[MDGx]

UPDATED · 5-21-2007

Updated:
- Added NV8269.EXE = tweaked NVidia Driver 82.69.
- Added WINFIL98.EXE + WINFILME.EXE = replaced WINFILUP.EXE.
- Auto-Patcher 1.96.50 Update.
- Updated TOOLS9X.EXE = new iptest.exe + stobject.dll.
- Updated HOSTS0.EXE + HOSTS127.EXE.

HTH

[Max_04]

@ MDGx:

Have you present IT237493?
In attachment there is new TIMEDATE.98G to update.

In attachment I send you also italian xenroll.dll to update ITCRPTME that in your .exe has the english version.

Attached File(s)

•  TIMEDATE.rar (24.56K)
  Number of downloads: 4
•  XENROLL.rar (71.31K)
  Number of downloads: 4

This post has been edited by Max_04: 27 May 2007 - 11:41 PM

[shaddam]

MDGx, on May 21 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

UPDATED · 5-21-2007

Please see the top of this topic for most recent updates.

_________________________


Updated:
- Added NV8269.EXE = tweaked NVidia Driver 82.69.
- Added WINFIL98.EXE + WINFILME.EXE = replaced WINFILUP.EXE.
- Auto-Patcher 1.96.50 Update.
- Updated TOOLS9X.EXE = new iptest.exe + stobject.dll.
- Updated HOSTS0.EXE + HOSTS127.EXE.

HTH

hello MDGx,
thanks for win9x version of the nvdia driver (NV8269.EXE), but got a installation problem.
system: win98se german, 1gb ram, nforce 3 board, Geforce 5700 AGP, uSP2.1, nvidia driver 53.06

-> tried to install NV8269.EXE -> stops in process with message 'setup was unable to read the following registry value: system\currentcontrolset\services\class\display000\default\mode Installation will be terminated'
-> failed installation DiD NOT remove all remainings, uninstall entry remains with a 'pci managment driver'??? (AGP driver? PCIEXPRess driver?)
-> removed all GFX drivers per uninstall and remainings by hand, registrycleaner, set GFX to 'standard pci driver'
-> tried again to install NV8269.EXE -> failed again , removed again all stuff and installed 53.06 :/

[MDGx]

shaddam, on May 28 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

hello MDGx,
thanks for win9x version of the nvdia driver (NV8269.EXE), but got a installation problem.
system: win98se german, 1gb ram, nforce 3 board, Geforce 5700 AGP, uSP2.1, nvidia driver 53.06

-> tried to install NV8269.EXE -> stops in process with message 'setup was unable to read the following registry value: system\currentcontrolset\services\class\display000\default\mode Installation will be terminated'
-> failed installation DiD NOT remove all remainings, uninstall entry remains with a 'pci managment driver'??? (AGP driver? PCIEXPRess driver?)
-> removed all GFX drivers per uninstall and remainings by hand, registrycleaner, set GFX to 'standard pci driver'
-> tried again to install NV8269.EXE -> failed again , removed again all stuff and installed 53.06 :/

Hi,

Please download again and install this 5-28-2007 revised driver [14.5 MB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/NV8269.EXE
Then please post in this forum:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=97140
any errors you may encounter during install [hopefully there won't be any ].

Thanks for your feedback.

Best wishes.

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 5-29-2007

Updated:
- Updated NV8269.EXE = added more GeForce2 GPUs + revised INF.
- Added EXPLOR98.EXE = 98 SE EXPLORER.EXE fix.
- Auto-Patcher 1.96.55 Update.
- UBCD98 4.5.20 Update.
- Updated DXTEST.EXE = added 4 new D3D samples.
- New KB918547.EXE = 98 FE GDI32.DLL + GDI.EXE 4.10.2004 .
- New ITDXM9X.EXE = Italian fix.
- Updated ITCRPTME.EXE = Italian fix.
- Updated IT237493.EXE = Italian fix.
- New DISKMIND.EXE = dmindr32 + dmdos disk scanners.
- Shockwave 10.2.0.022 .

HTH

[Max_04]

MDGx, on May 30 2007, 03:02 AM, said:

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 File(s)

•  EXPLORER_4.72.3612.1700_IT.rar (65.59K)
  Number of downloads: 5

[Max_04]

Max_04, on May 30 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

MDGx, on May 30 2007, 03:02 AM, said:

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.

[Fredledingue]

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

Quote

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/

[erpdude8]

Fredledingue, on May 31 2007, 01:04 PM, said:

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.

[noguru]

erpdude8, on Jun 1 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

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.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

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

[MDGx]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Jun 3 2007, 11:34 AM, said:

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.

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 6-14-2007

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

HTH

[Fredledingue]

Quote

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?

[soporific]

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!

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

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/board/index.php?s=&...st&p=624964

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

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 17 June 2007 - 12:20 AM

[Fredledingue]

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!

[erpdude8]

MDGx, Microsoft has released new IE patches here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...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

[MDGx]

UPDATED 6-20-2007

Updated:
- Updated a bunch of files.

________________________________________________

Max_04, on May 31 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

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.

[MDGx]

Fredledingue, on Jun 17 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

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