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

#926
Max_04

Max_04

    Unofficial Service Packs Italian Releaser

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 278 posts
@ Mdgx:

I sended you an email.
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

#927
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,859 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

[...]As far as I understand, that parameter is used to force installation even over an existing higher build number of a file.[...]

Thanks, Drugwash. :thumbup You rock!

Added text 9th October 2007 - 04:25 AM:
Thanks for the links in you post below this one, soporific! :thumbup They sure help a lot. You do rock too!

Edited by dencorso, 09 October 2007 - 01:29 AM.


#928
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts

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!

here's a link that explains all:
http://soporific.dsl...ds/copyfile.htm

i got it from the INF guide that MDGx keeps a copy of at this location:
http://www.mdgx.com/...web/INF_WEB.ZIP

#929
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
:realmad: K891711 (or Q891711) IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS: DO NOT USE IT :realmad:

For the second time (same problem as with the previous version 2 months ago) my computer was unable to restart and I had to reinstall windows.
It said "unable to load user.exe" then shut down in 1/10th of a second. Clack! (You know, the sound when the PC power is turned off). I didn't have the possibility to restart it! ===> Boot Floppy time!

MDCx: Please remove it from your list!!

HTASoft.com

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

#930
Drugwash

Drugwash

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Dunno what your problem is, but I just installed it (twice: installed, uninstalled while trying to fix some unrelated problem and reinstalled) recently and I had/have absolutely no such issues. Well, there may be problems with resources dropping quite fast, but that's something else and could be caused by any other factors as well, such as gdi.exe/gdi32.dll (updated to 4.90.3003).

Please check any possible resident/BIOS anti-virus or other applications that may block operations on system files. Or maybe some strange boot-up configuraton...

You may ask MDGx to create a debug version that'd create a log of the operations performed during install, so you could find where (and possibly why) it breaks.

#931
RetroOS

RetroOS

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

K891711 (or Q891711) IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS: DO NOT USE IT

For the second time (same problem as with the previous version 2 months ago) my computer was unable to restart and I had to reinstall windows.
It said "unable to load user.exe" then shut down in 1/10th of a second. Clack! (You know, the sound when the PC power is turned off). I didn't have the possibility to restart it! ===> Boot Floppy time!

Fredledingue,
See this post.
retrofreak n a person who is very enthusiastic about something from the past.
retrology n the study of association with and revival from the past.
life n a series of near misses.

#932
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

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

I guarantee you that I installed the last september version because I remeber having read the "removed the ",,4" + ",,,4" strings " stuff before installing it: I always save all the notes posted by MDGx and save them in text files with the same name as that of the updates. Then I read each note before applying each update.

It has nothing to do with Revolution Pack because I never installed this pack on my computer.
There is a problem obviousely not related with RP.

Anyway, I don't want to hear about "explanation" or "cause that might be": What I see is that my PC crashed and destroyed my system twice already.
I have applied dozens of patches and upgrade packs, yet this is the only one which I have got troubles with.
I couldn't compare 100 computers on this patch, but I have compared 100 patches on this computer. And this patch has something realy scary in it. If it was a "very special boot up configuration", I would have had this problem more often than only when applying this patch, isn't it?

Given the seriouseness of the computer crash, it's safe to quarantine this update to the Dangerous category.
Despite the fact that others have installed it without problem. It's not like you get a temporary BSDO and then you go in safe mode:No, You just can't turn your computer on! Can you imagine that? Clack! Suddenly the machine is off as if someone pulled the power cable off the case. I NEVER have seen this effect on a PC ever.
Without a bootable floppy and some DOS knowledge I was toast. Imagine it's a newbie...

IMVHO, it should be removed from the list until it's packed into a decent installer.

HTASoft.com

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

#933
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

RetroOs,

I guarantee you that I installed the last september version because I remeber having read the "removed the ",,4" + ",,,4" strings " stuff before installing it: I always save all the notes posted by MDGx and save them in text files with the same name as that of the updates. Then I read each note before applying each update.

It has nothing to do with Revolution Pack because I never installed this pack on my computer.
There is a problem obviousely not related with RP.

Anyway, I don't want to hear about "explanation" or "cause that might be": What I see is that my PC crashed and destroyed my system twice already.
I have applied dozens of patches and upgrade packs, yet this is the only one which I have got troubles with.
I couldn't compare 100 computers on this patch, but I have compared 100 patches on this computer. And this patch has something realy scary in it. If it was a "very special boot up configuration", I would have had this problem more often than only when applying this patch, isn't it?

Given the seriouseness of the computer crash, it's safe to quarantine this update to the Dangerous category.
Despite the fact that others have installed it without problem. It's not like you get a temporary BSDO and then you go in safe mode:No, You just can't turn your computer on! Can you imagine that? Clack! Suddenly the machine is off as if someone pulled the power cable off the case. I NEVER have seen this effect on a PC ever.
Without a bootable floppy and some DOS knowledge I was toast. Imagine it's a newbie...

IMVHO, it should be removed from the list until it's packed into a decent installer.

I don't see how this patch could screw your system to the point you report. But maybe we are not speaking about the same thing as you haven't provided a link to the installer you claim creates such problems, if I am not mistaken.

Edited by eidenk, 12 October 2007 - 06:01 PM.

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

#934
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Nor do I. But it did: user.exe was absent from my system at the time I rebooted with the floppy disk and user.dll probably too. Amd the computer turned itself the power off as i described above.
I didn't dream it (pinching myself to check :blink: ).

HTASoft.com

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

#935
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Here is the link of the file in question:
- USER32.DLL + USER.EXE Fix [419 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q891711.EXE

Here are MDGx's comment on this patch:

Q891711, Q891711F + Q891711I:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU
English Fix only:
Removed ",,,4" + ",,4" strings from INF CopyFiles + RenFiles sections.
Added warning to *not* install this Fix if already installed RP:
* Unofficial Windows 98 SE Animated Cursor (.ANI) + Icon Handling USER32.DLL + USER.EXE 4.10.2233 Security Vulnerability Fix


A few months ago MDGx wrote about previous versions of this patch:

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:
You MUST REBOOT at END of INSTALL for this Fix to complete properly!
Do NOT install this Fix MORE THAN ONCE WITHOUT REBOOTING AFTER FIRST INSTALL!
IF you ALREADY installed this Fix ONLY ONCE, BUT have NOT YET REBOOTED [which
would complete the install properly], you MUST REBOOT IMMEDIATELY, otherwise
Windows will LOCK UP!
IF you ALREADY installed this Fix MORE THAN ONCE, BUT have NOT REBOOTED AFTER
FIRST INSTALL OR BETWEEN INSTALLS [which would complete the install properly],
you MUST UNINSTALL it [see the "UNINSTALL" chapter below] BEFORE trying to
REinstall it again, otherwise Windows will LOCK UP!

The author of this fix prefers to remain anonymous.


===> But this was not my case: I launched the patch only once.

HTASoft.com

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

#936
noguru

noguru

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
Fredledingue, what language version Win98 do you use? I had the same. At least you're not alone.

I rebooted immediatly after install but still. No RP installed, no exotic boot-config.
This has happened with my system with the gdi.exe/gdi32.dll update too! I blew another win98se machine with the shell32.dll fix.Somewhere the installer is going very wrong, because there are no files copied. But the originals are renamed to .98o and there you go...
Both these machines have a Dutch win98se and all these files have in common that they are kernel-system files.
I always install English fixes on my Dutch system without serious issues except for these cases. But nobody ever recommended this, I blame myself.

The blown systems can easily be fixed by extracting the files manually from the installer (the files themselves work fine) and copy them to \windir\system\ in real DOS. I learnt my lesson and will have them ready before trying to install the normal way.

Sure it would be great if this could be solved in future fixes, but we can't expect the creator of the fixes to test lots of different system-configurations let alone all.

#937
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
OK, i've been on the receiving end of some USER.EXE, USER32.DLL and EXPLORER.EXE muckups quite a few times and it really is the simplest thing to fix if you know what's going on when this happens. Yes it p***es me off no end when it happens, but, again, it is the easiest thing to fix. For me. But what about others?

I think its high time the "keep Windows 98 alive" crew, which is most of us regular posters in the "Unofficial Win98 SE Service Pack" section of MSFN, create an automatic hotfix solution to fix all those caught up in the maelstrom of our system patching activities. I'm specifically talking about the USER*.* issues. Not everyone who takes a punt by installing these updates knows what to do when it all stops working, especially the problem that stops the OS from even loading. If this is your only connection to the internet, its highly inconvenient to get a fix for the problem by the usual way of asking for help online.

I know the REAL solution would be to create hotfixes that don't muck a system up, but the real world shows us its still possible. And when the solution is so easy i think its high time we provided one for the community.

So who wants the kudos for getting this fix together? I have some ideas if someone wants to help out...

#938
RetroOS

RetroOS

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
I think an easy fix option is a great idea.
Exactly how this would be assembled is something to discuss.
Perhaps a separate thread?

However, I think there may be some issue that is some times appearing with the update installers.
I had a problem some weeks ago with the OLEUP update where it did not replace the files on reboot and left them missing.
See my post here. Also this post.
Maybe a recent update has caused problems with IExpress installers in some cases?
Something to look into.

MDGx: Any comments?
retrofreak n a person who is very enthusiastic about something from the past.
retrology n the study of association with and revival from the past.
life n a series of near misses.

#939
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts

Here is the link of the file in question:
- USER32.DLL + USER.EXE Fix [419 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q891711.EXE

Well I have installed this patch in a virtual machine and there is nothing wrong with it. According to me it CANNOT do what you claim it does (the computer turned itself the power off).

Here is the inf file of this patch :

; Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME U891711 Fix
[Version]
Signature=$CHICAGO$
AdvancedINF=2.0
[DefaultInstall]
AddReg=2R
CopyFiles=2I,2S
RunPostSetupCommands=2N
Reboot=1
[2N]
"NOTEPAD.EXE %11%\KB891711\U891711.TXT"
[DefaultUninstall]
DelReg=2R
DelFiles=2I,2S
DelDirs=2D
UpdateInis=2X
Reboot=1
[DestinationDirs]
2X=10
2I=17
2S=11,KB891711
[2I]
U891711.INF
[2S]
Q891711.DLL
KB891711.EXE
U891711.TXT
[2R]
HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices","U891711",,%11%\KB891711\KB891711.EXE"
HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\U891711",,,
HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\U891711",DisplayName,,"ยท Uninstall Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME U891711 Fix"
HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\U891711",UninstallString,,"RUNDLL32.EXE %11%\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection %17%\U891711.INF,DefaultUninstall"
[2D]
"%11%\KB891711"
[2X]
WININIT.INI,Rename,,"DIRNUL=%11%\KB891711"
[SourceDisksNames]
1=,,0

It is meant to backup (used for uninstall) and replace user.exe and user32.dll and it works as expected :

First stage of the install copies the patched versions of user.exe (as user.001) and user32.dll (as user32.001) to the system dir :

Posted Image

And creates a wininit.ini file in which we can see that on the next reboot the original files are going to be backed up as user.098 and user32.098 before being replaced by the new versions :

Posted Image

And thist is exactly what it does. System check after reboot :

Posted Image

You can see that the original files have appeared and have been replaced by the patched ones.

No can you please tell me what in this installer, if it would fail for a reason or another, would yeld the symptoms you report ?

According to me it CANNOT yeld all the symptoms you report. It is impossible.

Here are MDGx's comment on this patch:

Q891711, Q891711F + Q891711I:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU
English Fix only:
Removed ",,,4" + ",,4" strings from INF CopyFiles + RenFiles sections.
Added warning to *not* install this Fix if already installed RP:
* Unofficial Windows 98 SE Animated Cursor (.ANI) + Icon Handling USER32.DLL + USER.EXE 4.10.2233 Security Vulnerability Fix


OK there is a warning it is incompatible with RP.

A few months ago MDGx wrote about previous versions of this patch:

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:
You MUST REBOOT at END of INSTALL for this Fix to complete properly!
Do NOT install this Fix MORE THAN ONCE WITHOUT REBOOTING AFTER FIRST INSTALL!
IF you ALREADY installed this Fix ONLY ONCE, BUT have NOT YET REBOOTED [which
would complete the install properly], you MUST REBOOT IMMEDIATELY, otherwise
Windows will LOCK UP!
IF you ALREADY installed this Fix MORE THAN ONCE, BUT have NOT REBOOTED AFTER
FIRST INSTALL OR BETWEEN INSTALLS [which would complete the install properly],
you MUST UNINSTALL it [see the "UNINSTALL" chapter below] BEFORE trying to
REinstall it again, otherwise Windows will LOCK UP!


With all respect due to MDGx, most of those warnings are plain nonsense IMO, especially the first one :

Indeed, the first phase of install consist only into copying two files (+ an inf file to the inf folder) and creating a wininit.ini file so that user.exe and user32.dll can be backed up and replaced on reboot. There is no risk of any lock up whatsoever here.

The second warning makes more sense as reinstalling the patch without having uninstalled it first will lead to have back up files for uninstall that are not the original ones but the patched ones as well. No risks of lockup either here.

===> But this was not my case: I launched the patch only once.


Frankly, with no pun intended, your apparent lack of grasp of the most basic mechanisms of Windows is sometimes appaling.

Especially when considering the fact that you appear to be an experienced user who even writes complex VB scripts for checking system integrity.
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

#940
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
From what I have read above the problem is with the wininit.ini file.

Either wininit.ini is not executed at all
Either wininit.ini execute at a later stage when user.exe is already needed by the system
Either wininit.ini wasn't written correctly by the installer.

Eidenk
It's not because a code is written, as simple as it can be, that it will always be executed as intended. There is only a relatevely high probability that the code will be executed and this probability is never 100%. Not because of the coder but because of computer imprecision, unpredictability and unknowns.
The only reason why you think that it's impossible that it's not executed properly as verified in your test, is that you ignore these concepts.

I didn't mean to offend the anonimous. I imagine that he has tested his patch before and didn't see any possible error.
Now the goal is find out the unkown and the unpredictable in order to fix it.

noguru
Thanks for sharing your experience with us. My version is english.
So I don't think it's language version issue.

RetroOs,
I also had an issue with OLEUP in the past but thanks to MDGx's infos, I could solve the problem.
The effect of the wrong install with OLEUP was not even remotely as scary as with *891711.

HTASoft.com

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

#941
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
It's funny... I don't have user32.dll in my system.

Edited by Fredledingue, 13 October 2007 - 04:27 PM.

HTASoft.com

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

#942
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,859 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

I think an easy fix option is a great idea.
Exactly how this would be assembled is something to discuss.
Perhaps a separate thread?

However, I think there may be some issue that is some times appearing with the update installers.
I had a problem some weeks ago with the OLEUP update where it did not replace the files on reboot and left them missing.
See my post here. Also this post.
Maybe a recent update has caused problems with IExpress installers in some cases?
Something to look into.

MDGx: Any comments?


RetroOS:
Happened to me too! :hello:
OLEDLG00.DLL is not deleted AND the new OLEDLG.DLL is not added.
I used the same workaround as you did. ;)

#943
dencorso

dencorso

    Adiuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,859 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

It's funny... I don't have user32.dll in my system. :unsure:


But of course you do. Question is where is it. That might be a reason for the problems you reported.
I mean, mixed user.exe/user32.dll versions... Try to find it, by using LOCATE. HTH

#944
Fredledingue

Fredledingue

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Sorry, I found it indeed. I must have mistyped user32.dll when I searched for it.

HTASoft.com

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

#945
the_guy

the_guy

    Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
Hey guys,

Until MDGx updates his site with unofficial IE/OE updates, the newest version of the IE updater has those updates in them.

Download from Filefront

Also, a new version of the ME SP (I will not update the main topic until MDGx posts a link on his site, consider this a pre-release special).

Download from Filefront

the_guy
Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack.

#946
pjmelect

pjmelect

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 28 posts
I have just tried out mesp202en-b9.exe update for Windows ME. I installed it on a clean copy of windows ME with the latest versions of Internet Explorer 6.1, DirectX and Media player installed. The only problem I saw was when the program had finished installing the updates and the computer was restarted the error message "Windows could not upgrade file %1 to %2 %3" flashed up briefly on this version of the updater, Windows update now works correctly and reported the following required updates.

KB916281
KB837009
KB833989
KB917734
KB904706
KB828026 (not required)
KB887797
KB816093
Microsoft Net Framework 1.1
Windows Automatic update
Euro conversion tool

Edited by pjmelect, 27 October 2007 - 06:53 PM.


#947
RetroOS

RetroOS

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Hey MDGx,
There are regular problems being reported with the current OLEUP update not actually installing OLEDLG.DLL and leaving the old one missing...
See a number of previous posts.
Also see here for the latest one.
I think the author of this unofficial update needs to revisit it!
It's really quite useless as an update as it stands if it needs manual intervention to get back an OLEDLG.DLL file that was there before the update...
retrofreak n a person who is very enthusiastic about something from the past.
retrology n the study of association with and revival from the past.
life n a series of near misses.

#948
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
MDGx is strangely absent. He hasn't logged in for over 2 weeks (according to his profile).

It seems strange to me, since he's a moderator, and is usually so prompt when dealing with enquiries and posting new and revised updates.

#949
RetroOS

RetroOS

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Even moderators need holidays! :D
That might explain why the latest unofficial 9x IE6 and OE6 updates haven't shown up?
They've probably already been compiled, but haven't been posted anywhere...
Afterall, MDGx is the updates collector man!
retrofreak n a person who is very enthusiastic about something from the past.
retrology n the study of association with and revival from the past.
life n a series of near misses.

#950
soporific

soporific

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
seriously, you can set your watch by MDGx ... just not this month for the first time in ages. It just goes to show ... human beings need holidays! It's about time he took a break :thumbup

We've got things covered till you get back MDGx!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN