[dencorso]

Well, here is a brief version history for DiskVSD.VxD:

04/23/99 10:22PM 4.10.0.1998 10,194 DISKVSD.VXD Win 98 SE (original distribution, same for FE)
06/08/00 05:00PM 4.90.0.3000 10,140 DISKVSD.VXD Win ME (original distribution)
08/09/00 05:00PM 4.90.0.3001 10,140 DISKVSD.VXD Win ME Q271277


Unpatched Win ME DiskVSD.VxD will not load under Win 98 SE (or FE). Windows'll instead throw a "file is damaged" message and freeze while loading. This can be solved by downversion patching. So here I offer you the patched version of Win ME DiskVSD.VxD v 4.90.0.3001, renumbered as 4.90.0.3002, to reflect the fact it has been patched and runs OK under Win 98SE and FE (but not anymore under Win ME!).

Download-link: DiskVSD.VxD v. 4.90.0.3002 for Win 98 SE (and FE)

Q271277 "Computer Hangs Accessing Removable Disk Such as Magneto-Optical Disk" corrects a problem documented by Microsoft only for Win ME (it does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist in the Win 98 SE/FE version...), but since many of us are now running the patched version of Win ME DiskTSD.VxD, I think it's advisable to also run this matching DiskVSD.VxD just to be on the safe side. And, in any case, this is the most up-to-date existing version of DiskVSD.VxD known to work with Win 98SE (and FE).

As always, the standard disclaimer applies: It works great for me, but YMMV and I can guarantee nothing whatsoever about this patch, and about the use you make of it. By deciding to use it you fully accept that anything you do is of YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY... Moreover, modding files voids the EULA, of course. You have been warned.

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 12-12-2007

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

Enjoy.

[eidenk]

That's a huge list indeed.

Quote

MSE 5.7 requires MS IE 6.0 SP1 or newer already installed

Seems to be working just fine with IE 5.5 SP2 as well.

[RetroOS]

MDGx, on Dec 13 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

...
Updates:
Too many to list here...
...

WHOA !
Who said 9x was dead? - Oh wait, it was just a small pain in the side of my head!
Talk about a mammoth fourth quarter of updates for 2007 and what a start to 2008 with a hiss and a roar!

MDGx, how do you find time to keep up all those updates? You make up the hub of 9x support!
Maybe we should call you 'Little Microsoft'? - Just friendlier!

Well, 2008 is lookin' goooood!

Long Live Windows 9x!

[Acheron]

denCorso,

patching Windows ME files to run on Windows 98 is awesome . However to avoid confusion could you change for example patches the version numbering from 4.90.300x to 4.10.300x

The 4.10.3000 series will tell us that these files are not original Windows 98 files, since these files are in the range 4.10.1998 to 4.10.22xx
It will also prevent people from installing these files on Windows ME.

For example I would prefer it if your 4.90.0.3001 DISKVSD.VXD patched file now would be named 4.10.0.3001 keeping build subnumbers the same as the original patch.

[dencorso]

Acheron:
Your proposal makes sense. Then again, downversioning 4.90.0.xxxx to 4.10.0.xxxx is a major version change, that implies the patched version has some kind of continuity with previous 4.10.0.22xx VxDs, which is not quite the case. Sure, I know I don't need to explain to you anything about version numbers, but I provide the link to Petr's post about it for any reader who may need it. I had thought about upversioning the patches as 4.90.1.xxxx, then opted for the simpler 4.90.0.(xxxx+1) scheme because: (1) no real good solution exists for perfect versioning of patched versions, as you fully know, for you have participated in an analogous discussion regarding the versioning of LLXX patches in Enable48BitLBA, some time ago; (2) the solution reached there of not changing the version numbers doesn't appeal to me, for I feel there should be an easy way of recognizing a patched from an unpatched file, as PassingBy pointed out to me, even if at first I disagreed, because I had in mind precisely the discussion regarding the versioning of LLXX patches, and (3) my patch changes the file very little to achive its aim, so I opted for the present scheme that denotes this, and it seems safe since MS won't be issuing any more hotfixes for Win 9x/ME. In any case, the files are already released, and modifying their versioning scheme at this point would just add further confusion, by creating pairs of files differing only in their versioning scheme, since it is impossible to substitute all files everywhere after the initial release. So, I think it better to leave things as they are, at this point. But I promise you I'll muse about it for some more time and perhaps use a different versioning scheme for patched files in future releases of other patched files.

[the_guy]

Is there any way that you can make Windows Movie Maker it's own option, disabled unless Option 3 is installed?

the_guy

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 12-20-2007

[mcv93us]

Hello, after to have installed the security update q941569 for the MediaPlayer 7.1, me they are shrewed that 90% of the MP3 did not sound , mediaplayer signaled them like corrupts, replacing the file wmasf.dll (7.10.00.3081) with the previous version (7.10.00.3059) the problem disappears.
Bye.

Mcv'93

[MDGx]

mcv93us, on Dec 21 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

Hello, after to have installed the security update q941569 for the MediaPlayer 7.1, me they are shrewed that 90% of the MP3 did not sound, mediaplayer signaled them like corrupts, replacing the file wmasf.dll (7.10.00.3081) with the previous version (7.10.00.3059) the problem disappears.
Bye.

Mcv'93

I didn't have WMP 7.1 to test.
Removed WMPASF.DLL from fix.
Please download and install corrected fix [480 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q941569.EXE

Thanks for your patience.

HTH

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 12-24-2007

Enjoy.

[Fredledingue]

Updates on Christmas Eve! What a wonderful gift!

[mcv93us]

MDGx, on Dec 24 2007, 03:07 PM, said:

I didn't have WMP 7.1 to test.
Removed WMPASF.DLL from fix.
Please download and install corrected fix [480 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q941569.EXE

Thanks for your patience.

HTH

Work perfectly! Thanks!
Merry Christmas Eve!!!

Mcv'93

[noguru]

Fredledingue, on Dec 24 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

Updates on Christmas Eve! What a wonderful gift!

It sure is, Santa MDGx throwing Win98 updates down your chimney Thanks!

But what to do when you have 98MP10 installed? I took wmasf.dll ver 10.00.00.4060 (27-10-2007) from the XP update which works ok for me.
(The version numbers are confusing. I had wmasf.dll 10.00.00.4332 from 3 august 2005 on my system. Is the first 3 a typo?)

[the_guy]

No it's not.

If you had that version, the version you should have used is 10.0.0.4359.

the_guy

[Fredledingue]

EXPLOR98.EXE doesn't install properly - Crashes computer

Error message:
Error loading explorer.exe. You must reinstal windows.
Then the computer shut down.
Restoring explore.exe back to the Windows directory allowed the computer to restart under Windows.

"MDGx" said:

EXPLOR98, ITEXPL98 + BREXPL98:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU
Added Brazilian Portuguese update. All 3 updates now install EXPLORER.EXE properly:
* Unofficial Windows 98 SE 256 Colors Icons Explorer EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 Fix:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/explor9x.php
- EXPLORER.EXE 4.72.3612.1710 Fix [172 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/EXPLOR98.EXE

MDGx:
Isn't it possible to have the Windows elements (exe, dll etc) in a zip file to replace them manualy (under DOS) instead of using the reinstaller?

TBS, Merry christmas and Happy NewYear!

[noguru]

the_guy, on Dec 25 2007, 09:12 PM, said:

No it's not.

If you had that version, the version you should have used is 10.0.0.4359.

the_guy

Thanks! Found it, should have looked better..

[MDGx]

UPDATED · 12-27-2007

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

Enjoy.

[dencorso]

A long time ago, Geoff Chappell, author of the classic book DOS Internals, reported (in June 07, 1999) a math bug in both Win 95 and Win98 FE versions of SYSMON.EXE (here: System Monitor Rounds to Thousands). Geoff also provided detailed directions for a corrective patch of these versions of SYSMON.EXE. And, of course, it also applies to the Win98 SE version of SYSMON.EXE, because it is identical to that of Win 98 FE, except for its creation date and time, both reporting to be v. 4.10.0.1998. But, in June 08, 2000, one year later, SYSMON.EXE v. 4.90.0.3000 was released in Win ME, and my analysis shows it has the same buggy code inside as that of the Win 98 version, showing that Microsoft disregarded completely Geoff's heads up. His patch for the Win 98 version solves the problem for the Win ME version too, but, of course, has to be applied at different offsets (30C4, 30D4 and 30DA, respectively). Since this issue remained unaddressed up to now, I here offer you

Download-link: both patched SYSMON.EXE for Win 98 (SE and FE) and for Win ME

Inside SYSMON.7z one finds SYSMON.WSE and SYSMON.WME, which are, respectively, the files for Win 98 (SE and FE) and for Win ME, patched according to Geoff's instructions. Of course, before using one of these files to replace that in the %windir% folder, it is necessary to rename it from .W?E to .EXE. For both files, I've increased the version number by 1, to reflect the fact that those are patched files. Users of 98SE2ME should use the Win ME file, of course.

As always, the standard disclaimer applies: they work great for me, but YMMV and I can guarantee nothing whatsoever about these patched files, and about the use you make of any of them. By deciding to use one of them you fully accept that anything you do is of YOUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY... Moreover, modding files voids the EULA, of course. You have been warned.

[RetroOS]

dencorso, on Jan 9 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

A long time ago...
...
Since this issue remained unaddressed up to now, I here offer you...
...

Nice!
If MDGx is the Updates Guy, then dencorso is the Mods Guy!
Way to go dencorso.
Man, I recon that Microsoft must be complaining through their clenched teeth: "Why won't that old Windows die!"
Why?
Because there are too many people who figure that Microsoft made a bad judgement call by hauling their branched NotTolerant code line into the mainstream! (Remember in the NT 3.x days, you would install a Novell server because most people figured that Windows was not a real server...)
...And too many people who don't want to add another mile to the rubbish dumps just to "upgrade" their OS...
Maybe I'm over simplifying, but surely fifty million users can't be wrong?
The NT platform should have been an option rather than the rule!
Sure NT technology has some advantages like more fluid multitasking, multiple processors, better resource management (I agree!), better security and less vulnerabilities (yeah right!), better file system (unless you try recoverying a crashed NTFS!), improved API, more compatibility (huh?), and so on. You get the idea.
I won't cover the advantages of Windows 9x since those reading this are using Windows 9x because of them!

My Windows 98SE box is more stable than most of the out-of-the-box XP and Vista computers I've used.
Most pre-loaded Windows Vista notebooks that I have set up have blue screened a short time after completing the Mini-Setup.
That's Toshiba, ASUS, Dell, and others...
You decide!