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

#901
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Joined 12-June 05
MDGx,

thanks again for the latest updates ... can you confirm that the Q933360 update replaces Q931836? It seems obvious that it does, but you normally explicitly say something if an update replaces another, and you didn't for this one. So i'm bugging you about it, sorry ;)

EDIT: oh, and both versions you've released of the Scripting engine v5.7 update doesn't work right on my test system,it days i already have the update installed when i jolly well don't. i'm going to try to repackage it i;ll let you know the results ...

is anybody else getting a message saying you already have v5.7 when you actually don't? Is it just me, have i finally lost my marbles?

EDIT2: all i did was repackage the contents and now it installs OK. MDGx, you are doing something different to me, it looks like a version check but it's not working in my case.

EDIT3: oh, and MP936782 replaces the now obsolete kb917734. Let me know if i'm wrong.

Edited by soporific, 31 August 2007 - 10:35 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#902
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Joined 24-February 06
Same here, says that 5.7 is already installed. But it does install ok manually, shows up in add/remove programs. I removed it again. Reinstalled 5.6 and then, with a fresh start, installed 5.7 again. Now I don't get the message and it installs automatic.

#903
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,969 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

256 colors windows icon on the Start button!

The icon shown on the Start button is 16x16, 16 colors in all versions of Win 9x/ME.
That's because it's taken from icon group 105, within user.exe, where there are no 256 colors icons. I thought that maybe just adding a 16x16, 256 colors icon to group 105 would be enough for the 256 colors icon be used instead of the 16 colors one... It was a long shot, but I found I was right!!!

So I decided to also include a 32X32, 256 colors icon, as well as substitute both original 16x16 and 32x32 16 colors icons with retouched icons using a lighter blue for better display.
Now, here I offer you my results, three files: USER.EXE 4.10.0.2233 with new group 105 16x16 and 32x32 icons in both 16 and 256 colors, with the new versions of the tradicional Windows icon; a proof-of-concept version of USER.EXE 4.10.0.2233 with the same icons except for the 16x16, 256 colors, which, in this case, I substituted for Dr. Hoiby's 16x16, 256 colors icon, just to show that this is the icon used in the Start button; and a new version of my USER.EXE 4.90.0.3001, for use with 98SE2ME, with the new icons and hexedited to show the windows version correctly as 4.10.2222 A in SYSDM.CPL. I've tested each of them for more than a month on my system, without any troubles, so I feel they are safe for release.

*** Warning: Of course, these modded versions of USER.EXE can only be used with the matching version of USER32.DLL!***

Download-Link: <http://rapidshare.co...USER256.7z.html>

Thanks to eidenk for starting the topic on how to do it. See:
<http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=93116>

Edited by dencorso, 03 September 2007 - 02:52 PM.


#904
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Joined 12-June 05
@ MDGx :hello:

I think there's a problem with MS 5.7, it's breaking your code that finds the Program Files folder. It's returning a 'Bad command or filename" error.

Has anyone else had problems?

#905
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

256 colors windows icon on the Start button!

The icon shown on the Start button is 16x16, 16 colors in all versions of Win 9x/ME.
That's because it's taken from icon group 105, within user.exe, where there are no 256 colors icons. I thought that maybe just adding a 16x16, 256 colors icon to group 105 would be enough for the 256 colors icon be used instead of the 16 colors one... It was a long shot, but I found I was right!!!

So I decided to also include a 32X32, 256 colors icon, as well as substitute both original 16x16 and 32x32 16 colors icons with retouched icons using a lighter blue for better display.
Now, here I offer you my results, three files: USER.EXE 4.10.0.2233 with new group 105 16x16 and 32x32 icons in both 16 and 256 colors, with the new versions of the tradicional Windows icon; a proof-of-concept version of USER.EXE 4.10.0.2233 with the same icons except for the 16x16, 256 colors, which, in this case, I substituted for Dr. Hoiby's 16x16, 256 colors icon, just to show that this is the icon used in the Start button; and a new version of my USER.EXE 4.90.0.3001, for use with 98SE2ME, with the new icons and hexedited to show the windows version correctly as 4.10.2222 A in SYSDM.CPL. I've tested each of them for more than a month on my system, without any troubles, so I feel they are safe for release.

*** Warning: Of course, these modded versions of USER.EXE can only be used with the matching version of USER32.DLL!***

Download-Link: <http://rapidshare.co...USER256.7z.html>

Thanks to eidenk for starting the topic on how to do it. See:
<http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=93116>

Many thanks for the mods.

I'll add USER.EXE 4.90.3001 to 98SE2ME soon.

Keep up the good work. :thumbup

#906
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

MDGx,

thanks again for the latest updates ... can you confirm that the Q933360 update replaces Q931836?

EDIT: oh, and both versions you've released of the Scripting engine v5.7 update doesn't work right on my test system,it days i already have the update installed when i jolly well don't. i'm going to try to repackage it i;ll let you know the results ...

EDIT3: oh, and MP936782 replaces the now obsolete kb917734. Let me know if i'm wrong.

1. Indeed it does, Q933360 replaces Q931836.
Added this to the 8-27-2007 update:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581

2. I've updated MSE 5.7: please see 9-3-2007 update:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581
Hopefully it will run ok now.
See also unofficial MSE 5.6 [install it in case MSE 5.7 doesn't work]:
http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#MSE

3. MP936782 does not replace MP917734, because MP917734 is for WMP71, not for WMP9.
BTW:
I've fixed MP936782, now installs also on Win98 (FE) + 98 SP1.
Windows 98 (FE) + 98 SP1 require Unofficial WMP9 already installed:
http://www.mdgx.com/wmp.htm#WMP9
WMP90_98.EXE is a repackaged WMP9 which installs on all Win98 editions.

More updates + fixes here:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581

HTH

#907
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I sent that to your email a while ago. If you lost the link, I can just resend it to you.

the_guy

I got it, just didn't have time to post. :(

Posted today [9-3-2007] all updates you guys [the_guy + erpdude8] sent me for the past 2 weeks.

Please see:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581

HTH

#908
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
UPDATED 9-3-2007

#909
night side

night side
  • Member
  • 7 posts
  • Joined 17-July 06
One more time it wanted to be thankful for the magnificent support that vocês they supply to the Windows 98. How God blesses them for this work!
He forgives my English!

#910
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,969 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

256 colors windows icon on the Start button! [...]

Many thanks for the mods.

I'll add USER.EXE 4.90.3001 to 98SE2ME soon.

Keep up the good work. :thumbup


You're welcome!
Thank you for your site, 98SE2ME and all your efforts that help us keep Win 9x alive and kicking! :thumbup

BTW, I sent you a PM on Jul 27th... Did it reach you?

Edited by dencorso, 03 September 2007 - 11:49 PM.


#911
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

BTW, I sent you a PM on Jul 27th... Did it reach you?

I've downloaded the Kensington mice drivers + tools you sent.

I'll post something soon.

Thanks a bunch (again).

#912
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,969 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

[...]
- ASYCFILT.DLL 2.40.4528 > 2.40.4530
- OLEPRO32.DLL 5.0.4528 > 5.0.4530
- OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4522 > 2.40.4519
[...]
Thanks for testing those newer OLE files. But could you tell me why OLEAUT32.DLL was downgraded?


Hi, bristols! erpdude8 is right: oleaut32.dll 2.40.4519 *is newer* than 2.40.4522! ;)
This is just a versioning conundrum caused by M$ habit of late of releasing parallel series of updates starting at different versions for different OSes. But it can be solved, in the case of PE executables like oleaut32.dll, by looking at the file compilation dates (aka PE Timestamps, which are MUCH more stable, becuse they're tucked away in the PE header, than common file dates, which reside in the directory entry an can change easily). To see the compilation dates in readable format one must use MiTeC EXE Explorer, or PEDUMP.EXE by Matt Pietrek, a somewhat more technical console app. For the latter, try <pedump filename.dll | find /i "timedatestamp"> and consider the first value listed (the others are usually zero, anyway, because it tries to get the PE Timestamps of the .dll dependencies and fails silently... yes, they are the result of a bug...). I've compiled a list, for some versions of oleaut32.dll, so here is it:

Versions of oleaut32.dll known to work with Windows 9x/NT4/ME
==========================================
PE Timestamp 04/23/1999 16:37:36 V. 2.40.4275.1
PE Timestamp 08/31/1999 23:15:11 V. 2.40.4277.1
PE Timestamp 05/04/2001 21:34:09 V. 2.40.4517.0
PE Timestamp 03/16/2001 23:09:34 V. 2.40.4518.0
PE Timestamp 07/31/2006 18:12:40 V. 2.40.4519.0
PE Timestamp 06/20/2003 02:43:41 V. 2.40.4522.0

Of course, if one knows from which packages or updates those files came, and their relative release dates, it should not be necessary to go for the PE Timestamps, but that is not always the case. But I don't think the existence of PE Timestamps is very widely known, and this is a good exemple to show their utility. Too bad only PE executables (sometimes referred to as Win 32 executables), among all possible types of executables present in the Windows OSes carry their compilation date inside. Then again, they are becoming more and more the standard for .exe, .dll, .ocx and .tlb, and that is good news!
In a nutshell, changing oleaut32.dll from v. 2.40.4522.0 to v. 2.40.4519.0, despite all the apearances, *is an upgrade*, not a downgrade! HTH

<Additional musings... It seems there always IS something more to be said :) >

Relevant files found in VB6-KB924053-x86-ENU.exe, having internal name oleaut32.dll
===========================================================
PE Timestamp 07/11/2006 07:19:34 V. 2.40.4531.0 Size: 631,053 bytes Name: oa2k.dll
PE Timestamp 07/31/2006 18:12:40 V. 2.40.4519.0 Size: 626,960 bytes Name: oant4.dll
PE Timestamp 07/31/2006 18:43:21 V. 2.40.4519.0 Size: 626,960 bytes Name: oant4ts.dll

oa2k.dll was tested by erpdude8 and by MDGx, and both found it's unsuitable for use with Win 9x/ME. So I didn't test it myself but I mention it here because its version number indicates it's presently the most up-to-date version of oleaut32 in the series 4522 .... 4531, that M$ intended for Win 2k. Of these only 4522 does work with Win 9x/NT4/ME.
Now, oant4.dll and oant4ts.dll, despite having the same version number and the same size, are a long way from being the same file, because they exhibit 27,906 differences in a direct binary compare. They are both intended by M$ for NT4 systems, but oant4ts is for NT4 *Terminal Server*, which, in IMHO, is much more different from Win 9x/ME than plain-vanilla NT4, so I decided the right file to pick would be oant4.dll, which I've been using, renamed to oleaut32.dll, in my system, for some time now, without any problems. I do believe erpdude8 reasoned along these same lines to select which of the 4519 files that he tested and found it works OK. I've checked the oleaut32.dll that is inside the Unofficial 98fe SP v2.2.0, he has just released. It is the same oant4.dll that I'm currently using, from its PE Timestamp.

Now, the 4519 files are the latest in the series 4275....4518, which M$ had stopped updating for some time, but since they were released in the same update pack as 4531 I took it to mean, to me at least, that they are equivalent from the hotfix point-of-view, both being the most up-to-date at the moment, the main difference being that 4519 lacks the Win 2k specific features present in 4531, most possibly *the features* that render 4531 unusable with Win 9x/ME. Of course, this last comment is just my opinion, so YMMV.

#913
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

WMP90_98.EXE is a repackaged WMP9 which installs on all Win98 editions.

Can you list all the updates thats included please
i'm trying to avoid installing the same updates over and over again

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


#914
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
I think MSONSEXT.DLL installs from web folders update

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


#915
the_guy

the_guy

    Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined 15-July 05
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
WMP90_98.EXE is just the original WMP9 installer, modified to work under 98FE.

the_guy
Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack.

#916
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05

This is just a versioning conundrum caused by M$ habit of late of releasing parallel series of updates starting at different versions for different OSes. But it can be solved, in the case of PE executables like oleaut32.dll, by looking at the file compilation dates (aka PE Timestamps, which are MUCH more stable, becuse they're tucked away in the PE header, than common file dates, which reside in the directory entry an can change easily). To see the compilation dates in readable format one must use MiTeC EXE Explorer, or PEDUMP.EXE by Matt Pietrek, a somewhat more technical console app. For the latter, try <pedump filename.dll | find /i "timedatestamp"> and consider the first value listed (the others are usually zero, anyway, because it tries to get the PE Timestamps of the .dll dependencies and fails silently... yes, they are the result of a bug...).

Of course, if one knows from which packages or updates those files came, and their relative release dates, it should not be necessary to go for the PE Timestamps, but that is not always the case. But I don't think the existence of PE Timestamps is very widely known, and this is a good exemple to show their utility. Too bad only PE executables (sometimes referred to as Win 32 executables), among all possible types of executables present in the Windows OSes carry their compilation date inside. Then again, they are becoming more and more the standard for .exe, .dll, .ocx and .tlb, and that is good news!
In a nutshell, changing oleaut32.dll form v. 2.40.4522.0 to v. 2.40.4519.0, despite all the apearances, *is an upgrade*, not a downgrade! HTH


Thanks, I ignored that. Let us hope it is more reliable with MS files than with Exe Explorer itself, as I would not think it has been compiled the 19/06/1992.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#917
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,969 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Thanks, I ignored that. Let us hope it is more reliable with MS files than with Exe Explorer itself, as I would not think it has been compiled the 19/06/1992.


Great catch, eidenk! :thumbup The people at MiTeC, of course, may have done it as a deliberate prank...
It hadn't occurred to me to use it to look for its own PE Timestamp. It can be spoofed quite easily. The only reason I think that it's usually reliable is the fact that it is a very little known detail of the PE standard, automatically set by the linker. One has to know it's there to spoof it. ;) PEDUMP, for instance, really is from 29/08/2001, and I just found out a newer version of it (05/4/2004) in the downlodable companion file to this MSDN article, by Matt Pietrek: interestingly enough, when you run the 2001 version it says 1988 on the sign-on message, while the 2004 version says 2001. Matt Pietrek has updated that program many times, but did not update the text of the sign-on message consistenly every time... This new version still cannot find the dates of the dependencies but has improved, for, at least, it abstains from translating 00000000 as Wed Dec 31 22:00:00 1969...

#918
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
UPDATED · 9-26-2007

Please see the top of this topic for most recent updates:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581

#919
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Joined 12-June 05
What a haul this month MDGx !!! :thumbup

Any further info on:

CNTROL98:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU
* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE Control Panel Applets Lockups CONTROL.EXE 4.10.1999 Fix [63 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/CNTROL98.EXE

cheers.

EDIT:
re: the MS Paint add-on and Graphic Filters Pack ... i'm including them both as an optional update in the next v of AP, and i may as well package them together as a stand-alone MSPAINT update ... wanna beat me to it ? :sneaky: :ph34r:

edit: ie the fixed version of MSpaint.exe and also the Graphic Filters Pack.

Edited by soporific, 28 September 2007 - 08:12 PM.


#920
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

RICHED9X [RTF]:
http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#RTF
Updated to USP10.DLL 1.422.3790.3959 from Win2003 SP2:
* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE/ME Rich Text (RTF) Edit Controls RICHED20.DLL 5.40.11.2220, RICHED32.DLL 5.0.1461.82 + USP10.DLL 1.422.3790.3959 Security Vulnerability Fix:
http://www.microsoft...n/ms07-013.mspx
Direct download [912 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/RICHED9X.EXE

I see the inf has the infamous ,,,4 parameter for the included files. Incidentally I have (better said, had) USP10.dll v1.0471.4030.0 installed prior to this upgrade and I had noticed no visible issues. After the upgrade I forcibly got the lower-versioned file.
Question: is this version matching required? Otherwise, why is the ,,,4 parameter used for all files in the package?

Also, as reported some time ago in some other thread around, this version of riched20.dll has issues with bad words underlining in Miranda IM's spellchecker (based on Hunspell), reason why I had been using riched20.dll v5.30.23.1221. Is there still no better version that'd be worth using instead of this one?




Nevertheless, thank you very much for all your hard work! :thumbup

#921
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04

KB891711:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#W98
* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1 Animated Cursor (.ANI) + Icon Handling USER32.DLL + USER.EXE 4.10.2003 Security Vulnerability Fix:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/q891711.php
Direct download [419 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/KB891711.EXE
This Fix replaces ALL PREVIOUS Microsoft MS07-017 (Q925902):
http://www.microsoft...n/ms07-017.mspx
MS05-002 (Q891711):
http://www.microsoft...n/ms05-002.mspx
+ unofficial (U891711) Animated Cursor (.ANI) + Icon Handling Security Vulnerabilities Fixes, which are now OBSOLETE!
Q891711 + U891711 MSFN forum:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=58780
STRONGLY RECOMMENDED: KB891711 provides the BEST Fix!


I may consider dropping the user.exe/user32.dll v4.10.2003 files from the next release of the unofficial Win98 FE SP since it can cause problems with Tihiy's RP pack. And I'll restore the kb891711.exe & q8917111.dll files as well.

I see the inf has the infamous ,,,4 parameter for the included files. Incidentally I have (better said, had) USP10.dll v1.0471.4030.0 installed prior to this upgrade and I had noticed no visible issues. After the upgrade I forcibly got the lower-versioned file.


Where the heck did you get v1.0471.4030.0 of the usp10.dll file, Drugwash? That's what I'm more worried about.

Edited by erpdude8, 05 October 2007 - 04:50 PM.


#922
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,141 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04

Also, as reported some time ago in some other thread around, this version of riched20.dll has issues with bad words underlining in Miranda IM's spellchecker (based on Hunspell), reason why I had been using riched20.dll v5.30.23.1221. Is there still no better version that'd be worth using instead of this one?[/size][/font][/size][/font]


Version 5.40.11.2220 of riched20.dll is featured in the Office XP post-SP3 MS07-013 security update.
Version 5.30.23.1221 of riched20.dll is prone to security flaws mentioned in security bulletin MS07-013. Replace it with version 5.30.23.1227 which I have for my Office 2000 suite.

Newer Root Certificates update (revised August 23, 2007); file size 281kb:
http://www.msfn.org/...../rootsupd.exe

Edited by erpdude8, 05 October 2007 - 04:49 PM.


#923
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
To be honest, I can't remember where I got that usp10.dll version from. I don't quite keep an evidence on sources; all I'm interested in is the final result.
Here's the full info on it:
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\usp10.dll
on Microsoft Windows 98 SE version 4.10

File Version Information : 
Version language : English (United States)
CompanyName : Microsoft Corporation
FileDescription : Uniscribe Unicode script processor
FileVersion : 1.0471.4030.0 (main.030626-1414)
InternalName : Uniscribe
LegalCopyright : © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
OriginalFilename : Uniscribe
ProductName : Microsoft(R) Uniscribe Unicode script processor
ProductVersion : 1.0471.4030.0
Last Modif. Date : 06/27/2003 08:18:32 
Last Access Date : 10/06/2007 00:00:00 
FileSize : 413184 bytes ( 403.500 KB, 0.394 MB ) 
FileVersionInfoSize : 940 bytes 
File type : Dynamic Link Library (0x2) 
Target OS : Win32 API (Windows NT) (0x40004) 
File/Product version : 1.471.4030.0 / 1.471.4030.0
Language : English (United States) (0x409) 
Character Set : 1200 (ANSI - Unicode (BMP of ISO 10646)) (0x4B0) 
Build Information : 
Debug Version : no 
Patched Version : no 
Prerelease Version : no 
Private Version : no 
Special Build : no
I'm positive I don't have riched20.dll 5.30.23.1227 around, otherwise I would've already had it installed. Frankly, I'd rather use one of the 5.50 versions - because of the link color fix - but those seem to have some issues of their own. This has been discussed at large some time ago.

Edited by Drugwash, 05 October 2007 - 06:59 PM.


#924
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,969 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I see the inf has the infamous ,,,4 parameter for the included files. Incidentally I have (better said, had) USP10.dll v1.0471.4030.0[/b] installed prior to this upgrade and I had noticed no visible issues. After the upgrade I forcibly got the lower-versioned file.
Question: is this version matching required? Otherwise, why is the ,,,4 parameter used for all files in the package?


Hi, Drugwash!
Since everybody here clearly understands .INFs better than I do, :blushing: I'll just take this opportunity to ask, before I die of unsated curiousity: :) what do the ,,4 and ,,,4 flags mean, please? Thanks in advance and best wishes!

Edited by dencorso, 05 October 2007 - 07:18 PM.


#925
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • Joined 21-June 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Ah, I'm not a specialist either - just catching some things on the fly. :whistle:
As far as I understand, that parameter is used to force installation even over an existing higher build number of a file.
It should be used - at least theoretically - only when certain files strictly depend on other certain versions and mismatching would lead to unpredictable results.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users