[EvanD]

MDGx, on Feb 16 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

I will update RICHED9X.EXE soon to include RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 from XP SP3.
Done.

RICHED20.DLL is ver. 5.50.99.2014 in latest RICHED9X.EXE .

I am mentioning this in case you really intended ver. 5.30.23.1230 .

[Drugwash]

Please check again, EvanD; I got the right version here just as advertised, downloaded yesterday.

[MDGx]

EvanD, on Feb 16 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

MDGx, on Feb 16 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

I will update RICHED9X.EXE soon to include RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 from XP SP3.
Done.

RICHED20.DLL is ver. 5.50.99.2014 in latest RICHED9X.EXE .

I am mentioning this in case you really intended ver. 5.30.23.1230 .

If you downloaded this a couple of days ago, maybe, but now has RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1230 .
Please download again...
http://www.mdgx.com/files/RICHED9X.EXE

FYI:
If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.

HTH

[EvanD]

MDGx, on Feb 16 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

FYI:
If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.

HTH

All is well now. I did download RICHED9X.EXE last week first and yesterday as well and both files were the same size with the same CRC so I never saw the dialog box. Now I do. I do not know why I got the wrong download on Feb. 16 but whatever happened is fixed now. Thanks for your help.

[MDGx]

EvanD, on Feb 17 2009, 11:11 AM, said:

MDGx, on Feb 16 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

FYI:
If you already have 5.50.99.2014 (or any other build newer than 5.30.23.1230) in %windir%\SYSTEM [usually C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM], then it will NOT install over, unless you allow it: dialog box opens -> answer "No" to NOT keep newer version.

HTH

All is well now. I did download RICHED9X.EXE last week first and yesterday as well and both files were the same size with the same CRC so I never saw the dialog box. Now I do. I do not know why I got the wrong download on Feb. 16 but whatever happened is fixed now. Thanks for your help.

You're welcome.
______________________________________________________

UPDATED · 2-19-2009


Enjoy.

[MDGx]

dencorso:

dencorso, on Feb 15 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

I have, however, to point out that two of the newest updates might contain files of yet a higher version that work OK, by my own tests, with Win 9x/ME, namely:
SCHANNEL.DLL v. 4.87.1964.1880, from KB831225

Thanks a bunch, I got the Q831225 NT4 hotfix.
And I'll post it at my WinNT4 fixes page:
http://www.mdgx.com/wnt4.htm

But I realized I already had the file by itself [without the hotfix somehow, probably sent by erpdude8 a while back], it actually installs on Win95/98 [all editions] as part of CRYPT9X.EXE:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/CRYPT9X.EXE
More info:
http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm#HEP

Strange though, SCHANNEL.DLL file Properties [Explorer or File Manager] says 5.00.1880.14 , but getver.exe says 4.87.1964.1880 [without .14 at the end]. [?]
This happened in WinXP SP3, maybe it's different from within Win98, 98 SE or ME?

btw:
Wonder how I use File Manager from NT4 SP6a in XP?
Wonder no more... FMNT

HTH

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 2-20-2009


Enjoy.

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 2-25-2009


Enjoy.

[dencorso]

MDGx, on Feb 21 2009, 06:42 AM, said:

Strange though, SCHANNEL.DLL file Properties [Explorer or File Manager] says 5.00.1880.14 , but getver.exe says 4.87.1964.1880 [without .14 at the end]. [?]
This happened in WinXP SP3, maybe it's different from within Win98, 98 SE or ME?

Strange, but true!
Here's some more info on it, from Petr: File versioning question

This post has been edited by dencorso: 26 February 2009 - 09:05 PM

[Drugwash]

MDGx, please have a look here; information provided by the FileInfo plug-in in Total Commander:

[dencorso]

BTW, Drugwash, it catched my eye you're using v. 4.86.1964.1880...
Consider updating to v. 4.87.1964.1880, so you'll get 128-bit strong encryption.
Quoting from Petr's post I mentioned above, he found out and reported this little pearl:

Petr, on Apr 18 2005, 04:22 AM, said:

Sometimes it gives additional information:
SCHANNEL.DLL (40-bit) 5.00.1880.14 (binary) and 4.86.1964.1880 (text)
SCHANNEL.DLL (128-bit) 5.00.1880.14 (binary) and 4.87.1964.1880 (text)

Even if he posted it in reverse, because 4.8X.1964.1880 is in fact the binary version number (the one returned by getver.exe), while the text version number is 5.00.1880.14...
See also the NT part of the security update info of MS04-011

This post has been edited by dencorso: 28 February 2009 - 01:47 AM

[Drugwash]

Thanks for the information, dencorso. The screenshot above pertains to the library found in the NT4 packages on MDGx's site; the one installed on my system is actually older (the original one?): 4.87.1959.1877 / 5.0.1877.6 as reported by FileInfo.
I remember having some trouble in the past - can't tell what exactly, though - and I had to downgrade this file (and possibly some others I forgot about).

I was about to say that MDGx was wrong saying it can be found in CRYPT9X.EXE, but then I checked the inf and it's being renamed at install time, that's why I didn't notice it at the first glance.

Given the past experience (blurry as it is), I'm a little reluctant to installing that package again, for fear that I may screw up the system, but eventually I might do it after backing up all the involved files. It may take a while to notice all the possible side-effects though and by then I might forget the culprit (yeah, got a short memory ).

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 3-20-2009


Enjoy.

[Fredledingue]

You are too much!

I counted 18 new system updates since october 2008!

And +- 45 since the release of uSP3-0-beta3, on october 2007!

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 4-4-2009


Enjoy.

[Fredledingue]

"MDGx" said:

This NEWer DEFRAG.EXE does NOT recognize/defragment DrvSpace/DblSpace compressed/doubled drives/partitions!

I have two partitions on a single hard drive. Will it work?

also

does SCANDSKW.EXE 4.90.3000 still produce a "not enough memory error" while attempting to scan a partition larger than 128 Gb? (while dos ran SCANDISK.EXE works normaly)

And Again: Thanks for keeping these updates available!

[dencorso]

My tests indicate SCANDSKW.EXE v. 4.90.3000 works OK up to about 800 GiB (that's the value you get by multiplying 32 kiB clusters by the maximum cluster number found in my tests, about which I reported in this post.) For partitions bigger than about 800 GiB you'll still get a "not enough memory error".

This post has been edited by dencorso: 05 April 2009 - 03:28 PM

[MDGx]

Fredledingue, on Apr 4 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

"MDGx" said:

This NEWer DEFRAG.EXE does NOT recognize/defragment DrvSpace/DblSpace compressed/doubled drives/partitions!

I have two partitions on a single hard drive. Will it work?

also

does SCANDSKW.EXE 4.90.3000 still produce a "not enough memory error" while attempting to scan a partition larger than 128 Gb? (while dos ran SCANDISK.EXE works normaly)

And Again: Thanks for keeping these updates available!

1. DrvSpace from WinME doesn't work with FAT32 drives/partitions (they did that on purpose so people stop using it).
DrvSpace from Win95/98/Plus!95 should work with FAT32 drives/partitions, no matter how many you have, just make sure you have enough room for compressed volumes.
These tools see each partition as an individual drive [if separate letter assigned to each], same as ScanDskw/ScanDisk.
I have only briefly used DrvSpace way back in my Win95 days when HDs were small, well under 1 GB.
Never tested it with large HDs.

IMHO:
Nowadays disk space is not an issue anymore, any1 can get huge hard disks really cheap, I strongly recommend everybody should stop using DrvSpace [Win9x/ME users] or DblSpace [MS-DOS 6 users].


2. ScanDskw [from WinME] is the same [has same limitations], unless some1 can fix it.
Or if there is already a fix, please send it to me, so I can update the file. Thanks.

HTH

[RetroOS]

I've tested the recent release of MSXML 4.0 Service Pack 3...
It installs but does not work.
Any app that uses MSXML 4.0 just closes.
It appears that Microsoft have dropped ANSI support in Service Pack 3...

The last version of MSXML 4.0 Service Pack 2 that works on 9x is still:

954430 (MS08-069 955218)

Service Pack 2 has these three files on 9x:

msxml4.dll
msxml4a.dll
msxml4r.dll

Service Pack 3 has these two files on 9x:

msxml4.dll
msxml4r.dll

SP3 is missing the ANSI resource file msxml4a.dll...
I tried using the SP2 file, but it made no difference...

[erpdude8]

MDGx, on Apr 5 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

DrvSpace from WinME doesn't work with FAT32 drives/partitions (they did that on purpose so people stop using it).
DrvSpace from Win95/98/Plus!95 should work with FAT32 drives/partitions, no matter how many you have, just make sure you have enough room for compressed volumes.

No version of DrvSpace works with FAT32 partitions, MDGx, including the Win95/98 & Plus 95 versions. ALL versions of DrvSpace can NOT compress FAT32 partitions. I know this for a fact [do Google or Yahoo searches on "drvspace" and "fat32"]. DrvSpace only works and compresses FAT16 partitions (and FAT12 partitions if using floppy disks) AND DrvSpace is limited to recognizing 2Gb FAT12/FAT16 partitions.

Quote

I've tested the recent release of MSXML 4.0 Service Pack 3...
It installs but does not work.
Any app that uses MSXML 4.0 just closes.
It appears that Microsoft have dropped ANSI support in Service Pack 3...

thanks for the heads up, dencorso. tell MDGx about this so that he can retain the link to the 954430 XML 4.0 SP2 security update for Win98/ME/NT4 as well as the latest stable SeaMonkey browser release which is 1.1.16 and was released on April 8. Not sure why MDGx hasn't mentioned the updated SM 1.1.x release.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 07 May 2009 - 10:31 AM