Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



Gape

98 SE SP 2.0.2

Recommended Posts

CLASYS    0

Hi people!

Been really, really busy, but back to offer any relevant input.

My personal wish list still includes a few things:

1) How to add IE60SP1 support into the SP 2.x even if only as an optional add-on. This would mean that those who are put off by bigger downloads need not worry. In fact, perhaps the current setup could be modularized somewhat so a "lighter" still version could be had [for those who already have much of it? I believe the AUTOPATCHER XP people have something like this]. [see below for my personal "bandaid" to this IE60SP1-specific problem.]

2) The ability to update all of the information that the QFECHECK program wants to inspect regarding the fixes themselves. This helps to find accidentally corrupted updates that then fall below the minimum levels the fix demands, etc. If necessary, this could be an add-on package that inspects your system for equivalency to the fixes themselves and declares them "installed" since they conform, etc. Registry information could be created in sync with installed updated' requirements, etc. [isn't this, in essence, what the SP2 does, namely replaces the need to run all of the loose fixes? QFECHECK was designed to confirm that it was performed correctly and thus would be a helpful confirmation that all is fine both right after the SP2 install and also later when perhaps things go awry.]

3) A small point about the QFECHECK program itself: There is a need to know the difference between the demands of minimum revision of the installed hotfix itself versus the possibility that the installed version is even higher than that [presumably because some other update wants it that way!]. It would be nice to have a smarter QFECHECK that could indicate this difference.

As a kludge regarding the IE60SP1 update problem, I have written a toy batch file that is a bit crude, i.e., has hard-wired directory requirements that conform to my local norms only, etc. It uses a freeware REBOOT program so that mindlessly any IE patch can be unattendedly installed without knowing or caring whether the patch requires a reboot [clearly SOME do!]. A big criticism is that it ALWAYS reboots after each patch even when you could prove that some don't need to, etc. [Lazy, but effective.]

As of my last update to it a few months back, there were about 30+ updates to IE60SP1. I know some of them theoretically replace each other, but:

i) I don't know authoritatively which ones truly supplant which.

ii) There definitely are some that are not replaced; this stuff is NOT always cumulative, even though there are two main subthreads which claim to be so ["cumulative updates" for IE and OE], there are other issues neither subthread addresses.

iii) Some of the updates have bizarre interactions with 98lite that can only be solved by predictable installation habits. I can give a fatal example here: If you contemplate using update Q330994 [or some of the more recent cumulative updates that replace Q330994] and you are using 98lite either SLEEK [V1] or CHUBBY, there are procedures you must follow that involve one of several alternative methods [i personally use the method of installing IE60SP1 and its patches in SLEEK [V1] and then later optionally change over to CHUBBY afterwards, never again to make any further changes of shell type.] that will work if you do it carefully enough then immediately install Q330994 [or its descendant patches] but only after installing some prior IE updates. If you fail to follow these overall directions, you will be left with a hopelessly broken Outlook Express that can only be repaired by removing all aspects of IE [preferably with IEradicator or just use 98lite SLEEK [V1] again, etc.] and do it by one if the ways that works. All of the methods also require multiple installations of IE until you have obtained an install where you can choose "Just reinstall all of the components" in the custom install *AND* no further shell changes. [Note: I do change to CHUBBY shell and thus I yet again reinstall IE until I get the message during its install. In the ME variant of 98lite, in this situation, I may have to install IE FOUR TIMES to get it right!] Clearly, this process has many potential pitfalls; it's useful to have a procedure to do all the updates to make sure you get the whole thing right! [Again, this is an unintended interaction with (98SE OR 98ME) AND 98lite AND IE60SP1 AND (its various updates) that was totally fine and non-critical until Q330994 was released, which broke everything! I brainstormed all sorts of attempts that *SHOULD* have worked, but this is the only way I found that *DOES* work!]

iv) After you install the SHELL32.DLL update in Win98SE, you get notice of this within IE Help/About. Installing all of these other updates show 30+ additional updates there, so you get a REALLY long list of installed updates [impress your friends!]. [Note: XP SP1 has abandoned this practice after about 20+ updates, so all of the newer updates no longer show up there, which is confusing since you now can't readily tell just how many newer ones you've added, etc. XP SP2 doesn't ever update this beyond the SP2 notice instead depending on QFE information elsewhere to report as a Windows-XP-SP2 fix, not one to IE or OE. Using my kludge in SE or ME, the entire glorious process is readily displayed.]

I can make the thing available if anyone wants it, and/or copies of all of the 30+ updates, some of which may have become obscure. It takes quite awhile to run due to the 30+ reboots, but it *IS* totally unattended! [And someone may want to clean it up so it's more generic to others' systems!]

cjl [Glad to be back, albeit still very busy!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eidenk    0
It takes quite awhile to run due to the 30+ reboots,

You certainly do not need to reboot 30 times to install 30 IE updates in a row. Installing the thirty of them in the correct order and rebooting once should do I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erpdude8    2

more about the "empty icon buttons on the taskbar" problem discussed earlier:

as long as the Win98 Q891711 MS05-002 security patch [either by MS's KB891711 or by U891711 or even TI891711] is NOT installed AND you are using user.exe & user32.dll files versions 4.10.2226 or earlier, the empty icon buttons on taskbar problem wont happen. the bug doesn't bother me much at all as I can easily click on the empty icons on the taskbar to make them disappear.

glad to hear from you again, CLASYS

check this out Gape---

There is a hotfix for the ASN.1 Vulnerability for Windows 98. It was discussed here:

http://www.webservertalk.com/archive93-2004-2-128285.html

(though Q835732 has newer ASN.1 fix)

Someone there called MS support and was sent the Q828028 [MS04-007] security hotfix for Windows 98. If you read MS security bulletin MS04-007, it does NOT even mention Win98/ME. so Win98 & ME systems ARE affected by the problem. This means that new but non-critical security patches for Win98/ME are available but you have to contact microsoft support to obtain them.

I think I might ask MS for the Q835732 MS04-011 patch for Win98 before year 2005 ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krick    0

I was just reading through the Visual Studio 2005 Express "Known Issues" and I saw this one regarding Windows 98. I was wondering if this registration was something that you might want to add to SP2.0.3. I don't think it could hurt...

3.3 Cannot pass a structure to a variant property in an ActiveX EXE object

On Windows 98, you cannot pass a structure to a variant property in an ActiveX EXE object. The problem is on a clean Windows 9X machine, the System DLL rpcrt4.dll was not registered by default, so the operating system is missing the registration key [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{B5866878-BD99-11D0-B04B-00C04FD91550}]. The invocation fails because of this missing registration.

To resolve this issue

Go to C:\Windows\System and manually invoke RegSvr32.exe rpcrt4.dll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLASYS    0
It takes quite awhile to run due to the 30+ reboots,

You certainly do not need to reboot 30 times to install 30 IE updates in a row. Installing the thirty of them in the correct order and rebooting once should do I think.

No, that is absolutely incorrect. Apparently you are unaware of the interactions of some of the updates. They simply will not install unless there is an actual reboot. Not all, of them are this way, but some of them are.

My methodology is to use a state machine that remembers where it is across reboots that winds up in the STARTUP group and then removes itself when done, etc. This allows all updates to mindlessly reboot even if one of the cases where it isn't absolutely necessary.

But no, it is not possible to do a simple batchup of all of the updates forcing a non-reboot after each install, as it would cause certain updates to not install at all.

I am unaware of whether this is by design or by accident. Certain updates clearly do have a designated order, and it's when using that order expressly that it fails to install as there are dependencies as written, etc.

This is why I would like to see an optional modular section to the SP2.x where if you specify the service pack should install the equivalent AND you have separately downloaded the actual update files, the IE update can be performed by the Service Pack on demand. This affects no one wanting to ignore IE, yet allows all of us who need it to update IE to also have what's needed, etc.

I would suggest some form of command line or .ini file modification to specify where the IE package separately exists, or perhaps if the executable of the service pack merely notices a magic-named file in its own directory path, etc. Done this way, there is no net change in the size of the SP2 download, etc.

Please note that while what you posted is the theoretical notion often claimed in Windows XP [and sometimes broken there!], it is NOT true that all of MS's installer packages for hotfixes actually work correctly. Some of our ongoing discussions involve the specifics of broken hotfixes, not the usefullness of the underlying files needing to be applied, but rather that as provided by MS they simply do not "cooperatively" install properly, etc.

For example, there is a hotfix that will NOT install unless IE 6.0 [not SP1] or newer, and perhaps some other hotfixes, hasn't yet been installed. The simple answer is that the internal logic of the hotfix installation package is plain broken. The underlying files can only be applied in one of three ways:

1) The hard way [update them by hand]

2) Use the hotfix as provided by MS basically early on after a fresh install of Win98SE and clearly before any of the later updates that prevents it from functioning due to its own internal bugs.

3) Use the SP 2.x which correctly places the proper files in all cases.

MS never fixed this hotfix which, unless used before all of the other updates involved is applied, actually just bails out and self-ends without doing anything whatsoever, no messages, no actions, etc. Fortunately for all of us, the SP 2.x properly applies the files contained within this broken hotfix and avoids this entire problem while providing the benefits as intended, etc.

There is another problem case where should a certain hotfix be already installed, all of several newer ones that update the same file will fail to update the affected file. You wind up with a file newer than a fresh install, but not as new as newer-still updates want to provide, etc. I sent Gape a copy of the problem version from MS, and hopefully the SP 2.x now will override this weird behavior correctly. Fortunately, the problem update itself is somewhat obscure [although I do have it!] so hopefully few are affected by it. But, as I understand the mechanism of the SP, this problem is also avoided when the SP2 is applied despite broken logic within MS's provided hotfixes you have [likely unwittingly] given too much "credit" to, etc.

One of the purposes of the Service Pack is to AVOID this entire problem since the Service Pack is its own installer of all of the underlying files all at once. The idiosyncracies of each hotfix's potentially broken installation procedure are totally avoided. Additionally, some of the underlying files are NOT available any other way, since in some cases they are located in overly complex packages only, and have been provided from these, etc. because the theoretical specific hotfix is simply not available. The SP essentially accomplishes what theoretically some unavailable packages might have, regardless of whether or not such packages may or may not have had difficulty installing their files or in some cases even existing at all!

So, the SP 2.x causes there to be no consideration of what the "correct order" even is, as it will arbitrate an order that causes it to correctly install all subfixes for any problem it addresses. And in this instance could avoid a situation for which there actually is NOT a "correct order" at all.

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLASYS    0
glad to hear from you again, CLASYS

You too, erp!

Hard to believe, but both of us are about to come to our FIRST ANNIVERSARY with this forum!

cjl [sometimes it feels like a lifetime!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eidenk    0
But no, it is not possible to do a simple batchup of all of the updates forcing a non-reboot after each install, as it would cause certain updates to not install at all.

How would it cause certain updates to not install at all ? Can you be more specific by actually providing an example instead of theorizising so much.

As far as theory is concerned, KB updates are supposed to do several things. They first check if the IE version is the one intended as target, either 5 or 6. It it's the wrong version they won't install.

After that they eventually write registry entries (killbits for example) and replace files.

If target files are not in use they are replaced immediately if they are of a version inferior to the one that installs. If they are of a version superior to the one that installs, they will be skipped by the installer.

If files to be replaced are in use, wininit is used to replace them automatically at reboot before the OS loads. Data is appended to wininit.ini.

Wininit either does not normally downgrade files unless the file to be replaced is first deleted by using the NULL command which the KB installers do not do as far as I know so that even the install order should be insignificant as far as replacing files is concerned.

Edited by eidenk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLASYS    0
But no, it is not possible to do a simple batchup of all of the updates forcing a non-reboot after each install, as it would cause certain updates to not install at all.
I wish it were true otherwise, but that does seem to be the case! The versions of the hotfixes for Win9x apparently are just too broken to correctly batch together.

It is POSSIBLE to create a limited number of batch files, each requiring a reboot since they end with an update that requires it. This would avoid the need to reboot after EVERY update, but not after the updates that actually require it, etc.

However, I haven't spent the time finding out WHICH of the updates actually require local reboots; my toy method avoids caring at the expense of unattended real-time being spent, but does guarantee successful installation.

If you have access to all of the 30+ updates and are inclined to check this out, try applying them by hand while avoiding a reboot in each and every case; you will then see the updates that refuse to install. Applying override switches to force an install will also fail; the files won't be updated and IE Help/about will NOT show the update as being installed, etc.

I can provide anyone the entire list of updates; some of them have become obscure. Please note that more than a few were NEVER a subject of Windows Update! [Note: I only follow IE 6.0 SP1 updates for Win98SE or ME. In Windows XP, there are NO updates for IE SP2, rather they consider all updates to be applied to WINDOWS XP itself.]

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petr    0

My observations are as follows:

- one batch with all updates worked fine for me, I didnt noticed anything wrong (files not copied, registry not updated), this is the example for Windows 98 Gold:

start /w UNIMDMUSA8m.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 168115US8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 190656Up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 190715usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 192112up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 192425USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 193473Up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 195564Up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 196008Up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 196527up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w Smartupd.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 222903USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 224073Up.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 233017UP.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 236926USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 237493usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 238453US8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 239697USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 240664USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 240896USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 241052usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 241134usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 242161USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 242193usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 242939UP.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 242941USA8m.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 243048UP.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 243450USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 245729US8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 249973USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 250514usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 250876usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 254660USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 256015usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 257821USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 258680USA8m.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 259728USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 263044usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 264650usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 266772USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 272621usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 273468usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 273727USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 273991USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 274113USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 274175usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 274370usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 274548USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 277628USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 278368usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 281533usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 283032usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 289635usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 291362usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 307004usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 309081usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 311561usa8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 312108USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 314147USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 318307USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 319571USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 320798USA8.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w 323708USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 823559USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w Windows98-KB835732-ENUm.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w Windows98-KB842532-ENUm.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w Windows98-KB885836-ENUm.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w TelnetUp.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w vfwupd.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w Windows98-KB891711-v2-ENU.EXE /Q:A /R:N

These updates require IE4 or IE5 or IE6:

start /w q240308.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w q313829.exe /Q:A /R:N

start /w IEAudioUpdate.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w IE-KB891781-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU.exe /Q:A /R:N

These updates require IE5 or IE6:

start /w 323172USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 323255USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 329115USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 811630USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w 888113USA8.EXE /Q:A /R:N

start /w Windows98-KB896358-ENU.EXE /Q:A /R:N

Maybe I have missed something but I believe not.

- IE updates test full version of all updated files, this is part of the SED IExpress definition file for IE6.0sp1-KB883939-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU update:

[FileSectionList]

1=#S\BROWSEUI.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1622:%Warn2%:Ok

2=#S\CDFVIEW.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1612:%Warn2%:Ok

3=#S\IEPEERS.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1497:%Warn2%:Ok

4=#S\INSENG.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1475:%Warn2%:Ok

5=#S\MSHTML.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1506:%Warn2%:Ok

6=#S\MSRATING.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1623:%Warn2%:Ok

7=#S\PNGFILT.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1506:%Warn2%:Ok

8=#S\SHDOCVW.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1658:%Warn2%:Ok

9=#S\SHLWAPI.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1612:%Warn2%:Ok

10=#S\URLMON.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1487:%Warn2%:Ok

11=#S\WININET.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1506:%Warn2%:Ok

and if any of these files has wrong version the update will not install at all.

- Updates for IE6.0SP2 are called e.g. Cumulative Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (KB896688)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLASYS    0
But no, it is not possible to do a simple batchup of all of the updates forcing a non-reboot after each install, as it would cause certain updates to not install at all.

How would it cause certain updates to not install at all ? Can you be more specific by actually providing an example instead of theorizising so much.

As far as theory is concerned, KB updates are supposed to do several things. They first check if the IE version is the one intended as target, either 5 or 6. It it's the wrong version they won't install.

After that they eventually write registry entries (killbits for example) and replace files.

If target files are not in use they are replaced immediately if they are of a version inferior to the one that installs. If they are of a version superior to the one that installs, they will be skipped by the installer.

If files to be replaced are in use, wininit is used to replace them automatically at reboot before the OS loads. Data is appended to wininit.ini.

Wininit either does not normally downgrade files unless the file to be replaced is first deleted by using the NULL command which the KB installers do not do as far as I know so that even the install order should be insignificant as far as replacing files is concerned.

For someone intent on me not "theorizing" you seem to engage in a whole lot of it!

As I stated in an earlier post, there are the INTENTIONS of updates, and there are the REALITIES of updates known to this forum to SIMPLY NOT WORK AS INTENDED. Unless you actually installed the 35+ updates to IE 6.0 SP1 and can state some EXPERIENCE, I suggest you practice what you preach! What you have not addressed is whether or not an update simply bails out because it is "unhappy" with the environment it's run in. IE updates seem to have this quirk in some instances. What you suggest is generally the behavior of Windows updates, which need to have the default of rebooting after installation inhibited, if possible. Please note that 98SE doesn't have a "QCHAIN" mechanism, allegedly a working functionality within the NT family. It is well known that specific cases in the 9x world simply don't work as you imagine, and a few have been discussed on this forum. [in a prior post in this thread, I outlined two of them, although I would have to research the KB numbers. Perhaps Gape or erp or MGDX can give the specific references. I may be able to find at least one of them, but frankly, this is old business of this forum and not up for debate, etc.]

MS occasionally screws up the logic within an update's installer disrupting the "rules" such as they are. In my experience, several of the IE updates are subject to this, thus the need to reboot in at least a few cases, etc.

Can anyone actually show an install that succeeds in installing all of these IE updates. [Note: NONE of these are updates to Windows 98 or Windows 98SE or Windows ME].

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLASYS    0
My observations are as follows:

- one batch with all updates worked fine for me, I didnt noticed anything wrong (files not copied, registry not updated), this is the example for Windows 98 Gold:

[nice list of udates for Windows 98 FE deleted]

Maybe I have missed something but I believe not.

- IE updates test full version of all updated files, this is part of the SED IExpress definition file for IE6.0sp1-KB883939-Windows-98-ME-x86-ENU update:

[FileSectionList]

1=#S\BROWSEUI.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1622:%Warn2%:Ok

2=#S\CDFVIEW.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1612:%Warn2%:Ok

3=#S\IEPEERS.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1497:%Warn2%:Ok

4=#S\INSENG.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1475:%Warn2%:Ok

5=#S\MSHTML.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1506:%Warn2%:Ok

6=#S\MSRATING.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1623:%Warn2%:Ok

7=#S\PNGFILT.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1506:%Warn2%:Ok

8=#S\SHDOCVW.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1658:%Warn2%:Ok

9=#S\SHLWAPI.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1612:%Warn2%:Ok

10=#S\URLMON.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1487:%Warn2%:Ok

11=#S\WININET.DLL:6.0.2800.1106-6.0.2800.1506:%Warn2%:Ok

and if any of these files has wrong version the update will not install at all.

- Updates for IE6.0SP2 are called e.g. Cumulative Update for Internet Explorer for Windows XP Service Pack 2 (KB896688)

While there are updates claiming to be for Windows XP Service Pack 2 and thus IE 6.0 SP2 specifically, and claim to be cumulative, they are NOT all totally so. There are one-off updates not addressed by these accumulations! In any case, this is not the subject of this forum, nor of this topic.

Your list of updates to 98FE notwithstanding, the subject matter of this topic is updates to IE and OE that need to be applied after installing IE 6.0 SP1, and show verification of installation by observing the help/about in IE. There are at least 36 such updates.

It IS true that some of these updates are theoretically cumulative. In fact there are at least two such accumulations: One for the updates to IE and one for the updates to OE. With regard to this, it might be true that the latest version of a member of an accumulation list might in theory replace any and all of the predecessors within that accumulation. Thus, an argument could be made that no one update is cumulative for all purposes. However, it is ALSO true that the two updates one could nominate are also insufficient to update IE/OE completely simply because some of them are one-off in nature. [Note: Update 870669, while nominally related to IE, is considered an MDAC update and appears in add/remove programs as such. I am NOT referring to updates such as this, but I believe this is a singular case.]

Some of these updates are obscure, but are nonetheless available and should be applied to IE/OE. To my knowledge, all of the updates considered cumulative for IE or OE have at some point in time been available within Windows Update. Also, to my knowledge, NONE of the non-cumulative updates have ever been mentioned within Windows Update. Since Windows Update represents such a small percentage of the source of updates for Windows 98SE in its entire history, this is a meaningless point! Indeed, this forum is devoted to the polar opposite, namely the categorical failure of MS to provide available updates in any meaningful way, etc.

So, I would suggest to anyone who wants to contribute anything to this thread, can you please provide any actual on-topic experience with this multitude of updates, as opposed to optimistic hypotheticals or alternate examples of unrelated topics. My methods are crude by my own admission. However, they also succeed at the intended mission. Anyone that can simplify the method down to something that gets the SAME job accomplished with less overhead I would gladly defer to. Additionally, if someone has information about more than the 36 I am referring to, please post their article numbers here.

cjl [can provide the ones that I am aware of; none were hard to obtain at the time I got them. Can't say about now!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eidenk    0

My dear Clasys, I think you are just a troublemaker.

First you haven't yet come up with your list of 30 updates that are now 36 for IE which should be easy as you claim to have made a special installer for them that automatically reboot after each one. But no after that you say you don't remember which ones they are and call for the help of Gape, ERPdude or MDGx to tell you what are their KB numbers :

In a prior post in this thread, I outlined two of them, although I would have to research the KB numbers. Perhaps Gape or erp or MGDX can give the specific references. I may be able to find at least one of them, but frankly, this is old business of this forum and not up for debate, etc.]

Second you accuse Petr of going off topic when in fact the one that is off-topic since the beginning is you, as this thread is about Gape's service pack which is not concerned by IE6 updates as far as I know :

Your list of updates to 98FE notwithstanding, the subject matter of this topic is updates to IE and OE that need to be applied after installing IE 6.0 SP1, and show verification of installation by observing the help/about in IE. There are at least 36 such updates.
Edited by eidenk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CLASYS    0
My dear Clasys, I think you are just a troublemaker.

First you haven't yet come up with your list of 30 updates that are now 36 for IE which should be easy as you claim to have made a special installer for them that automatically reboot after each one. But no after that you say you don't remember which ones they are and call for the help of Gape, ERPdude or MDGx to tell you what are their KB numbers :

In a prior post in this thread, I outlined two of them, although I would have to research the KB numbers. Perhaps Gape or erp or MGDX can give the specific references. I may be able to find at least one of them, but frankly, this is old business of this forum and not up for debate, etc.]

Second you accuse Petr of going off topic when in fact the one that is off-topic since the beginning is you, as this thread is about Gape's service pack which is not concerned by IE6 updates as far as I know :

Your list of updates to 98FE notwithstanding, the subject matter of this topic is updates to IE and OE that need to be applied after installing IE 6.0 SP1, and show verification of installation by observing the help/about in IE. There are at least 36 such updates.
Actually, my dear eidenk, it is YOU who are the troublemaker. I will elaborate:

What actually came FIRST is all of the following:

MANY people contributed to the service pack 2.x release as it stands now. I am happy to say I am one of them. Specifically, if you would care to look within the installation notice when you install it, you will find specific reference to me as a contributor, and not just someone such as yourself, who appears to think this forum consists merely of what you stumbled upon, not the long list of contributions by many who predate this entire subtopic going back now about 11 pages.

Certain of us "have a life" and as such, sometimes we cannot devote enough time to this forum and would rather ignore it entirely until such a time we can devote proper attention to it. This applies to significant others on this forum who are even larger contributors than I am. [bTW, count of messages posted is NOT an indicator of any measure of contribution to this project; additionally this does NOT include PMs sent between members, some of which applies in my case with some of the other "principals" of this project, etc.]

As such, I re-announced myself, as did others who know me. We all felt the project needs more attention, so here we are.

I introduced the topic of what IMHO is an open topic for discussion still unresolved. In this case, it is yet again bringing up the notion of updating IE/OE with its well-known [to members of this forum back when a lot of the grunt work that became SP 2.x was being performed] long list of updates. There was a discussion about this; essentially it was tabled in favor of getting the main event done, which is sort of where we are now. Thus, I felt it was a good time to reintroduce the topic.

Apparently you missed that discussion. As such, you don't have a right to criticize just how others make reference to it. It's all in the back pages of this forum. I already indicated that. It's up to you to find out what YOU missed, not mine to inform you. Towards that end, I indicated that I may be able to recall the KB article of one of the problem cases if I find the time. Having to deal with your intrusion into this forum with no desire to catch up on old topics well known to some of us is taking up some of that time.

I also asked if some relevant others, such as erp or MGDX could recall the relevant articles, since perhaps they are better equipped than I am to recall such things. I admit I am overwhelmed in this area, since I am attempting to keep track of at least all of the following:

Hundreds of updates to WinXP Service Pack 2

Hundreds of updates to Win98SE

Hundreds of updates to WinME

dozens of updates to IE/OE

Sorry if I cannot be the master of my own domain. This is why I come to a forum, to both contribute and learn. Learn by my example, and familiarize yourself with what's already been said so as not to waste the time of people here who have already put a lot of effort into this project.

Oh, and the list of "merely" 36 updates? The reason I use the number 36 is because back when I had more time to follow the list, back about 3-4 months ago, that was the number that applied THEN. I could only venture a guess as to how many more there are. I am hopeful that others, not you, have taken up this particular baton and know how many more to add to that number. I would really like to have definitive answers for any potential "newcomer" updates, which I would assume is a relatively small number, but currently unknown to me because I simply haven't had the time, up until now, to even be a responsive member of this forum. [Note: I have been active in other forums, including other MSFN forums, but my attention just got too stretched to cover all the bases; for that, I apologize for circumstances only partially under my own control, etc.]

As to attempting to use Petr to advance any theories about me, I will address him separately, as he is not you.

There seems to be a confusion about installation of hotfixes generically as opposed to the IE/OE-specific problem. Petr posted a bunch of 98FE hotfixes as an example of what he knows. There is nothing wrong with that; he is basically admiting what he DOES know. However, since the subject of THIS thread is what belongs on the 98SE service pack, clearly his list belongs elsewhere, and specifically there is a nice thread where it DOES belong sticky to this forum.

However, Petr's information doesn't address a long list of hotfixes for IE/OE 6.0 SP1 specifically, so I will assume he has little incremental information regarding this particular sub-topic.

The inclusion of IE 6.0 SP1 and its updates within the SP 2.x is IN FACT an ORIGINAL subject discussed months ago and predates any discussion of 98FE at all! IMHO it needs to AGAIN be addressed now; I did NOT merely raise this as a new issue, but rather as an OLD one that needs to be rethought. If no one wants to talk about it, that's fine, especially when I have come up with a [barely!] acceptable method of dealing with this problem, which I believe others are also interested in.

You have a curiously out-of-context quote of me that references two specific updates that are CURRENTLY part of the SP 2.x. You make it sound like I invented them as well. In point of fact, they were discussed among the "senior" members of this forum. They were, but no longer ARE, sore points that highlight the fact that Microsoft's hotfix installers are sometimes broken. At least one of them also interacts with the installation of, among other things, IE/OE 6.0 or IE/OE 6.0 SP1. The SP 2.x addresses these and installs them correctly AFAIK. I can confirm personally that one of them does install correctly because the problem does NOT lie with the underlying hotfix files, but rather with bugs in Microsoft's installer program within the hotfix; the SP 2.x simply does not use that broken code, thus gets the job done by a functional equivalent method, etc.

Clearly, the discussion of these two updates is directly on-target for this forum, but also are not specific to the subject of IE/OE updates. You insisted on some hypotheticals being discussed; I pointed out cases where reality differs from theory, one of the many subtopics discussed on this forum successfully, and at this point long put to rest and need not be discussed further unless someone, other than you, wants to post additional information. For myself, I do not wish to, since it is available in the forum's back pages, as a resolved issue. It is sufficient I raise existing examples as to why what you posted could be questionable, etc.

I'm glad you admit to "AFAIK" with regard to the IE/OE SP 2 inclusion topic. Clearly you should admit you don't know. The problem is that those of us who were here when a lot of subjects such as this were discussed DO KNOW. Do you think it's fair to impose your not knowing on us who do know merely because you didn't participate in the discussion and we did? I apologize if I cannot have photographic knowledge of the back pages of this forum, especially considering what I am dealing with for myself, etc. However, as crude as it might or might not be, I understand one can research material already discussed on this forum. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how effective it actually is to do such research?

cjl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eidenk    0

Clasys you are entirely off topic in this thread with your IE6 updates. More you post, more you are off-topic. You are even becaming insanely off topic with your references to your value and contribution not being reflected in your post count and all the PMs you exchange with Gape and others and lalala. You've got clearly some sort of problem according to me.

Why not simply opening a dedicated thread to discuss the IE6 KB updates installers that do not perform as they should and that are apparently of so much concern to you ?

Frankly, after a while, I had expected you to : 1) post a full list of those IE6 KBs 2) Say which ones do not work.

But there is still none of it.

I'll leave it there.

Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×