[Fredledingue]

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

This post has been edited by Fredledingue: 13 October 2007 - 04:27 PM

[dencorso]

RetroOS, on Oct 13 2007, 07:14 AM, said:

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!
OLEDLG00.DLL is not deleted AND the new OLEDLG.DLL is not added.
I used the same workaround as you did.

[dencorso]

Fredledingue, on Oct 13 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

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

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

[Fredledingue]

Sorry, I found it indeed. I must have mistyped user32.dll when I searched for it.

[the_guy]

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

[pjmelect]

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

This post has been edited by pjmelect: 27 October 2007 - 06:53 PM

[RetroOS]

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...

[bristols]

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.

[RetroOS]

Even moderators need holidays!
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!

[soporific]

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

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

[bristols]

RetroOS, on Oct 21 2007, 09:59 AM, said:

Even moderators need holidays!
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!

I noticed and decided to post about the fact that MDGx continues to update his own site with new and revised hotfixes:

- check bottom of the home page: "Site UPDATED October 23 2007"
- check the dates next to the first three updates under the heading "Free Updates + Patches" on the home page, which include the latest unofficial IE6 Cumulative Update for 98/98SE.

I'm not sure whether or not he wants the information posted here (otherwise why not post it himself?). I can only guess that he is not against us downloading the updates, because he has taken the trouble of compiling them and making them available on his own site.

This post has been edited by bristols: 23 October 2007 - 04:53 PM

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 10-24-2007

Hopefully all install/rename INF problems should be resolved.
Please test these updated patches, and let me know:

ITOLEUP.EXE - Italian
OLEUP.EXE
KB891711.EXE
Q891711.EXE
Q891711F.EXE - French
Q891711I.EXE - Italian
RICHED9X.EXE
ITSHELME.EXE - Italian
SHELL98.EXE
SHELL98F.EXE - French
SHELL98I.EXE - Italian
SHELL98P.EXE - Polish
SHELLME.EXE
ME918547.EXE
Q918547.EXE
KB918547.EXE

All others are English.

BTW:
I need a volunteer to translate the text files from English to Polish = SHELL98P.EXE.
PM me if you want to do this. Thanks.

Enjoy.

P.S.:
I'll be waiting for more feedback on the new Xeno86 VACHE.VXD patch for 98 SE.
I'll build an installer if it works for most testers.

[RetroOS]

MDGx, nice to see you around again.
It's amazing how everything seems to slow down when you're not posting.
You must be the motivator as well as the moderator!

Good to see those 9x updates rolling on.

The Dream Lives!

[MDGx]

Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

[bristols]

Welcome back MDGx, and thanks as always for the updates.

[RetroOS]

Has anyone tested Sun Java 1.6.0_03 on Windows 9x? (Yes, it does work)
The installer claims that it is best on a newer OS but does not claim it will not work!
I've been running it for about a week.
It appears faster and more stable than 1.5.0_13.
No problems so far with IE6 and Firefox...

Anyone else had experience with Java 6 on 9x?

[Analada]

RetroOS, on Oct 25 2007, 12:08 AM, said:

Has anyone tested Sun Java 1.6.0_03 on Windows 9x? (Yes, it does work)
The installer claims that it is best on a newer OS but does not claim it will not work!
I've been running it for about a week.
It appears faster and more stable than 1.5.0_13.
No problems so far with IE6 and Firefox...

Anyone else had experience with Java 6 on 9x?

Yes it works well for me on firefox.

I'd like to get the enhanced ("unlimited") security files. Evidently they can be downloaded with the JDK (java development kit) but haven't yet found them. What is installed is limited 128 bit encryption.

It's probably a good idea to go with this version as it has fixed some security bugs.

[dencorso]

Hi, MDGx!

Now that you're back, let me please direct your attention to two subjects I believe will interest you.

1)Random occasional lock-ups due to CNTRL98 (updated Win 98 SE CONTROL.EXE v4.10.0.1999) update: see this post by fastlanephil and the second post following it, by myself. I believe CONTROL.EXE v4.10.0.1999 needs revision. But, unfortunately, all I can report about the lock-ups is that they are haphazard and occur for no apparent reason.

2) My own USB FDD DiskTSD.VxD 4.90.0.3000 Patch, to allow NUSB to work with FDDs without eliciting a BSOD!
Petr's findings (as quoted in my post) indicate there might be problems in incorporating it to 98SE3ME, so, please, do test it in this context. Also, the principle underlying this patch is pretty general, and might allow the use of other Win ME VxDs in Win 98SE. But among those that always crashed Win 98SE, which do you think would be the most worthy of investigation? Please advise.

bristols words also represent my own feelings exactly, so:

bristols, on Oct 24 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

Welcome back MDGx, and thanks as always for the updates.

Added on October 31st, 2007 - 01:09 AM: I confirm that the selfsame patching strategy applies to other files, as it has enabled me to have the following Win ME files running on my Win 98SE system, up to now without any detectable problems:

DISKTSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3000
DISKVSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3001
CDTSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3000
CDVSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3003
SMARTVSD.VXD v. 4.90.0.3000
and with a slightly modificated version patching
VNETBIOS.VXD v. 4.90.3000 (since Nov 10th 2007)

This post has been edited by dencorso: 16 November 2007 - 12:14 AM

[fastlanephil]

MDGx, on Oct 24 2007, 01:47 AM, said:

Many thanks for your kind appreciation.

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

Welcome back! {Whistling tune to Welcome Back Kotter)

MDGx, if you get a chance, I am very interested in what you think about this issue in Win 98 SE - ME:

fastlanephil, on Oct 16 2007, 02:04 AM, said:

fastlanephil, on Oct 14 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

galahs, dencorso, eidenk, rloew

From what I understand of the problem, in order to make Win 95-98-ME able to run (backward compatible with) 16-bit Win 3.X programs, they need to be able to operate in 16-bit mode. Thus the files, User.exe, User32.dll, GDI.exe, and GDI32.dll limit the 16-bit system resource size to 64 kbyte. Likewise, there are three 32-bit system resource limitations, 2 Mbyte each per this article (click "About System Resources" at the bottom):

http://www.mvps.org/...ros/repair.html

Some more reading on the subject:

http://onlinehelp.bc...s.htm#resources
http://www.aumha.org.../a/resource.htm

Thanks for the input everybody , I suppose that this is the real root of the system resource problem. Note that in two bytes there are ((2 raised to the 8th power) squared =) 65536 possible combinations, thus there is only a 64K 16-bit heap size.

"...The resource table is essentially a big list of information about all the resources that are in memory at any given time. So if an application tells Windows to load a resource, Windows finds an empty spot in this resource table, and fills it in with the information about the resource that was just loaded. Now, instead of giving the application a four-byte pointer to the resource, Windows can just tell the application where the resource is in the table. If I tell Windows to load a window, and that window winds up taking the 383rd slot in the resource table, Windows will tell me "Okay, I've loaded the resource, and it's #383." Since these 'index numbers' are much smaller numbers than memory addresses, under this scheme, a resource's number can be stored in only two bytes instead of four; when you only have a few megabytes of memory to work with, and lots of resources being used, that's a huge improvement.

There's a problem with this scheme. There's only so many different possible values that you can store in a certain number of bytes of computer memory, just like there's only so many different numbers you can write down if you aren't allowed to use more than a certain number of digits. If you have four bytes of memory to work with, you can store billions of different possible values in those four bytes. But if you only have two bytes, there's only 65536 different numbers that you can store in those two bytes. So if you use two-byte numbers as your resource identifiers, you can't have more than 65536 resources loaded into memory at one time; if you loaded more than that, there'd be no way for programs to tell them apart. But on the computers of the day, there'd be no way to fit more than a few thousand resources into memory at one time anyway. So this limitation wasn't seen as being a problem, and the Windows designers went ahead and used the resource table and two-byte resource identifiers.

Now, we leap ahead to the present day. Memory is incredibly cheap; the memory savings from using two-byte resource numbers instead of four-byte pointers simply aren't significant anymore. There'd be more than enough memory to hold hundreds of thousands of resources in memory at one time. But there's still only 65,536 different possible resource identifiers; so only that many resources can be loaded into memory at once. Beyond that, you're out of resources, no matter how much memory you have left."

http://www2.whidbey....ndow_memory.htm

http://www.msfn.org/board/Enable48BitLBA_B...0&start=300

[bristols]

MDGx, on Oct 24 2007, 09:47 AM, said:

I hope to keep you guys busy for the next few days testing all those updates.

I have been dutiful, MDGx. I have an issue to report concerning a DLL from the RICHED9X.EXE update. Using Miranda (the current ANSI version - 0.7.1), I get the following message when I click on a contact from my contacts list (in order to open a message window):

The specified module could not be found (USP10.dll)

The message appears only on the first occasion that I do this - not subsequently. The message window opens as normal after I dismiss the message, and I can continue without problem (at least I haven't discovered a problem yet).