Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

98 FE + 98 SE + ME updates + patches + (hot)fixes

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
1294 replies to this topic

#826
Max_04

Max_04

    Unofficial Service Packs Italian Releaser

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 278 posts

Updated:
- Added EXPLOR98.EXE = 98 SE EXPLORER.EXE fix.


Doesn't work for me... please edit my italian explorer.exe in attachment to apply changes.
ThX.

Attached Files


Posted Image

Italian localizer for free (not for bastard sellers on ebay).

Many thanks to MDGx, Tihiy, Petr, Gape, Soporific!

http://www.eng2ita.net


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#827
Max_04

Max_04

    Unofficial Service Packs Italian Releaser

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 278 posts

Updated:
- Added EXPLOR98.EXE = 98 SE EXPLORER.EXE fix.


Doesn't work for me... please edit my italian explorer.exe in attachment to apply changes.
ThX.


Italian WMP9URP is here:

http://www.divshare....load/793273-25f

Please send me .sed file when you publish. :hello:
Posted Image

Italian localizer for free (not for bastard sellers on ebay).

Many thanks to MDGx, Tihiy, Petr, Gape, Soporific!

http://www.eng2ita.net

#828
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
The link below refers to Java6.0, according to Sun, only version 5.0 is compatible with w98.
Here is the link:
http://java.sun.com/.../index_jdk5.jsp

Sun Java:
http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#JAVA
Now Sun Java 2 Standard Edition (J2SE) + Java SDK are GPLv2 open source:
* Sun Java 2 Runtime Environment Standard Edition (J2SE) 1.5.0 Update 11 32-bit includes Java Virtual Machine (JVM) + Java Applets Plug-ins for Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME and Microsoft, Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape + Opera 32-bit web browsers:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/
Direct download [15.7 MB]:
http://java.sun.com/javase/downloads/


HTASoft.com

superchargedwindows9xig1.png
Still Using W98SE+++ ...Daily.

#829
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

The link below refers to Java6.0, according to Sun, only version 5.0 is compatible with w98.
Here is the link:
http://java.sun.com/.../index_jdk5.jsp


Java 5.0 may be compatible only with Win98 SE. Not sure about Win98 FE.
See Java 5.0 System Config page:
http://java.sun.com/...igurations.html

Java 5.0 Update 12 now available <make a note of this MDGx>

wow, I spent almost 4 weeks trying to fix my cousin's eMachine computer [if you do Google or Yahoo searches about emachine+defects you'll realize that emachines had a history of defective computers or computer parts]. I finally got it to work, changed the PSU (power supply unit) and hard drive.

#830
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts

Java 5.0 Update 12 now available <make a note of this MDGx>


Thanks for sharing this good news!

I hope that this means that Sun keeps supporting the Java 5 branch for a while. Java 6 does run OK on Win98se but is sluggish. And I don't see need to use it anymore if Java 5.0 is still up to date.

#831
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
The HWINFO.EXE from SCANFRAG.EXE installs in C:Windows\System
and the one from 98SE2ME installs C:\Windows

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#832
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

The HWINFO.EXE from SCANFRAG.EXE installs in C:Windows\System
and the one from 98SE2ME installs C:\Windows

... As it should.

Updated SCANFRAG.EXE to install HWINFO.EXE in %windir% [811 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/SCANFRAG.EXE
SCANGRAG now also deletes HWINFO.EXE [if found] from %windir%\system .

Thanks for noticing. ;)

#833
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
UPDATED · 6-14-2007

Updated:
- Updated a bunch of files.
Please see top post for complete details:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581

HTH

#834
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Added install/uninstall warning messages, force install even if newer files in %windir%\system + uninstall.


Does it mean that installer and uninstaller for GDI and EXPLORER and others have been fixed? :blink:

HTASoft.com

superchargedwindows9xig1.png
Still Using W98SE+++ ...Daily.

#835
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
MDGx:

You know me, i can always find something that can be improved ... if you were just an average joe, and saw the following entry in the Add/Remove list:

" Remove Unofficial USER32.DLL + USER.EXE Fix"

would you have any clue at all what it was referring to?? I bet even some regulars to MSFN would probably scratch their heads in a year or so ... "hmmm, that does ring a bell but bugger if i can remember what issue is being fixed" --- its the Q891711 fix for those who were wondering --- i make this point because of AP ... it's getting out to people who have never visited MSFN and they will have no chance of being able to match the updates. I could make this comment about a few of the unofficial fixes floating around (and they're not all yours MDGx) but this one really stands out IMHO.

My preference is to come up with as short a descriptive title as possible, keeping the key words or at least the KB number in the title. Eg this is what i've gone with for Q891711:

"Unofficial Fix for Newer Cursor & Icon Format Vulnerability (Q891711)"

Incidentally, i've kept the old official fix in AP for a good reason, and i've used this for the title:

"Official Fix for older Cursor & Icon Format Vulnerability (kb891711)"

When seen both together, the user is left in NO doubt about what is being fixed, as they can look up the issue using the Q or KB number.

My other gripe is the consistency of the Add/Remove list when a user installs all the unofficial fixes. I feel we are cheating a bit by putting that space at the front to force putting the update at the top of the list. Why are our unofficial updates so important that we upset the alphabetical list ... wouldn't it be good to just put the same word at the start eg "Unofficial" and so they will all be grouped together. I know its a bit late now and i'm not suggesting releasing all the old ones again, but i thought i'd say it all what has been wanting to be said for a while now.

Having said that, please keep up the fantastic effort at keeping Windows 98 alive and kicking. You're the greatest!

#836
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I was playing around with your HOSTS file and found its pretty cool.
Have you compared your HOSTS file with the domain blocklist here
http://www.msfn.org/...p...st&p=624964

Also HOSTS file been Updated 06-14-07 http://www.mvps.org/...p2002/hosts.htm

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD, 17 June 2007 - 12:20 AM.

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#837
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Soporific

I woould like to differ slightly fom what you said.

For simple poeple, I'm fraid that
"Unofficial Fix for Newer Cursor & Icon Format Vulnerability (Q891711)"
isn't any more comprehensible than
" Remove Unofficial USER32.DLL + USER.EXE Fix".

At least with the second (and original) option, we know that it's some system files changed by this update.

I agree that the white space at the beginning is "unfair practice". What if everybody did the same?
Names should start with "Unofficial" or "Official".
The word "remove"...can be removed. (If you uninstall, you forcibly remove them)."
The word "fix" to be used for specific problems.
The word "update" for package, massive changes.

Anyway, it's good to have them on the list under any name, especialy when the readme file tells you to never use the add-remove program interface to remove the update! :thumbup :wacko:

HTASoft.com

superchargedwindows9xig1.png
Still Using W98SE+++ ...Daily.

#838
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts
MDGx, Microsoft has released new IE patches here:
http://www.microsoft...n/ms07-033.mspx
replaces previous IE patches

I'm looking forward for an unofficial KB933566 IE6 SP1 patch for Win98/ME/NT4 when it is ready

#839
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
UPDATED 6-20-2007

Updated:
- Updated a bunch of files.

________________________________________________


Italian WMP9URP is here:

http://www.divshare....load/793273-25f

Please send me .sed file when you publish.

Sorry, missed the WMP9URP Italian download, now says it expired. :(
Could you re-upload, please?
Thanks.

#840
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I would like to differ slightly fom what you said.

For simple people, I'm fraid that
"Unofficial Fix for Newer Cursor & Icon Format Vulnerability (Q891711)"
isn't any more comprehensible than
" Remove Unofficial USER32.DLL + USER.EXE Fix".

At least with the second (and original) option, we know that it's some system files changed by this update.

I agree that the white space at the beginning is "unfair practice". What if everybody did the same?
Names should start with "Unofficial" or "Official".
The word "remove"...can be removed. (If you uninstall, you forcibly remove them)."
The word "fix" to be used for specific problems.
The word "update" for package, massive changes.

Anyway, it's good to have them on the list under any name, especialy when the readme file tells you to never use the add-remove program interface to remove the update!

soporific + Fredledingue:

Thanks a bunch for your feedback.

1. I'll revise the updates to remove the space in front of " Remove... whatever... Fix".
I agree the Add/Remove Programs title should not have Remove or Uninstall in it.
I also agree they should all start with "Unofficial" or "Microsoft" (which means "Official").
But please keep in mind that the length of the text that appears in the Add/Remove Programs box is limited to ~ 64 chars, anything beyond that will be outside the box [unreadable]. :(
I'll make these changes to all updates when I have time.
May take a while, there are a *lot* of them.

3. I agree that "Unofficial USER32.DLL + USER.EXE Fix" by itself doesn't say much, I'll add a couple more words to explain better the purpose of the update.

4. Because the Add/Remove Programs box length is limited to ~ 64 chars, I agree that "Fix" is better [shorter] than "Update" or "Patch".

HTH

#841
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

* Unofficial Windows 98 SE 256 Colors Icons Explorer EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1700 Fix:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPLOR98.TXT
- Direct download [171 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPLOR98.EXE
- Direct download [175 KB, Italian]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/ITEXPL98.EXE
More info:
http://www.dr-hoiby....IconIn256Color/


This fix has newer explorer.exe file than the one found in Maximum-Decim Native USB Drivers 3.1 package. The NUSB 3.1 pack has explorer.exe v4.72.3110.1 but modded to include the 256 colors trayicons fix. plus v4.72.3612.1700 of the explorer.exe file from the explor98.exe and 98se sp2 packs feature newer My Computer and Recycle Bin icons.

MDGx, should we tell maximus-decim to include the newer explorer.exe file in his NUSB pack?

#842
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I have posted links to DirectX 8.1 for all Win95 editions + WinNT4:
http://www.mdgx.com/dx.htm#DX8

* Microsoft Windows 95/OSR1/OSR2/NT4 DirectX 8.1 Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) + Drivers accelerate 2D/3D Video/Movie/Animation/TV, 3D Audio/Surround Sound/Music + local/network Play/Voice/Chat directly in hardware (English):
- DX 8.1 Redist Full for Windows 95/OSR1/OSR2 [11.5 MB]:
http://store.netacad...X81/DX81eng.exe
- DX 8.1 Redist Full for Windows NT4 [7.56 MB]:
http://store.netacad...1/DX81NTeng.exe

Please test DirectX 8.1 on your 95/NT4 computer(s) to see if these installers work properly.
Then please post here your results afterwards.
Thanks.


I've tried several times to install DirectX 8.1 (from the file to which you link) on different Windows 95B/C installations. Each time it has failed to install. I receive the following message:

This version of DirectX is not compatible with the version of Windows installed. Press OK to exit


Any help regarding how to install DirectX 8.1 on Windows 95 would be greatly appreciated.

#843
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I've tried several times to install DirectX 8.1 (from the file to which you link) on different Windows 95B/C installations. Each time it has failed to install. I receive the following message:

This version of DirectX is not compatible with the version of Windows installed. Press OK to exit

Any help regarding how to install DirectX 8.1 on Windows 95 would be greatly appreciated.

Have you tried to extract the files from the EXE and install manually, eventually by right-clicking the INF files?

I have not tried Directx 8.1 on 98 SE or ME.
I'll try it sometimes soon, and I'll post here my findings.
I don't have 95 or OSR2 installed anymore, so I can't test with these OSes.

I have found those DX 8.1 links by accident 1 day, while looking for something else.

HTH

#844
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Added install/uninstall warning messages, force install even if newer files in %windir%\system + uninstall.

Does it mean that installer and uninstaller for GDI and EXPLORER and others have been fixed?

Yes, I have fixed all updates that were locking up Windows whenever some1 was trying to install same update twice without rebooting after 1st install.

And yes, I have also updated all unofficial files I've made with Iexpress, and they all say now something like "Unofficial ... whatever Fix" [instead of "Remove ..." or "Uninstall ..."] when you try to uninstall them from Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs.
... And no more spaces.
That is the ones that support uninstall/restore.

Also, all text files that pop up whenever one installs an update I've made, clearly state all necessary details about respective update/fix.

HTH

#845
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I've tried several times to install DirectX 8.1 (from the file to which you link) on different Windows 95B/C installations. Each time it has failed to install. I receive the following message:

This version of DirectX is not compatible with the version of Windows installed. Press OK to exit

Any help regarding how to install DirectX 8.1 on Windows 95 would be greatly appreciated.

Have you tried to extract the files from the EXE and install manually, eventually by right-clicking the INF files?


Yes. I extracted the files using 7Zip, right-clicked each INF file and chose "Install". The only noticeable update/file copying occured when I clicked one INF file that copied several PNG (image) files to %windir%\System\DirectX\Dinput . I then rebooted and ran SFC. No files were updated from the previous DirectX version (8.0a).

Before the most recent time I tried this, I had installed Erpman's OSR2 Update Rollup Pack 1 (Beta 3). Several of the DCOM files installed were reported by SFC to be corrupt (this also occured with the Alpha 4 version of his pack). Do you think it could be that the DirectX setup program cannot detect that DCOM 1.3 is installed, and so will not install for that reason?

Edited by bristols, 02 July 2007 - 05:49 PM.


#846
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
UPDATED · 7-2-2007

Updated:
- MDIE6CU.
- Power Pack 5.0.
- Auto-Patcher June 2007.
- VBVM60.
- 98SE2ME.
- HOSTS.
- All Iexpress fixes/updates.

HTH

#847
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

There is a bug that can be seen in the service packs for 98 (Gold) and Me - the Windows version diplayed on desktop is

Windows 98H4.10.1998
instead of
Windows 98 4.10.1998

I'm not sure where is the root of this problem, maybe in some unofficial fix?

It should be corrected in the next (beta) release of these service packs.

Petr

Or as picture:





It looks really terrible.

the bug is in 98KRNLUP.EXE

Believe God is the Alpha and Omega.
Believe Jesus Christ died for our sins.
Repent for your sins now or there will be
BLOOD

The Path to God


U98SESP3 03-11-2013


#848
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Yes. I extracted the files using 7Zip, right-clicked each INF file and chose "Install". The only noticeable update/file copying occured when I clicked one INF file that copied several PNG (image) files to %windir%\System\DirectX\Dinput . I then rebooted and ran SFC. No files were updated from the previous DirectX version (8.0a).

Before the most recent time I tried this, I had installed Erpman's OSR2 Update Rollup Pack 1 (Beta 3). Several of the DCOM files installed were reported by SFC to be corrupt (this also occured with the Alpha 4 version of his pack). Do you think it could be that the DirectX setup program cannot detect that DCOM 1.3 is installed, and so will not install for that reason?


DirectX 8.1 and higher are TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with Win95 OSes, bristols. That also includes the BDA files from DX 8.1 (and the BDA addon for DX 8.0a) which really require Win98/ME. Latest working version of DirectX for Win95 SR2 is 8.0a. The DX 8.0a package does not include the BDA files.

Look here:
http://www.indigoros...read.php?t=5034

Quote from the DirectX 8.1 download page:
http://www.microsoft...30-69f3e5ecdede

DirectX 8.1 will not run on Windows 95.


Really, MDGx, DX 8.1 and higher do NOT work under Win95. So bristols has to use either DX 8.0a or he should upgrade to Win98 or WinME.

Plus the Dcom95 files from the Unofficial OSR2 Update Rollup pack are FINE. I found nothing wrong with them. It's just that the Win95 core system files are incapable of handling DirectX 8.1 which is why version 8.1 and higher needs at least Win98. Updating the Win95 files from the OSR2 Update Rollup will NOT make DX 8.1 run under Win95.

Edited by erpdude8, 04 July 2007 - 10:20 AM.


#849
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Yes. I extracted the files using 7Zip, right-clicked each INF file and chose "Install". The only noticeable update/file copying occured when I clicked one INF file that copied several PNG (image) files to %windir%\System\DirectX\Dinput . I then rebooted and ran SFC. No files were updated from the previous DirectX version (8.0a).

Before the most recent time I tried this, I had installed Erpman's OSR2 Update Rollup Pack 1 (Beta 3). Several of the DCOM files installed were reported by SFC to be corrupt (this also occured with the Alpha 4 version of his pack). Do you think it could be that the DirectX setup program cannot detect that DCOM 1.3 is installed, and so will not install for that reason?


DirectX 8.1 and higher are TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE with Win95 OSes, bristols. That also includes the BDA files from DX 8.1 (and the BDA addon for DX 8.0a) which really require Win98/ME. Latest working version of DirectX for Win95 SR2 is 8.0a. The DX 8.0a package does not include the BDA files.

Look here:
http://www.indigoros...read.php?t=5034

Quote from the DirectX 8.1 download page:
http://www.microsoft...30-69f3e5ecdede

DirectX 8.1 will not run on Windows 95.


Really, MDGx, DX 8.1 and higher do NOT work under Win95. So bristols has to use either DX 8.0a or he should upgrade to Win98 or WinME.

Plus the Dcom95 files from the Unofficial OSR2 Update Rollup pack are FINE. I found nothing wrong with them. It's just that the Win95 core system files are incapable of handling DirectX 8.1 which is why version 8.1 and higher needs at least Win98. Updating the Win95 files from the OSR2 Update Rollup will NOT make DX 8.1 run under Win95.


Thanks for supplying that information, erpdude8. A shame that 8.1 is a no-go. Ah well.

Perhaps there's something about my method of installing Windows 95 that causes SFC to report the DCOM files corrupt, or causes problems for the installation of DCOM. I'll download the OSR2 Update Rollup again in case my first download was incomplete in some way.

#850
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Thanks for supplying that information, erpdude8. A shame that 8.1 is a no-go. Ah well.

Perhaps there's something about my method of installing Windows 95 that causes SFC to report the DCOM files corrupt, or causes problems for the installation of DCOM. I'll download the OSR2 Update Rollup again in case my first download was incomplete in some way.


If re-installing Dcom95 still makes SFC report the DCOM95 files as corrupt, then it is a false alarm. choose Update Verification Info in SFC so that SFC won't report the DCOM95 files as corrupt in the future.

Note to MDGx and all: the Root Certificates Update has been revised. I was offered the Root Certificates Update at Windows Update on my XP machine at the end of June. File size is now 274kb. Get it here:
http://download.wind...en/rootsupd.exe




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN