[dencorso]

eidenk, on Sep 11 2007, 08:13 PM, said:

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! 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...

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 9-26-2007

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

[soporific]

What a haul this month MDGx !!!

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 ?

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

This post has been edited by soporific: 28 September 2007 - 08:12 PM

[Drugwash]

MDGx said:

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.com/technet/security/...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!

[erpdude8]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 05 October 2007 - 04:50 PM

[erpdude8]

Drugwash, on Sep 28 2007, 09:07 AM, said:

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/board/ipb_seo.php?url=...%2Frootsupd.exe

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 05 October 2007 - 04:49 PM

[Drugwash]

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.

This post has been edited by Drugwash: 05 October 2007 - 06:59 PM

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on Sep 28 2007, 11:07 AM, said:

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, 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!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 05 October 2007 - 07:18 PM

[Drugwash]

Ah, I'm not a specialist either - just catching some things on the fly.
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.

[Max_04]

@ Mdgx:

I sended you an email.

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on Oct 5 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

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

Thanks, Drugwash. You rock!

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

This post has been edited by dencorso: 09 October 2007 - 01:29 AM

[soporific]

dencorso, on Oct 6 2007, 11:16 AM, said:

Since everybody here clearly understands .INFs better than I do, 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

[Fredledingue]

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!

MDCx: Please remove it from your list!!

[Drugwash]

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.

[RetroOS]

Fredledingue, on Oct 13 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

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.

[Fredledingue]

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.

[eidenk]

Fredledingue, on Oct 12 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 12 October 2007 - 06:01 PM

[Fredledingue]

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 ).

[Fredledingue]

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:

"MDGx" said:

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:

"MCGx" said:

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.

[noguru]

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.