[dencorso]

Drugwash, on Jan 28 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

dencorso, on Jan 27 2009, 08:07 AM, said:

@Drugwash: the problem is what M$ calls a "cosmetic issue" in that the CDFS driver works otherwise correctly, but does report the wrong size when asked. It may require a considerable amount of reverse engeneering to pinpoint and correct. Then again, with some luck, it may yield to a simple patch. I really don't know, but I'll investigate it more closely as soon as I can.

Indeed it appears as cosmetic, however certain applications may use the reported size in their own reports, thus creating confusion. For example, a simple disk catalogue software (SuperCat) will display the size of all CDFS DVDs as 2GB, which may lead someone into thinking they may be partly burned (open session) or corrupt. May also mislead regarding the required free destination space when copying from such DVD to another support.

Thank you for looking into the issue.

@Drugwash:
I have looked deeper into the problem and, although I have not yet any solution at this point in time, I believe I have, at least, a good explanation of what's happening:
I)Windows Explorer, Total Commander, SuperCat, Karen's Drive Info and the superb and simple Karl E. Peterson's DriveInfo, along with every other well behaved Windows program, when trying to determine disk capacity, used and free disk space, first check whether the GetDiskFreeSpaceEX API call is available, and if so, call it to get the desired info, but fall back to the pre-Win95 OSR2 GetDiskFreeSpace API call, when the EX version is not available. That's, BTW, the M$ recommended way to do it. So those programs are doing exactly what they ought to, and are not buggy.
II) From Win95 OSR2 up to Win XP (and probably Vista also) both GetDiskFreeSpaceEX and the legacy GetDiskFreeSpace are exported by Kernel32.DLL. There is no bug here also. However, in the case of Win 9x/ME, the kernel is a complex symbiosis among Kernel32.DLL (a 'PE' .exe, a 32-bit executable), KRNL386.EXE (a 'NE' .exe, a 16-bit executable) and VWin32.VxD (a 'LE' .exe, a 16-bit executable driver), so that ultimately all API calls relating to drives (and most of the others as well) have their ultimate origin in the Ring-0 .VxD layer.
III) At the .VxD level, all the drive's API are implemented twice: a native FAT (12/16/32) API and an Installable File System API (IFS), for which just two clients are provided: the Network Redirector and the CDFS subsystem. Those two are prsent in windows at least from Win 4 Workgroups 3.11 up to now. The CDFS subsystem is what interests us now, and it consists of an inner layer of stactic VxDs (IFSMGR and VCDFSD) and an outer layer of dynamically loaded VxDs (CDFS, CDVSD and CDTSD). If I'm not mistaken, the inner implementation of GetDiskFreeSpace is in VCDFSD.VxD, which does not provide its sister GetDiskFreeSpaceEX. Why? Because there ate no CD greater than 870 MiB (the very rare 99 min CDs!), the usual, nowadays being 700 MiB maximum capacity, and at the time nobody though that there might be CDFS DVDs. When support for DVDs was added at last, it was support fot UDF, which was grafted to the inner, stactic VxD layer at VCDFSD.VxD, in the form of UDF.VxD! And UDF.VxD adds GetDiskFreeSpaceEX, but for UDF only.
Hence the CDFS support remained without support for GetDiskFreeSpaceEX, because CDFS DVDs were overlooked at that point, and remained so up to and including Win ME. Thus CDFS DVDs can only be queried through the legacy GetDiskFreeSpace, which, on overflow, returns the infamous 2.147.450.880 bytes size. Now, then, grafting an all-new .VxD to VCDFSD.VxD, just to provide GetDiskFreeSpaceEX for CDFS all the way up to Kernel32.DLL, is possible, but it requires some really serious reverse-engeneering effort that is way more time consuming than devising the usual patch.
Update (Jul 04, 2009): RLoew devised a freeware patch to CDFS.VxD, which resolves this issue. See this post.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 04 July 2009 - 06:27 AM

[Drugwash]

Impressive, I must say. So... we must enhance the old VxD. But there's a small problem: no such VCDFSD.VXD on my system. Maybe you're referring to CDVSD.VXD, which indeed exists.

Anyway, thanks for the extensive research. I'll have to read this again later, coz it's almost 5 AM here and my eyelids are too heavy now.

[dencorso]

VCDFSD.VxD and UDF.VxD are usually compressed inside VMM32.VxD and are expanded just at load time.
As VMM32.VxD is created at installation time, when you apply a hotfix to any one of the VxDs inside VMM32.VxD, it is not recompiled, and the hotfix VxD is put instead in the %windir%\SYSTEM\VMM32 folder. I believe you've found a UDF.VxD v. 4.10.0.2223 there, but no VCDFSD.VxD because there has never been any hotfix to it, and hence the original one inside VMM32.VxD is loaded on startup. To see a list of all the VxDs inside VMM32.VxD (or extract some or all of them, if you so want) you'll need Clive Turvey's VxDLib. To see what VxD are loaded and running in your system, in real time, you'll need the fantastic APSoft VxDView.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 07 March 2009 - 09:13 PM

[Drugwash]

Ah, I had overlooked VMM32.VXD. Thanks for pointing out those tools, will have a look inside VMM32 soon.

[starcraftmaster]

um what is this thing ment to do ?
and i thought all you people say windows me is crap and useless so why would you make a thing to make win 98 into win ME?

[RetroOS]

In short, 98SE2ME pulls the best bits out of Me and transplants them into 98SE.
The Me kernel stays where it is - we don't want that!
Over 700 98SE files are replaced with Me files.
Many Me files are simply continued improvements to 98SE files.
It's the "new" Me core features, many that we don't want, that are left behind.
What you end up with is the newest code builds available for the 9x system files.
That means things like better hardware/software compatibility, bug fixes, performance improvements, feature enhancements, and so on.

[technoid]

RetroOS, on May 14 2009, 01:44 AM, said:

It's the "new" Me core features, many that we don't want, that are left behind.

Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

[RetroOS]

technoid, on Jun 1 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

...
Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Two such core features, System Restore and System File Protection, were in their infancy, did not work very well, and were too much of an overhead.
Successful, stable operation of Windows Me, is possible by disabling (not so easy) these 'features' and applying all updates.
Yes, some people have had a good run with Windows Me as is, but generally it was not as reliable out-of-the-box.

[eidenk]

RetroOS, on Jun 3 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

technoid, on Jun 1 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

...
Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Two such core features, System Restore and System File Protection, were in their infancy, did not work very well, and were too much of an overhead.
Successful, stable operation of Windows Me, is possible by disabling (not so easy) these 'features' and applying all updates.
Yes, some people have had a good run with Windows Me as is, but generally it was not as reliable out-of-the-box.

Actually it is very easy to remove System Restore and System File Protection from Windows ME with Oppcomme which you can still grab on the wayback machine :

http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...es/oppcomme.exe
http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...om/oppcomme.htm

If you choose not to remove that, you need some Microsoft hotfixe (KB290700) to have System Restore to work correctly (perhaps) on ME as otherwise it won't work with any restore point made after September 8 2001.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 04 June 2009 - 10:20 PM

[eidenk]

RetroOS, on Jun 3 2009, 05:08 AM, said:

technoid, on Jun 1 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

...
Can you explain or list what these core ME features are that 'we don't want'? I had a friend who used ME without any problems nor complaints several years ago (~2002-2003). Btw, 98SE2ME works great for me (updated with Auto-patcher first and also RP9 and KernelX) on my Pentium III 1.0ghz box.

Two such core features, System Restore and System File Protection, were in their infancy, did not work very well, and were too much of an overhead.
Successful, stable operation of Windows Me, is possible by disabling (not so easy) these 'features' and applying all updates.
Yes, some people have had a good run with Windows Me as is, but generally it was not as reliable out-of-the-box.

Actually it is very easy to remove System Restore and System File Protection from Windows ME with Oppcomme which you can still grab on the wayback machine :

http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...es/oppcomme.exe
http://web.archive.org/web/20060829073935/...om/oppcomme.htm

[bristols]

MDGx,

Your home page says that 98SE2ME was updated 06-25-2009 (but on your site's 98SE2ME page itself, that it was updated April 12 2009). The date given at the top of this thread, however, is 2-14-2009.

Could you explain which date I should take to indicate when the 98SE2ME executable was updated, and what the other dates refer to (if anything - such as a simple update to the content of the 98SE2ME page)? At the moment, it's confusing.

Thank you.

[oddMLan]

MDGx, can you please make a spanish version of you wonderful service pack, 98SE2ME, please?

PD: Please reply.

[Joseph_sw]

this happen in my case,

installing, using then, uninstalling Option #3 (shell replacement),
leaves drophandler key in various registry entries, which causes send-to (or drag-drop to application) not working.
i've manualy delete those registry keys to make 'send-to' works again.

those drophandler works on ME shell, but not in 98SE shell.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Do we use the unofficial or 98SE2ME MSACM.DRV
http://btwincap.sour...t/download.html

[RetroOS]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Sep 6 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

Do we use the unofficial or 98SE2ME MSACM.DRV
http://btwincap.sour...t/download.html

Mine's currently the 98SE2ME version (4.90.0.3000).

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

You might want to add these files back because they
do not cause power management problems GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3003.
The trick is to reset the power management features to something other than what you had it on
then change it back. Sorry

[lightning slinger]

lightning slinger, on Feb 25 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

Hi MDGx,

My 98SE2ME continues to run flawlessly and has done since I installed it in April 2006.

I am at present still using the 12-12-2007 version, although all more recent updates have been applied by hand so to speak.

However, with the_guy raising the subject of the unofficial Q918547 fixes in another thread, did remind me ask the following.

According to update 8-1-2006. Options 1 + 2 :replaced GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3002 from unofficial WinME Q912919 hotfix with newer GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3003 from unofficial WinME Q918547 MS06-026 security fix.

This was later changed back to the earlier version because of a problem with power management, was it only PROBLEMCHYLD that had this issue or could you reproduce the issue yourself?

Edit: I have been using 4.90.3003 versions for over one month now with no apparent problems of any sort.

Thanks for your work

Colin

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Sep 13 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

You might want to add these files back because they
do not cause power management problems GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3003.
The trick is to reset the power management features to something other than what you had it on
then change it back. Sorry

GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.90.3003 continue to work without ANY problems on my 98SE2ME box since re- installing them in February. 

This post has been edited by lightning slinger: 22 September 2009 - 02:24 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

These three files do NOT install

Smartdrv.exe
Cvt.exe
Write.exe

Why when i install 98SE2ME on a clean install it says i only installed
720 files but all the files are there accept the 3 files above? I checked each file 1 x 1.
But you have 756 listed at you site. So 753 installed but it says 720.
Also 98SE2ME Pinball version overrides my Windows XP version.

Can you add these files back gdi32.dll + gdi.exe 4.90.3003
Can you also add Winfile 4.90.0.3001
Can you downgrade patched vxdmon.vxd to allow System Restore to work.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 14 October 2009 - 12:05 PM

[sixcentgeorge]

i have made a new install of w98se , i want to install some updates from members , i worry about order of patching .

is it that one :

AutoPatcher98.Dec07.Final.exe
AutoPatcher98.Dec08_UPGRADE.exe

236926usa8.exe 7510515.exe ME278289.EXE ME311430.EXE... of sys update
W9xPP.zip

sesp30b4-en.exe

98SE2ME.EXE
ME280800.EXE

DX90C.EXE

MPSetup.exe / wmp9
DXM9X.EXE windowsmedia9-kb891122-x86-intl.exe

ie6setup.exe

98MP10.EXE
L3C.EXE msacm-fix-forWinMe.zip

KernelEx-4.0-Final2.exe

RP9Updates.exe
RP9.exe
rpXbeta2.zip

This post has been edited by sixcentgeorge: 02 October 2009 - 09:57 AM

[RetroOS]

sixcentgeorge, some changes to your list.

- sesp30b4-en.exe should be first.
- DX90C.EXE and ie6setup.exe are installed by AutoPatcher98
- move MPSetup.exe / wmp9 before 98SE2ME.EXE
- use rpXbeta1.zip because rpXbeta2.zip is unstable.