[Drugwash]

Thank you for replying, now things are a lot more clear in regard to the above-mentioned files. I've stumbled into something else though - some of the related files on my system do not quite match:
CDFS.VXD 4.10.2222 (QFE)
CDTSD.VXD 4.10.1998
CDVSD.VXD 4.90.3004
DISKTSD.VXD 4.90.3001
DISKVSD.VXD 4.10.1998

Do you think this configuration is OK? I'm asking because I generally have no issues with the HDD or CD/DVDs, except for the fact that any DVD I read with my DVD-RW Samsung SH-S182D appears as a 2GB volume (2,097,120 bytes), not a 4.7GB one as it should. All data can safely and correctly be copied from them, though.

Do you have any idea who can be responsible for this? The COPY2GB patch, maybe, or any of the above-mentioned files?

Anyway, if I can wrap my head around these patches, I may try to create an automated patcher and a restore script (should anything go bad).

[lightning slinger]

Hi dencorso,

Just a quick thanks for the newer vxd files. All installed and working well on my 98SE2ME box.

I did patch them all in a dos box as you described, however I chickened out working in dos at the hazardous bit.

Seeing as none of these files are in use when viewing the desktop I worked with File Manager to rename the new vxd's after checking the version numbers were correct and transferred them one by one, after backing up the original versions to a floppy.

Seemed less hazardous that way, for me at least.

As an afterthought it would be even easier to "right click" on the newer vxd's if you have "Rename" and "Copy to Folder" in the context menu and transfer them that way.

Thanks again,

This post has been edited by lightning slinger: 01 January 2009 - 01:54 PM

[dencorso]

lightning slinger, on Jan 1 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

Seeing as none of these files are in use when viewing the desktop I worked with File Manager to rename the new vxd's after checking the version numbers were correct and transferred them one by one, after backing up the original versions to a floppy.

Hi, lightning slinger!
Way back when, Petr had found out that it's possible to substitute DISKTSD.VxD from the File Manager. Your report makes me think all the VxDs in /IOSUSYS may be substituted in this way. Nice to know it. It really helps make my procedure a little less scary. Nice find! However, the new VxDs will start working only after a system reboot, so it remains necessary to reboot asap after the new files are all in place.

Drugwash, on Jan 1 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

CDFS.VXD 4.10.2222 (QFE)

Hi, Drugwash!
Check it again, I guess you read the product version, instead of the file version...
You surely are using v. 4.10.1999
If not, you've got a build I'm not aware of.

Drugwash, on Jan 1 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Do you think this configuration is OK? I'm asking because I generally have no issues with the HDD or CD/DVDs, except for the fact that any DVD I read with my DVD-RW Samsung SH-S182D appears as a 2GB volume (2,097,120 bytes), not a 4.7GB one as it should. All data can safely and correctly be copied from them, though.

Well, this is a known DVD related bug that remains unsolved. My system does the same. But it gives the correct size for CDs. My guess is the problem lies either with CDFS.VxD or VolTrack.VxD. But nobody knows it for sure, afaik. And no, sorry, these new patches don't solve this particular bug... So, yes, your configuration is OK.
Later Edit: My guess turned out to be wrong! The problem is higher up, in the GUI part of windows, and affects anything treated as a "remote filesystem" (such as CDs, DVDs and remote shares)... See Q256576

Now, then, you can keep your configuration as it is, or you can fully upgrade it to the Win ME code base using the patches I just released and upgrading DiskVSD.VxD with the unofficial update available at MDGx's: Q271277.

Just in case, here is some more info, thanks to the Wayback Machine: Q271277 and Q274175. The latter MSKB shows CDFS.VxD 4.90.3001 (the base for my 4.90.3002) addresses the same issue than 4.10.1999, so, here also, the main advantage is to move to a newer (and hopefully better) code-base.

Drugwash, on Jan 1 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Anyway, if I can wrap my head around these patches, I may try to create an automated patcher and a restore script (should anything go bad).

That would be great! Thanks! Perhaps the finding just reported by lightning slinger may be of help in creating the automated patcher, as it removes the need to go into true DOS and back, so its just one reboot instead of two.

Thanks a lot to you both for your interest and prompt feedback! You rock! And Happy New Year once more!

PS: I forgot to mention that these patched files should work with Win 98FE, 98FESP1 and 98SE (with or without 98SE2ME), afaik. I have conducted all my tests in a 98SE2ME system, and so did RetroOS, and that's why I didn't say this right away. But while the new patched files are still untested in Win 98FE and 98FESP1, all my previous patched VxDs from Win ME IOSUBSYS are already tested in the previous versions of 98 and do work in them OK.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 01 January 2009 - 11:24 PM

[Drugwash]

Dencorso, thanks for the detailed explanations. Indeed my CDFS.VXD has product version 4.10.2222 and file version 4.10.1999; quite strange numbering scheme, if you ask me, but I recall quite a debate on this issue somewhere around so I'm not gonna dive into it now.

Regarding Q256576, I'm afraid the issue may be related but it's definitely not the same, since the Properties panel would show the very same 2.147.450.880 bytes size.

However, right now while typing this, I found out something really weird. Inserting a dual-layer DVD trying to reproduce the issue, I had a shock: the unique file contained on this DVD (an ISO image), sized 7.957.301.248 bytes made drive size appear as 7.770.810kB (in Total Commander - I never use Explorer). This DVD was burnt on an XP machine. File system: UDF.

After that, I inserted a movie DVD containing 2 folders and (beside other smaller files) four 1.073.709.056 bytes VOB files and the drive size showed 4.287.114 kB in TotCmd. This is an original printed DVD made in Holland. File system: UDF.

Then I inserted a DVD containing 2 folders holding a total of 195 avi and MP3 files, all up to over 4.3 GB. Drive size showed 2.097.120 kB. This DVD was burnt on an XP machine. File system: CDFS.

And then I inserted another DVD containing 4 folders with lots of files and few subfolders that would sum up to over 4.3 GB. What do you know - drive size: 2.097.120 kB. This DVD was burnt on my Win98SE machine. File system: CDFS.

All this leads me to a sole logic conclusion: the CDFS driver is erroneously used when reading DVD media, possibly related to number (and most likely size) of the contained files. The CDFS driver has a drive limit of 2GB. I still have no idea which driver is used for reading the 7GB dual-layer and the printed movie DVDs.

As for the patcher... at first I wanted to make it strictly for this task only. While working on it, I realized it would be a waste of time so I decided to try a universal patching approach. However this requires a lot of thinking, failsafe fallbacks, etc so it will take a while before I can come up with a safe version. And it may become a little complicated in the mean time. Here's a preview:

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on Jan 3 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

Regarding Q256576, I'm afraid the issue may be related but it's definitely not the same, since the Properties panel would show the very same 2.147.450.880 bytes size.

Sure. I agree it's not the same issue, since it affects a ToolTip and not the Properties Tab. But it is the only mention in the MSKB to the peculiar number 2,147,450,880, which, BTW, can be written [(2^31) - (2^15)]. Now this number seems appear as the upper limit, in some MSVC, MSVB and .NET implementations, for the Int32 C data type, instead of the correct [(2^31) -1] = 2,147,483,647 limit, as defined in the C standard. What crossed my mind is that both bugs probably arrise from the overflow of (MS implemented) Int32 variables, and, just in this general sense, they have a common origin.
But I was also imagining the CD/DVD bug would be higher up, probably in KRNL386.EXE or in Kernel32.DLL. In this you've just proven me wrong. It must lie inside CDFS.VxD, as you have now convincingly demonstrated.
I do confirm your findings. I grabbed a random commercial printed DVD (Hell Freezes Over, by The Eagles) and put it in the tray. As soon as it was mounted, the Properties Tab in Windows Explorer showed "6,519,816,192 bytes (6.07GB)", and "File System: UDF", which is correct (it is a Dual Layer DVD).
BTW, UDF, in Win 9x/ME, is implemented rather unusually: its driver is not at ...\IOSUBSYS\ as might be expected. It is UDF.VxD, which is part of VMM32.VxD in a plain vanilla installation, so it's not usually findable by a system search. But users of fully up-to-date Win 98SE can find it in %windir%\system\VMM32\ as the hotfix v. 4.10.2223 of UDF.VxD, which is installed by Q310695 ("DVD Player Program Cannot Access Data"). There is an equivalent hotfix (v. 4.90.3001) for Win ME. The Win ME version of Q310695 works OK in Win ME and can be ported to Win 98SE, but it does not work as expected with Win 98SE, as is usual for .VxDs from ...\VMM32\.
Good luck with the patcher! It can be pretty handy to have a windows based, .PAT driven, generic patcher. Count on me to test it from your earliest working versions.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 03 January 2009 - 11:10 PM

[Drugwash]

Thank you for confirming my findings. I'm not sure where exactly the bug is, but the bug itself is loading the CD driver for a DVD media that is not UDF. I haven't tried removing CDFS.VXD or replacing it with UDF.VXD for testing purposes.

Unfortunately, both testing and work on Replatcher (Replacer + Patcher) will have to be delayed, since my father just died and I have a lot of papers to take care of. As soon as settle this up, I'll get back to our business. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on Jan 4 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

Unfortunately, both testing and work on Replatcher (Replacer + Patcher) will have to be delayed, since my father just died and I have a lot of papers to take care of. As soon as settle this up, I'll get back to our business. Sorry for any inconvenience.

My condolences, Drugwash.

Quote

I'm not sure where exactly the bug is, but the bug itself is loading the CD driver for a DVD media that is not UDF.

Well, it's not quite the CD driver, but the CDFS driver. So, it's just right to use it for a CDFS medium, be it a CD or a DVD. But, when the original CDFS driver was written, the programmer assumed no CDFS medium would ever be greater than 2 GiB, and that unfortunate assumption became a bug when CDFS DVDs became available.

[Drugwash]

Thank you.

I wonder why a 4.7GB DVD with a few 1GB files is written as UDF while a similar 4.7GB DVD with many smaller files is written as UDF. Maybe I'm not very focused right now.

[MDGx]

AbyssHunted, on Dec 7 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

Hey, I've got a bit of a problem.

I've installed 98SE on many machines, and I've been working on another right now.
Installing 98SE2ME (option 1, then option 3) has been pretty routine in my setups, and so far I've had at worst minor issues.

Thing is, this time around, Option 1 installs just fine, but installing Option 3 causes a crash (One of those error messages where you can pick Close or Details) in EXPLORER through process EXPLORER.EXE right after I log on (before the desktop shows up). Thus, I can't access anything. Safe mode will not work either.

Here are the details of the error, taken using a VGA image capture tool on another computer:
error.jpg


I have a feeling that the issue is being caused by something that has changed in one of the update packs I installed before installing 98SE2ME, as this time around I started using newer versions of these packs than I have used before. I'm just wondering what kind of incompatibility might be occuring (and with what file), and how I can fix it.

I have a hard disk image saved of after I installed Option 1, so if the Option 3 installation keeps failing, I can keep restoring my image until the problem is fixed.

Anyways, here's the order I've installed the updates in:
* Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1
*DirectX 9.0c
* 98 SE SP 3.0 BETA 3
*Windows Update, including WMP 9.0
*WUPG98 Carinthian LH Edition
*Autopatcher Dec 2007 FINAL
*Maximus Decim InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 2.4
*Maximus Decim Cumulative Update ver.3.05 (includes NUSB 3.3)
*Maximus Decim Data Access Component Update 1.4
*98SE2ME 11-19-2008 Option 1
*98SE2ME 11-19-2008 Option 3 (FAILED!)

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

P.S.: I could have sworn I saw one of those "Not enough memory" errors DOS likes to sometimes give right before my machine rebooted for Option 3. Don't know if this happened for Option 1.

I don't remember making any changes to option 3 scripts in a while, so it should work properly.
If you have 2 different versions of 98SE2ME laying around, please PM me with the O3*.BAT files [zipped] from the older edition, and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks.

[MDGx]

dencorso:

Many thanks for your hard work [and to RetroOS for testing].

I'll take a look at the VXD files , and probably add them to 98SE2ME [soon].
I'm also considering an exe installer [iexpress].


Best wishes.

This post has been edited by MDGx: 14 February 2009 - 07:52 PM
Reason for edit: goals achieved -> therefore crossed out

[MDGx]

MDGx, on Jan 8 2009, 11:27 PM, said:

AbyssHunted, on Dec 7 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

Hey, I've got a bit of a problem.

I've installed 98SE on many machines, and I've been working on another right now.
Installing 98SE2ME (option 1, then option 3) has been pretty routine in my setups, and so far I've had at worst minor issues.

Thing is, this time around, Option 1 installs just fine, but installing Option 3 causes a crash (One of those error messages where you can pick Close or Details) in EXPLORER through process EXPLORER.EXE right after I log on (before the desktop shows up). Thus, I can't access anything. Safe mode will not work either.

Here are the details of the error, taken using a VGA image capture tool on another computer:
error.jpg


I have a feeling that the issue is being caused by something that has changed in one of the update packs I installed before installing 98SE2ME, as this time around I started using newer versions of these packs than I have used before. I'm just wondering what kind of incompatibility might be occuring (and with what file), and how I can fix it.

I have a hard disk image saved of after I installed Option 1, so if the Option 3 installation keeps failing, I can keep restoring my image until the problem is fixed.

Anyways, here's the order I've installed the updates in:
* Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1
*DirectX 9.0c
* 98 SE SP 3.0 BETA 3
*Windows Update, including WMP 9.0
*WUPG98 Carinthian LH Edition
*Autopatcher Dec 2007 FINAL
*Maximus Decim InternetExplorer 6.0sp1 Component Update 2.4
*Maximus Decim Cumulative Update ver.3.05 (includes NUSB 3.3)
*Maximus Decim Data Access Component Update 1.4
*98SE2ME 11-19-2008 Option 1
*98SE2ME 11-19-2008 Option 3 (FAILED!)

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

P.S.: I could have sworn I saw one of those "Not enough memory" errors DOS likes to sometimes give right before my machine rebooted for Option 3. Don't know if this happened for Option 1.

I don't remember making any changes to option 3 scripts in a while, so it should work properly.
If you have 2 different versions of 98SE2ME laying around, please PM me with the O3*.BAT files [zipped] from the older edition, and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks.

AbyssHunted:

Thanks to dencorso, I took a look at older 98SE2ME option 3 batch files [*.BAT + *.INF] from Frebruary 2008, and compared them with the newest ones you have.
The only difference was O3WEB.BAT did not contain quotes for LFN folder names so DOS boxes can recognize LFNs properly, which I've fixed later on. This file does not affect option 3 explorer.exe in any way.
All other files are identical.
Therefore if you have used 98SE2ME option 3 within the past 12 months, option 3 files have never changed, and they should work properly on your computer(s).

Maybe there is something else you or some software setup did that messed up 98SE2ME option 3 installation, perhaps explorer.exe WinME version was replaced with Win98 SE version?
Because if WinME explorer.exe had been replaced with Win98 SE version, then your Windows OS would definitely lock up, and would need to have explorer.exe from WinME reinstalled in %windir% [usually C:\WINDOWS] from native DOS mode.

HTH

[AbyssHunted]

The version I had before was either 7-18-2007 or 8-27-2007. Pretty sure it was the 8-27-2007 one.

This post has been edited by AbyssHunted: 13 January 2009 - 06:50 PM

[MDGx]

AbyssHunted, on Jan 13 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

The version I had before was either 7-18-2007 or 8-27-2007. Pretty sure it was the 8-27-2007 one.

Can you please PM me with these files:

O3.BAT
O3DOS.BAT
O3RES.BAT
O3RES.INF
O3WEB.BAT

from the version [8-27-2007] you had problems with?
I'll take a look and post here findings.
Thanks.

BTW:
To my knowledge, the current 98SE2ME edition and all older editions from 2008 install 98SE2ME option 3 properly.

Also, please make sure you are using current [newest] versions/editions of all packs/updates you install, older ones might have bugs.

HTH

[MDGx]

98SE2ME · UPDATED · 1-14-2009
______________________

1-14-2009
* Options 1 + 2: added modded WinME CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 [from Q274175 hotfix],
CDTSD.VXD 4.90.3001, SMARTVSD.VXD 4.90.3001, SCSI1HLP.VXD 4.90.3001 +
VOLTRACK.VXD 4.90.3001 [%windir%\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS]:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...6349&st=919
[thank you dencorso]
* Options 1 + 2: replaced WinME PPPMAC.VXD 4.90.3000 from WinME WIN_20.CAB
with newer PPPMAC.VXD 4.90.3002 from Q301453 hotfix [%windir%\SYSTEM]:
http://support.micro....com/?id=301453
[suggested by PROBLEMCHYLD]
CAUTION:
WinME PPPMAC.VXD 4.90.3002 is experimental!
In case of errors/lockups you can restore your original PPPMAC.VXD from
PPPMAC.ORI backup [created by installing option 1 or 2] found in
%windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM].

Enjoy.

[Analada]

MDGx, on Jan 14 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

98SE2ME · UPDATED · 1-14-2009

Please see the top of this topic for most recent 98SE2ME update.
______________________

1-14-2009
* Options 1 + 2: added modded WinME CDFS.VXD 4.90.3002 [from Q274175 hotfix],
CDTSD.VXD 4.90.3001, SMARTVSD.VXD 4.90.3001, SCSI1HLP.VXD 4.90.3001 +
VOLTRACK.VXD 4.90.3001 [%windir%\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS]:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...6349&st=919
[thank you dencorso]
* Options 1 + 2: replaced WinME PPPMAC.VXD 4.90.3000 from WinME WIN_20.CAB
with newer PPPMAC.VXD 4.90.3002 from Q301453 hotfix [%windir%\SYSTEM]:
http://support.micro....com/?id=301453
[suggested by PROBLEMCHYLD]
CAUTION:
WinME PPPMAC.VXD 4.90.3002 is experimental!
In case of errors/lockups you can restore your original PPPMAC.VXD from
PPPMAC.ORI backup [created by installing option 1 or 2] found in
%windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM].

Enjoy.

Many thanks for your continuing hard work in keeping us updated MDGx! Much appreciated.

[MDGx]

Analada, on Jan 16 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

Many thanks for your continuing hard work in keeping us updated MDGx! Much appreciated.

You're welcome.

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on Jan 5 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

I wonder why a 4.7GB DVD with a few 1GB files is written as UDF (you meant CDFS?) while a similar 4.7GB DVD with many smaller files is written as UDF. Maybe I'm not very focused right now.

@Drugwash: Well, seeing you're back to the forum, I believe now is the time to resume our unfinished discussion... CDFS and UDF are just two alternative filesystems. They are not, in themselves, neither good nor bad, and the choice of using one instead of the other falls on the one who burns the media. The choice is similar to FAT vs. NTFS: one can line up endless arguments either pro or against each filesystem but the issue is intrinsically unresolvable because neither is clearly better or worse, they are just different, and each has its fortes and also has weak points.
Having said this, I'd like to point out that CDFS was originally devised for data storage in CDs (because DVDs and latter media did not exist at that time) and is very well suited for that use, even when applied to DVDs or possibly Blu-Rays.
The original standard music CDs (from 1980 up to the present) use almost no filesystem at all, the Red Book standard being more of a mapping of the mechanical LP concepts onto the (then) new media (the CD). On the other hand, UDF was devised both for data storage and for Video storage, but with this latter use as the main object for its definition. So, while retail music CDs have just an embryonic filesystem, video DVDs are (AFAIK always) recorded using UDF, so as to permit the multiple features a commercial DVD usually exhibit. And, in what regards CDFS, at least in my view, it is the best choice for data storage optical media for almost all uses because it has widespread compatibility and is simpler. Then again, be warned that I favor FAT over NTFS for almost all uses also. The exception being if one *insists* on using files bigger than (4 GiB - 1 byte). Bear in mind that FAT and NTFS were devised for random access media, so using them on optical media entails a lot of useless overhead because these media are squential access only, no matter how fast. If you look closely at it CDFS is even simpler than the venerable CP/M filesystem, although, at the end of the day, both are little more than just a root directory and its bunch of files. And, IMHO, that's the beauty of it.

[Drugwash]

Oh well, I'm not exactly back; more like trying to find a temporary refuge for a troubled mind.

Regarding the quoted phrase, it should've been [...] a similar 4.7GB DVD with many smaller files is written as CDFS.

I admit not being familiar with neither UDF nor CDFS and not having the time and will to fill in the blanks right now. All I know is that both DVDs have been burned with Nero Express, who automatically chose the file system and this is where I'm asking (myself) what makes it choose one over the other.

The more important question is how to modify the CDFS driver to recognize large capacity optical media (such as dual-layer DVDs, Blu-Ray and whatever may come next).

[Marius '95]

Drugwash, on Jan 25 2009, 12:38 AM, said:

The more important question is how to modify the CDFS driver to recognize large capacity optical media (such as dual-layer DVDs, Blu-Ray and whatever may come next).

No. The more important question is how to modify CDFS driver to recognise multisession DVDs!

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Well i installed 98SE2ME on a clean install and i got 715 files installed.
your site has 752 listed files not including option 3 files.Where is 37 files thats suppose to install.