[lleoliveira]

Hi everybody

I have a Win98SE without Internet Explorer ( Shodocvw.dll Mshtml.dll...,) Windows Media Player and ......
Now i use Win95 shell32.dll because i think it's better to people that removed IE completely. But as many people knows, Win95 shell32.dll has many missing API functions. Recently i suggested Tihiy to modify this shell and include in RP but he said no.
Anyone knows how implementing some necessary api functions in Win95 shell32.dll file? with this shell i can't start 2 programs: Skype and IM2.

What do you think?

Attached File(s)

•  Clipboard01.jpg (15.9K)
  Number of downloads: 1
•  Clipboard02.jpg (17.07K)
  Number of downloads: 0

[Fredledingue]

Hi,
Have you ever tried W98SE without windows?

[lleoliveira]

Hi people

Post here why you agree or disagree about Win95 shell32.dll on Win98SE.
And if this shell32.dll could be or not included in Revolutions Pack.

[os2fan2]

Hunt down a proggie at 98lite called sleekv2.exe This is the win95 shell, and patched win95 shell32.dll, designed to sit beside the win98 shell32.dll. It uses the win95 shell, without loss of functionality of win98.

W

[lleoliveira]

Quote

Hunt down a proggie at 98lite called sleekv2.exe This is the win95 shell, and patched win95 shell32.dll, designed to sit beside the win98 shell32.dll. It uses the win95 shell, without loss of functionality of win98.

Hi os2fan2
This 98lite patch doesn't put Win95 shell32.dll as default.

[lleoliveira]

Reason why i prefer Win95 shell32.dll in Tihiy Revolutions Pack:
Win95 shell32.dll run faster
Win95 shell32.dll doesn't have IE core

Many people are completely removing IE from Windows 98, so RP with WinME shell32.dll make many functions missing, like:
1- Find command doesn't work
and many others that i'm not remembering

[obs]

Post here why you agree or disagree about Win95 shell32.dll on Win98SE.
And if this shell32.dll could be or not included in Revolutions Pack.

Sounds more like it belongs to 98Lite than it does a 98SE service pack. The situation you are in is a result of using 98Lite, not with Windows 98SE. Tell the 98Lite guys that you are a paying customer and that this problem should be fixed.

This post has been edited by obs: 25 July 2005 - 04:59 PM

[iWindoze]

lleoliveira, on Jul 24 2005, 10:04 AM, said:

Hi everybody

I have a Win98SE without Internet Explorer ( Shodocvw.dll Mshtml.dll...,) Windows Media Player and ......
Now i use Win95 shell32.dll because i think it's better to people that removed IE completely. But as many people knows, Win95 shell32.dll has many missing API functions. Recently i suggested Tihiy to modify this shell and include in RP but he said no.
Anyone knows how implementing some necessary api functions in Win95 shell32.dll file? with this shell i can't start 2 programs: Skype and IM2.

What do you think?


<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that a guy like Tihiy (NOTE: I am *not* suggesting that Tihiy
himself has ANY obligation whatsoever to do this, just that you'd need
someone with skillz on par to Tihiy's) would have to be able to edit the
Win98SE\WinME version of SHELL32.DLL (or alternatively making the
Win95 SHELL32.DLL point to a modified SHELL32.w98 ala 98Lite) that
has been edited in such a way to keep in the benefits that the newer
APIs bring, but that exclude any linking to IECore.

Vorck mentions doing something like this in his Win2000 pages:

http://www.vorck.com/2ksp5.html (scroll down to STEP TWENTY THREE
and STEP TWENTY FOUR)

There he talks about using something like Resource Hacker to edit the
REGINST sections of certain files. I'd imagine something similar would
work in this case.

I'd do it myself, unfortunately Tihiy is also making such changes to the
files he includes in 98Revolutions Pack and to do anything without having
his notes or a high level understanding (such as he has) would result in a
borked up system.

--iWindoze

PS: In all honesty the minute someone manages to make a working NT4
Shell replacemement for Win2000 or XP I'll probably move on to either of
those OSes but at the moment I'm quite happy with Win98SE2ME, 98Revolutions,
ect as well as the various shell hacks and replacememnts available.

PPS: To the #### who suggested locking anyone out of the Win9x forums
if their system returned it was running Xp, please keep in mind that some of
us run 9x at home and surf at work on higher level machines required to be
running NT series OSes and that many 'cyber cafes' only offer that OS--by
locking people out in the manner in which you suggested you'd be locking
out many a 9x user as well as the argumentative idiots who don't know the
benefits of a well toned 9x system.

[ssmokee]

os2fan2, on Jul 24 2005, 07:58 PM, said:

Hunt down a proggie at 98lite called sleekv2.exe  This is the win95 shell, and patched win95 shell32.dll, designed to sit beside the win98 shell32.dll.  It uses the win95 shell, without loss of functionality of win98.

W
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds interesting!

http://www.litepc.co.../kb.cgi?view=60

[lleoliveira]

Quote

..what is sleekv2?
============

In a regular 98lite SLEEK and MICRO the win95 shell32.dll is used and the win98 shell32.dll is renamed to shell32.w98. Applications that *require* this windows98 version must be binary patched to access shell32.w98 instead of shell32.dll

... now in sleekv2, the win95 shell32.dll is named shell32.w95
explorer(95).exe is patched to access shell32.w95 instead of shell32.dll
shell32.dll in the system folder is now the win98 shell32.dll (ie the same as for chubby). Now some of the newer routines are available for third party applications.

Hi ssmokee

This 98Lite patch, only modify Explorer.exe from Windows 95 to work with Win98 shell32.dll.
Windows 98 shell32.dll continue as default.

[os2fan2]

my experience with the sleek shell in win98 is that it replaces the win98 shell32 with the win95 version. i used it for a while on a compaq 4102, with 16 mb ram.

On the main, the more preferred version is to use win95 shell, with the win98 shell32, but this does not work.

sleekv2 uses a patched version of the win95 explorer, which looks fir a shell32.w95 (instead of the dll), and uses win98 shell32.dll for proggies that need shell32.

A similar vain exists with fdv's use of explorer.exe and shell32.nt4, which allows one to use the nt4 explorer under windows 2k, to similar effects.

W

[lleoliveira]

Hi

Quote

4) Wrapperable DLLs.
Some system DLLs cannot be replaced. However, proxy DLLs can be created and program can be patched. Not the best behavior, but... 
Examples: kernel32.dll,shell32.dll

I would like to know if a new file for example shellxp.dll will be created with KernelXP project. If the answer is yes , i hope will be possible to run all programs with Win95 shell32.dll without problems. With RP 4.0 programs can be patched with Program Compatibility Wizard.
I will wait Tihiy answer if will be possible or no.

Attached File(s)

•  Clipboard02.jpg (56.67K)
  Number of downloads: 88

[PeteK27]

I think there might be a simpler solution to this problem by simply taking advantage of how Windows loads DLL’s when an exe is started. Normally (if I remember correctly) Windows looks for DLL’s in the following order.

1) The directory the application started in.
2) The current directory
3) The system directory (usually c:\windows\system)
4) The Windows directory (usually c:\windows)
5) All the directories listed in the DOS Path (usually set in autoexec.bat)

I think there are two main alternatives if you want to mainly use the Win95 shell but also want to run an application that requires the Win98 version of shell32.dll.

The first is to simply place a copy of the Win98 version of shell32.dll in the same directory as the exe that is causing problems. When the exe loads, it will first find and then load the Win98 version of shell32.dll instead of the Win95 version that is located in the system directory. This is probably the safest alternative.

The second is to move the Win95 version of shell32.dll to the Windows directory (which is normally where explorer.exe is located) and place the Win98 version of shell32.dll in the system directory. In this case Explorer.exe will load the Win95 version of shell32.dll and most other applications will load the Win98 version. I have had some stability problems running this alternative (e.g. Word97 crashes) but they may be fixable. I haven’t had enough time yet to figure out what might be going on.

This may not solve every problem of this type, but it seems to work for at least a few applications that I have had issues with.

[Controller Khan]

as far as i know shell32.dll is one of the files who will only loaded from
the %windir%\system because of a registry entry.

The easiest solution is to keep an Win98SE Shell32.dll in
System directory renamed to e.g Shell98.dll.
Use a hexeditor to replace entry Shell32.dll with Shell98.dll.
worked perfectly for 5 years
(I now use mainly Gnu/Linux and some times Win2k)

It`s possible to disassemble a file and copied low-level thunking code
Paul Chitescu did this for Win32s to add some Win95 functions.
unfortunaltely his hp is offline http://pchitescu.myip.org is offline.

[iWindoze]

Controller Khan, on Sep 5 2005, 04:03 PM, said:

as far as i know shell32.dll is one of the files who will only loaded from
the %windir%\system  because of a registry entry.

The easiest solution is to keep an Win98SE Shell32.dll in
System directory renamed to e.g Shell98.dll.
Use a hexeditor to replace entry Shell32.dll with Shell98.dll.
worked perfectly for 5 years
(I now use mainly Gnu/Linux and some times Win2k)

It`s possible to disassemble a file and copied low-level thunking code
Paul Chitescu did this for Win32s to add some Win95 functions.
unfortunaltely his hp is offline http://pchitescu.myip.org is offline.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must love me...I went to the wayback machine and kept
punching until I finally came to a working link:

[ http://web.archive.org/web/20010515191337/...org/home_en.apg ]

This is the first one that works but unfortunately it doesn't go anywehere...
...and all the rest of the ones after that are pretty dead for the most part too.

However if you type in his name in Google you eventually come up with...

[ http://pchitescu.null.ro/ ]

And the software pages are here:

[ http://pchitescu.nul...oftware/win32s/ ]

Now....bow before the might of my google-fu! (and admit that you could
have found it just as easily too if you weren't so lazy! )

[PeteK27]

From my perspective, the problem with Shell32.dll is just a variation of what has come to be known as “DLL Hell”.

See “The End of DLL Hell” by Rick Anderson.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default..../dlldanger1.asp

One of the solutions to the problem, according to Mr. Anderson, is to use what he called “Private” or “side-by-side” DLL’s. In a nutshell this just means putting a copy the DLL that works into the same directory as the troublesome EXE.

See also

“Implementing Side-by-Side Component Sharing in Applications” by David D'Souza, BJ Whalen, and Peter Wilson.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default..../sidebyside.asp

>as far as i know shell32.dll is one of the files who will only loaded from the %windir%\system because of a registry entry.

I think this would be the case with 16-bit DLL’s. It may also be the case with certain COM/OLE based DLL’s. However shell32.dll is, for the most part, just a standard Win32 DLL. With these types of DLL’s Windows just searches for and loads the required file as I described earlier.

>The easiest solution is to keep an Win98SE Shell32.dll in System directory renamed to e.g Shell98.dll.
>Use a hexeditor to replace entry Shell32.dll with Shell98.dll. worked perfectly for 5 years

While this is a valid solution, I would hesitate to call it the “easiest” solution. However I would agree that it is unclear at this time which is the best solution.

I have corrected problems with the Win98 version of Notepad.exe and a minor issue with Firefox (the Import function fails with the Win95 version of shell32.dll) by placing a copy of the Win98 version of shell32.dll in the same directory as the relevant exe’s. Hopefully others will post here and report their success and/or failure with other applications using one or both methods and we can find out what works best.

[Controller Khan]

@iWindoze I know the wayback machine. I visited Paul Chitescu`s hp last time 1999 ,remembered the link and posted without searching for it
as I don`t administrate Win3.1x machines anymore.
So I don`t care much about Win31.x /Win32s issues anymore.
( OS/2 came with a much superior Win16 support so I didn`t use Win3.1x myself ).
I admit I`m to lazy to search for something like before I post.

@PeteK27

>>as far as i know shell32.dll is one of the files who will only loaded from the %windir%\system because of a registry entry.

>I think this would be the case with 16-bit DLL’s. It may also be the case with certain COM/OLE based DLL’s. However shell32.dll is, for the most part, just a standard Win32 DLL. With these types of DLL’s Windows just searches for and loads the required file as I described earlier.

I changed for a long period of time inf-files of Win9x Setup to exclude somethings etc.simply make life easier for me.

HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE inside inf-files

in Msbase.inf inside Windows 98 precopy1.cab is a addreg section called

[msbase.reg]
; List of 32 bit DLLs known to be loaded always from SYSTEM dir
( KEY_KNOWNDLLS stands for
"SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\KnownDLLs" )
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,DIGSIG,2,DIGSIG.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,KERNEL32,,KERNEL32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,USER32,,USER32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,GDI32,,GDI32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,WOW32,,WOW32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,WINMM,,WINMM.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,WINNT,,WINNT.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,RPCRT4,,RPCRT4.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,ADVAPI32,,ADVAPI32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,COMDLG32,,COMDLG32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,CRTDLL,,CRTDLL.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,SHELL32,,SHELL32.DLL ; shell32 is mentioned.
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,SHSCRAP,,SHSCRAP.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,LZ32,,LZ32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,OLECLI32,,OLECLI32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,OLESVR32,,OLESVR32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,VERSION,,VERSION.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,COMCTL32,,COMCTL32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSNP32,,MSNP32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,NWNP32,,NWNP32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MPR,,MPR.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MPRSERV,,MPRSERV.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSSHRUI,,MSSHRUI.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSNET32,,MSNET32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,NWNET32,,NWNET32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSPWL32,,MSPWL32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,OLE32,,OLE32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,OLEAUT32,,OLEAUT32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,OLEDLG,,OLEDLG.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,OLETHK32,,OLETHK32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,NETBIOS,,NETBIOS.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSAB32,,MSAB32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,NWAB32,,NWAB32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,SVRAPI,,SVRAPI.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,CHOOSUSR,,CHOOSUSR.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSSHRUI,,MSSHRUI.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,SYNCUI,,SYNCUI.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,LINKINFO,,LINKINFO.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MSVCRT20,,MSVCRT20.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,RICHED32,,RICHED32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,WINSPOOL,,WINSPOOL.DRV
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MFC30,,MFC30.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MFCUIA32,,MFCUIA32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,MFCANS32,,MFCANS32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,NTDLL,,NTDLL.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,RASAPI32,,RASAPI32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,TAPI32,,TAPI32.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWNDLLS%,UMDM32,,UMDM32.DLL
; List of 16 bit DLLs known to be loaded always from SYSTEM dir
( %KEY_KNOWN16% stands for
SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\Known16DLLs )
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,TOOLHELP.DLL,,TOOLHELP.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,COMPOBJ.DLL,,COMPOBJ.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,STORAGE.DLL,,STORAGE.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,OLE2.DLL,,OLE2.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,OLE2DISP.DLL,,OLE2DISP.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,TYPELIB.DLL,,TYPELIB.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,WIN87EM.DLL,,WIN87EM.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,OLE2NLS.DLL,,OLE2NLS.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,COMMDLG.DLL,,COMMDLG.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,COMMCTRL.DLL,,COMMCTRL.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,LZEXPAND.DLL,,LZEXPAND.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,VER.DLL,,VER.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,OLESVR.DLL,,OLESVR.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,OLECLI.DLL,,OLECLI.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,UNIDRV.DLL,,UNIDRV.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,HPPCL.DRV,,HPPCL.DRV
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,FINSTALL.DLL,,FINSTALL.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,WINOA386.MOD,,WINOA386.MOD
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,VGAFULL.3GR,,VGAFULL.3GR
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,MMSYSTEM.DLL,,MMSYSTEM.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,DIBENG.DLL,,DIBENG.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,SHELL.DLL,,SHELL.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,MSVIDEO.DLL,,MSVIDEO.DLL
HKLM,%KEY_KNOWN16%,MCIAVI.DRV,,MCIAVI.DRV

Unless you delete the registry entries under
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\KnownDLLs (Known16DLLs)
Shell32.dll should be only loaded from system directory.

(these entries exist part to some extent still under Win2k)

loading shell32.dll from different locations can be a bad idea.
Everything crashs lot more often (I`ve tried that ).

sometimes when an exe extracts during runtime another exe
and runs that your solution is only one.
I hate this kind applications but one of them is a important progam in our firm
and our hardware was incompatible with M$-IE 4 /Win98 ,but my chief wanted that
program without buying new computer.

Sorry for that long post I want to give precise proof that
I know what I`m talking about.

[PeteK27]

>Unless you delete the registry entries under
>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\KnownDLLs (Known16DLLs)
>Shell32.dll should be only loaded from system directory.

You are correct. On my heavily modified 98SE system this key has been removed so moving shell32.dll worked for me. However on a normal system this value would have to be removed from the registry for this solution to work. I should have taken the time to test my proposed solution on a stock system. My bad.

For those that might be interested, there is additional information here:

http://support.micro...com/kb/q193067/

>loading shell32.dll from different locations can be a bad idea.

I’ll admit that this is a less than ideal solution. However I continue to believe that it could be a workable one.

>Everything crashs lot more often (I`ve tried that ).

In theory (at least according to MS propaganda) this should not happen. But I agree that it probably does. However I suspect that this problem varies considerably from program to program. Therefore I still would be interested in knowing what others have observed – good or bad.

>sometimes when an exe extracts during runtime another exe
>and runs that your solution is only one.
>I hate this kind applications but one of them is a important progam in our firm
>and our hardware was incompatible with M$-IE 4 /Win98 ,but my chief wanted that
>program without buying new computer.

I assume here you are referring to EXE’s that, as they are loading, launch other EXE’s in the background. I agree that these types of applications are very difficult to troubleshoot since it is not always obvious what EXE’s are being started. I believe this is part of the reason why I had problems with Word97. You are probably already aware of it, but I have found Dependency Walker works well in helping to figure out these types of situations.

http://www.dependencywalker.com

>Sorry for that long post I want to give precise proof that
>I know what I`m talking about.

I assure you I never doubted your skill. Anyone who knows how to use a hex editor to solve a problem is clearly past the “Windows for Dummies” stage.

[Controller Khan]

the problem is that this exe e.g blabla1.exe extracts during runtime another exe from itself called e.g blabla2.exe
starting only that extracted exe blabla2.exe does not work.

So Dependency Walker isn`t a solution as it shows only dllfiles that are directly
imported by an exe.
Dependency Walker even does not show dllfiles that are loaded on the fly by a program.

The only solution would be disassembling that both exe trying to get the points
which blabla1.exe calls inside blabla2.exe and combine both exes.
I think this something for something with some time and more experience than me


>I assure you I never doubted your skill. Anyone who knows how to use a hex editor to solve a problem is clearly past the “Windows for Dummies” stage.

I only wanted to make sure everyone understands what I`m talking about.
(English isn`t my mother tongue so my posts might be misunderstanding)

[PeteK27]

>So Dependency Walker isn`t a solution as it shows only dllfiles that are directly
>imported by an exe.
>Dependency Walker even does not show dllfiles that are loaded on the fly by a program.

It will if you “Profile” your application (which I admit is not real obvious when you first use the program).

Do the following:

1) Select File:Open and open your EXE as usual (or drag and drop from Explorer).
2) Select Profile:Start Profiling…
3) Enter any command line arguments in the “Program arguments:” box if relevant. Most of the time you will leave this blank. Don't worry too much about the other check boxes.
4) Select OK.

Dependency Walker will then attempt to run the EXE and show you all the DLLs that are called as the program loads. If the program calls another EXE it will open another window and begin profiling that EXE as well (You may have to minimize the current window to see the other EXE's). It even gives you a running list of functions as they are called.

You can also use it to profile control panel applets by opening rundll32.exe and entering the relevant control panel file name as a “program argument”. Amazingly it is even freeware.

It is not perfect because a few applications don’t really like to be profiled and will crash while loading. However many times it gets far enough to give you a good idea what the problem is. I use it a lot to figure out what DLL’s I might be missing if an application won’t work.

The only downside is it only works with 32 bit apps. Also if a 32 bit DLL thunks over to a 16 bit DLL or calls into a VXD (e.g. a driver) it won’t tell you.

There is a somewhat similar 16 bit equivalent called Scanbin. However it is not quite as flexible or polished as Dependency Walker.

http://members.aol.c...en/scanbin.html

>the problem is that this exe e.g blabla1.exe extracts during runtime another exe from itself called e.g blabla2.exe
>starting only that extracted exe blabla2.exe does not work.

I'll admit I am not sure how Dependency Walker would react if a second EXE was actually embedded in the first EXE. I can't recall if I have ever run into this situation. However depending on what the problem is, it may get far enough to figure out what is going on.