PM, said:

Then your only easy option is to get Matt Pietrek's PEDUMP.EXE

Actually there are other GUI tools for getting such information : PEView, PE Workshop, PE Informant, PE Viewer and probably yet some others.

Fortunately they are all freeware so I am not going to be instantly banned by MDGX for speaking about them.

[geoc]

I updated 98se2me with "controlme" . It works.
Thank you,MDGX!

[MDGx]

eidenk, on Dec 22 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Fortunately they are all freeware so I am not going to be instantly banned by MDGX for speaking about them.

There is no problem if you don't promote your own commercial/shareware software here, over and over and over...

HTH