Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Q891711 + U891711 = Unofficial MS07-017 + MS05-002 .ANI fix

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#26
dnbgroove

dnbgroove
  • Member
  • 2 posts
  • Joined 22-January 04
Hi MDGx

Did you notice this when trying to play online or offline?

I was playing a local wav file. I don't use Media player for online (much if ever)

I assumed this was related to installing 98SEMP10 [WMP10 files from WinXP]

Your 98SEMP10 automated install was applied some time ago and I was reporting this as it was the first time I'd seen this problem having installed this unofficial 891711 patch

Any ideas ?


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Joined 24-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Hello erpdude.

GET WINAMP LITE 5.11, NOT WINAMP 2.81!!!! Come on, dude! Winamp 2.81 is so old that it is prone to new security threats and v5.11 fixes these new security holes in Winamp.

I dont understand why bristols and eidenk want to use a very outdated release of Winamp as I, on the other hand, have no problems with the latest release of Winamp [5.11], with U891711 installed.


Although not wanting to encourage the thread to stray off-topic, I will still reply, just briefly, since you don't understand why. I installed Winamp 2.81 Lite rather than the latest version because, unless I am mistaken, the older version uses fewer system resources than the newer one. This particular setup is using quite old hardware (a 233 Mhz CPU, with only 128 MB of RAM) so the minimal use of resources is a pressing concern, I'm afraid (the Ampesizer skin is an indulgence ;) ). I wanted to try out the MAD plugin using Winamp (I know that there are other media players with small memory footprints), and honestly I can't say that the old Winamp sounds any worse than the newer version (having tried it). I'm aware that subsequent versions of Winamp benefit from security fixes, but fortunately I don't use Winamp to play any Internet-based/streamed content or files that have not been previously virus-scanned, so the security issues are not a concern at the moment.

Back on-topic: eidenk, that's good to hear, insofar as it's a point for U891711. The BSODs I experience are sporadic (say, 1 in 3 times), and usually happen at the same time as a file is being played.

Edited by bristols, 02 November 2005 - 06:57 PM.


#28
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05

Winamp lite 2.81 is NOT available anymore at the Winamp.com site, eidenk. GET WINAMP LITE 5.11, NOT WINAMP 2.81!!!! Come on, dude! Winamp 2.81 is so old that it is prone to new security threats and v5.11 fixes these new security holes in Winamp.

I dont understand why bristols and eidenk want to use a very outdated release of Winamp as I, on the other hand, have no problems with the latest release of Winamp [5.11], with U891711 installed.


I have installed 2.81 lite to see if I was able to reproduce the above described error. I was not.

As for Winamp itself in general : I have 5.11 (but the latest is 5.111 I think) and also 2.95 installed. Each with a different plugin setup so that they both load relatively fast. 2.95 whose gui is fast to load has plenty of plugs. 5.11 whose gui is slower has few plugs. Security vulnerability was with version 5 and automatic download of modern skins I think.

This U891711 patch needs to be revised, MDGx. It will NOT install under WinME (a black eye for ME users). The U891711.TXT file says "Unofficial Windows 98 (FE)/98 SE/ME Q891711 Patch" at the top of the text file but the EXE patch says "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch". Make it install under Win98 FE, SE AND WinME! And edit the title of the U891711.EXE patch to correctly say "Unofficial Windows 98 (FE)/98 SE/ME Q891711 Patch".


In the meantime you can install it by hand if you want to test on ME. All you need to do (easiest way) is install the original MS KB891711 for winME and replace the two files (in C:\Windows\System\KB891711) by the new ones from U891711 before rebooting. Files can be extracted from U891711 by using 7-Zip or other archiver that supports extracting files from those MS installers. There shouldn't be any System File Protection issue as the files are simply added and install scripts are identical for 98SE and ME (I am not sure at 101% of course as I don't have SFP anymore on my ME system).

Edited by eidenk, 02 November 2005 - 07:20 PM.

Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#29
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05

Back on-topic: eidenk, that's good to hear, insofar as it's a point for U891711. The BSODs I experience are sporadic (say, 1 in 3 times), and usually happen at the same time as a file is being played.

Have you tried reinstalling your Creative Labs soundcard drivers ? Or install others if any available ? I think this is possibly your problem as your error happens in ctpci9X.vxd.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#30
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
bristols:

This the author's answer to your question:

The BSODs are most likely not related to the installation of U891711.EXE.

I ran a quick search for 'crash' and 'ctpci9x.vxd' and, among other
reports of crashes caused by ctpci9x.vxd, found this at
http://www.sysopt.co...hp/t-31164.html

Try to upgrade the sound card driver.

I also suggest the following to narrow it down a bit:

(A) Uninstall U891711.EXE and run WinAmp, reinstall U891711.EXE and run
WinAmp

or

(B) Temporarily stop KB891711.EXE as follows

(1) Boot up PC as normal
(2) Close (but do not kill) KB891711.EXE using EndItAll
(3) Run WinAmp, open file-browsing window, etc.
(4) If no BSOD, close WinAmp, run '%windir%\system\kb891711\kb891711.exe'
(5) Run WinAmp again, open file-browsing window, etc.


Hope this helps.

#31
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
My bad, guys, I forgot to upload the new ME version of the patch. :(
Here it is... [110 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.EXE

It should install on Windows ME without any problems, even if official MS05-002 patch was already installed.

Please try it out, should fix the same security vulnerability as MS05-002 [but using better patching technique], under Windows 98 (FE), 98 SE and ME.
___________________________________________

I believe a decent proof of concept demo for LOADIMAGE icon [.ANI file] is found here:
http://www.xfocus.net/flashsky/icoExp/
Please try this demo first without official MS05-002 or U891711 installed.
Then install MS05-002 first, try the demo again.
Then uninstall MS05-002 and then install U891711, and try the demo again.
To install U891711 on top of MS05-002, it is not necessary to uninstall MS05-002 first, U891711 should overwrite the MS05-002 files upon installation.

Hope this helps.
___________________________________________

Hi MDGx

Did you notice this when trying to play online or offline?

I was playing a local wav file. I don't use Media player for online (much if ever)

I assumed this was related to installing 98SEMP10 [WMP10 files from WinXP]

Your 98SEMP10 automated install was applied some time ago and I was reporting this as it was the first time I'd seen this problem having installed this unofficial 891711 patch

Any ideas ?

I don't think that WMP generic [not found] image placeholders issue was related to either 98SEMP10 or U891711.
I still blame it on server error, lag or timeout.
What you experienced, could have also been poor quality of the internet connection [at the time] due to problems at your ISP's end.

Hop this helps.

Edited by MDGx, 04 November 2005 - 12:37 PM.


#32
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,150 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04
Ok. i've downloaded and tested the U891711 patch under Win98se and WinME. Installed OK under Win98se but didn't install under WinME. I get error message when trying to install U891711 under ME so I had to extract the files manually. notified MDGx about it so he should fix that problem easily. Before I installed U891711 I made some changes and corrections to the u891711.inf & u891711.txt files and then installed the files. I've submitted the corrected u891711.inf & u891711.txt files to MDGx. changed the line "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch to "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Security Patch" in the top section of the u891711.inf file for further clarification. another change I made to the u891711.inf file is the uninstall string from "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to "Unofficial Windows 98/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)". you really have to specify which version of Windows the U891711 patch will be installed to and uninstalled from. made a minor correction to the u891711.txt file in the "NOTE #2" section, replacing the word "hotfix" with the word "update". Hotfix and update are NOT the same thing. they're different and Microsoft KB891711 is NOT a hotfix; KB891711 is an update, a security update.

About the ctpci9x.vxd file, try downloading and installing the Sound Blaster PCI 128 drivers for Windows 9x; get the latest ones from this site:

http://us.creative.c...port/downloads/

select Sound Blaster in 1st box, select Others in 2nd box, then select Sound Blaster PCI 128 in 3rd box and click on the Next button. select English as the Language, choose Windows 98 SE as the operating system and choose Driver as the File Type and click the Go button.

if you really use Win98 SE or WinME you can even try installing the Sound Blaster PCI 128 WDM drivers [titled " Sound Blaster PCI cards Web Update"]. WDM drivers dont use VXD files, they use SYS driver files.

select either "Sound Blaster PCI cards Web Update for users running Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000 or Windows XP" or "Sound Blaster PCI128 (Drivers Only - Windows 9x)". These drivers worked good on my relative's Dell PC that has the Creative Ensoniq 1371 Audio card.

be sure to remove/un-install either TI891711 or Microsoft KB891711 before installing U891711. looks like U891711 could be a smash hit!

Edited by erpdude8, 04 November 2005 - 05:11 AM.


#33
the_guy

the_guy

    Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 914 posts
  • Joined 15-July 05
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
erpdude8,

You do not need to remove the microsoft update before installing this one. This update is like a v3 for the microsoft update. You didn't need to uninstall v1 before you installed v2. I have tried this on a 98se machine and on a ME m,achine, and they both work perfect.

the_guy
Creator of the Windows ME Service Pack.

#34
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Ok. i've downloaded and tested the U891711 patch under Win98se and WinME. Installed OK under Win98se but didn't install under WinME. I get error message when trying to install U891711 under ME so I had to extract the files manually. notified MDGx about it so he should fix that problem easily. Before I installed U891711 I made some changes and corrections to the u891711.inf & u891711.txt files and then installed the files. I've submitted the corrected u891711.inf & u891711.txt files to MDGx. changed the line "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch to "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Security Patch" in the top section of the u891711.inf file for further clarification. another change I made to the u891711.inf file is the uninstall string from "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to "Unofficial Windows 98/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)". you really have to specify which version of Windows the U891711 patch will be installed to and uninstalled from. made a minor correction to the u891711.txt file in the "NOTE #2" section, replacing the word "hotfix" with the word "update". Hotfix and update are NOT the same thing. they're different and Microsoft KB891711 is NOT a hotfix; KB891711 is an update, a security update.

I have uploaded the correct version of the patch with modified SED file [please see post # 31 above], which now allows to install directly on WinME, and even if official MS05-002 patch was already installed, it properly overwrites it.
Same behavior if installed on Win98 FE or 98 SE: U891711 can be installed over official MS05-002, it will properly overwrite the MS files, which are older builds [even v2].

I have also replaced "hotfix" with "update" in the text file.

U891711.EXE [110 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.EXE
U891711.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.TXT

Please try it out at your convenience.

Edited by MDGx, 04 November 2005 - 12:37 PM.


#35
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Joined 24-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Hey guys,

Thanks to you all (eidenk, MDGx, erpdude8 and the patch's author) for your input regarding my BSODs in ctpci9x.vxd. The link provided by the patch's author in his response is interesting, because my own setup is in a few respects the same or similar to that mentioned there (the Diamond SupraSST modem, for example).

Thanks erpdude for the help regarding drivers. I did reinstall the soundcard drivers and so far, I'm happy to report, haven't suffered any BSODs since.

Thus, FWIW, it seems like I'm giving U891711 a thumbs-up too. :)

Hope my thanks can be passed on to the patch's author.

#36
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,150 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04

Ok. i've downloaded and tested the U891711 patch under Win98se and WinME. Installed OK under Win98se but didn't install under WinME. I get error message when trying to install U891711 under ME so I had to extract the files manually. notified MDGx about it so he should fix that problem easily. Before I installed U891711 I made some changes and corrections to the u891711.inf & u891711.txt files and then installed the files. I've submitted the corrected u891711.inf & u891711.txt files to MDGx. changed the line "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch to "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Security Patch" in the top section of the u891711.inf file for further clarification. another change I made to the u891711.inf file is the uninstall string from "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to "Unofficial Windows 98/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)". you really have to specify which version of Windows the U891711 patch will be installed to and uninstalled from. made a minor correction to the u891711.txt file in the "NOTE #2" section, replacing the word "hotfix" with the word "update". Hotfix and update are NOT the same thing. they're different and Microsoft KB891711 is NOT a hotfix; KB891711 is an update, a security update.

I have uploaded the correct version of the patch with modified SED file [please see post # 31 above], which now allows to install directly on WinME, and even if official MS05-002 patch was already installed, it properly overwrites it.
Same behavior if installed on Win98 FE or 98 SE: U891711 can be installed over official MS05-002, it will properly overwrite the MS files, which are older builds [even v2].

I have also replaced "hotfix" with "update" in the text file.

U891711.EXE [110 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.EXE
U891711.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.TXT

Please try it out at your convenience.


your welcome, bristols. sorry for overreacting about the winamp 2.81 thing. if you dont use it much, you may want to un-install it completely, anyway windows media player can play MP3 files.

MDGx, you need to date the U891711.TXT file as 11/03/2005 instead of 10/04/2005 to reflect the change in the text file. it's good that you made the correction to the text file but you didnt make the changes I suggested with the U891711.INF file. top of the contents of the u891711.inf file still say "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch" and the un-install string still says "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)".
Make those changes to the U891711.INF file I mentioned in an earlier post.

if you need the changes I made to the u891711.inf file here they are again:

change ";Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch" section to ";Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Security Patch" and change "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to "Unofficial Windows 98/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)". and be sure to date it 11/03/2005 because that is when I modified the u891711.inf file.

I know when microsoft make revisions to original patches being released, they put a different or newer date to reflect the changes made from the original to the revised patches. MDGx might want to follow suit with U891711.

#37
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

MDGx, you need to date the U891711.TXT file as 11/03/2005 instead of 10/04/2005 to reflect the change in the text file. it's good that you made the correction to the text file but you didnt make the changes I suggested with the U891711.INF file. top of the contents of the u891711.inf file still say "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch" and the un-install string still says "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)".
Make those changes to the U891711.INF file I mentioned in an earlier post.

if you need the changes I made to the u891711.inf file here they are again:

change ";Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE Q891711 Patch" section to ";Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Security Patch" and change "Unofficial Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to "Unofficial Windows 98/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)". and be sure to date it 11/03/2005 because that is when I modified the u891711.inf file.

I know when microsoft make revisions to original patches being released, they put a different or newer date to reflect the changes made from the original to the revised patches. MDGx might want to follow suit with U891711.

Your wish is my command... ;)

U891711.EXE updated [110 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/U891711.EXE

Hope this helps.

#38
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,150 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04
thanks MDGx. I think the un-install string from the U891711.INF file needs one minor tweak.

change "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to
"Unofficial Windows98/98SE/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)" so that the word "only" is fully displayed in the Add/Remove programs control panel dialog box.

Gape might want to include U891711 instead of Microsoft KB891711 in his 98se service pack.

#39
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,150 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04

Gape might want to include U891711 instead of Microsoft KB891711 in his 98se service pack.


and U891711 should also be included in the upcoming 98 Gold service pack 2 as well.

#40
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I think the un-install string from the U891711.INF file needs one minor tweak.

change "Unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)" to
"Unofficial Windows98/98SE/ME Q891711 Patch (remove only)" so that the word "only" is fully displayed in the Add/Remove programs control panel dialog box.

I have changed the uninstall string from Control Panel > Add/Remove Programs to read:

Uninstall unofficial Windows 98/98 SE/ME Q891711 Patch

It fits into the window now.

Hope this helps.

#41
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
 

Edited by MDGx, 14 February 2006 - 01:41 AM.


#42
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05
I have actually stopped using it as I was sometimes getting terminal GDI crashes in image editing programs when resources were still abundant enough. I haven't switched back to the official one that I did not use before testing this one so I can't say if those problems were U891711 specific or if they arise as well with MS KB891711 v2.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#43
bristols

bristols

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Joined 24-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I have actually stopped using it as I was sometimes getting terminal GDI crashes in image editing programs when resources were still abundant enough. I haven't switched back to the official one that I did not use before testing this one so I can't say if those problems were U891711 specific or if they arise as well with MS KB891711 v2.


Hopefully the crashes had nothing to do with U891711 specifically. But still, it's a pity that your crashes were not experienced, or otherwise mentioned, until now.

Again, hopefully (and for all I know, in all likelihood) U891711 is fine (it's still good for me) - especially because now it's a part of Gape's Service Pack.

Edited by bristols, 30 November 2005 - 11:16 PM.


#44
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05
It's easy enough to disable it from running if one were to experience such problems which, I must say, were far from systematic but didn't arise again since I am not using it anymore. I could be trying instead to run KB891711 to see if it also sometimes happens but I don't like that hotfix so I won't personally be running neither of them, official or unnoficial.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#45
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I have also been experiencing random crashes with image/icon editing programs, with both official + unofficial 891711 patches.
So I figured out those errors were not related to any of those patches, but to the way they both affect the LoadImage function.

So now that U891711 [to my knowledge] turned out to be a better and less buggy patch, I have uninstalled them all for good.

Hope this helps.

#46
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
U891711 update:

Author's note:

KB891711.EXE and Q891711.DLL do not use any GDI functions or GDI objects.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any image/icon editing tools crashes are
caused directly by any of the unofficial or official versions. Nor would I
expect the changes in the 'LoadImage' function to be the direct cause. GDI.EXE
(all Win98 + WinME versions) has serious bugs that often lead to heap
corruption when GDI resources drop below 10%. However, this corruption may
manifest itself only much, much later when GDI resource levels are again
higher or even at more than 70%.


Edited by MDGx, 02 December 2005 - 10:51 PM.


#47
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05
All I can say is that I never experience a GDI crash with any of the many image editing programs I use except sometimes when I run this patch.

I use my computer enough to be able to assess that.

On my system (WinME) I get GDI crashes only when I try to go below 0% but this affects all standard applications of course. I have been testing stability in this respect by running scores of applications until reaching 1 or 2% of free resources left. The system remains rock stable. Closing most of the apps then frees most of the resources and the system never GDI crashed afterwards.

If I recall well, some GDI stability problems already begin to arise on Win98SE below 30%. Maybe what is written above by the U891711 author applies to Win98SE but certainly not to WinME which has apparently benefited from great improvement in this respect.

What I am interested in, with respect to resources, is whether the possibilty exist to increase the size of the available resources by hacking/patching certain system files and have, say, the double to start with, which would allow to run more applications at once without falling in the red.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10

#48
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,150 posts
  • Joined 24-November 04

All I can say is that I never experience a GDI crash with any of the many image editing programs I use except sometimes when I run this patch.

I use my computer enough to be able to assess that.

On my system (WinME) I get GDI crashes only when I try to go below 0% but this affects all standard applications of course. I have been testing stability in this respect by running scores of applications until reaching 1 or 2% of free resources left. The system remains rock stable. Closing most of the apps then frees most of the resources and the system never GDI crashed afterwards.

If I recall well, some GDI stability problems already begin to arise on Win98SE below 30%. Maybe what is written above by the U891711 author applies to Win98SE but certainly not to WinME which has apparently benefited from great improvement in this respect.

What I am interested in, with respect to resources, is whether the possibilty exist to increase the size of the available resources by hacking/patching certain system files and have, say, the double to start with, which would allow to run more applications at once without falling in the red.


I have a HP pavilion machine with pre-installed ME, I used to have those GDI problems several years ago. I just got rid of the apps that have caused those GDI crashes; some apps I have upgraded to reduce the chances of the GDI problems from happening. I no longer have those GDI problems anymore, regardless whether I had the U891711 patch or not. it's usually those 3rd party apps that arent written well and more likely to cause those GDI crashes.

#49
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
eidenk:

Here's U891711 author's answer to your comments:

I am afraid the brief answer to 'eidenk's' question is: virtually
impossible w/o a major revamp of GDI.EXE. More details below.

------------------------------------------

'eidenk' wrote:

All I can say is that I never experience a GDI crash with any of the many
image editing programs I use except sometimes when I run this patch.

I use my computer enough to be able to assess that.

On my system (WinME) I get GDI crashes only when I try to go below 0% but
this affects all standard applications of course. I have been testing
stability in this respect by running scores of applications until reaching
1 or 2% of free resources left. The system remains rock stable. Closing
most of the apps then frees most of the resources and the system never GDI
crashed afterwards.

If I recall well, some GDI stability problems already begin to arise on
Win98SE below 30%. Maybe what is written above by the U891711 author
applies to Win98SE but certainly not to WinME which has apparently
benefited from great improvement in this respect.

What I am interested in, with respect to resources, is whether the
possibilty exist to increase the size of the available resources by
hacking/patching certain system files and have, say, the double to start
with, which would allow to run more applications at once without falling
in the red.

--

The amount of GDI resources is largely determined by the GDI 16-bit data
segment. This 16-bit segment is limited to 64 KByte. Unfortunately, there
is no easy way to increase it as a 16-bit offset can only address 65536
bytes max. GDI.EXE 4.90.3000 has fewer bugs and is far more stable than,
for example, 4.10.2225, but it still is very buggy. Fatal GDI heap
corruption shows up mainly in three ways, (1) a GPF in GDI.EXE, (2) a GPF
in USER.EXE, and (3) a BSOD in KERNEL32.DLL (address depends on the
version of KERNEL32.DLL). Depending on the system configuration, (3) &
even (2) may happen more often than (1). Before fatal heap corruption
occurs, some GDI objects may not have been used and/or freed properly (in
particular, when resource levels drop below 10% - even with 4.90.3000!)
and the system may still appear 'rock solid', may never crash or may only
crash when the system is shut down.

Please post original crash error messages if you have them. I have not had
any real GDI.EXE crash in a long, long time and it did not change after I
installed KB891711.EXE 4.10.2222. What I suspect here is the following:
'LoadImage' is called thousands of times by most applications and the
system itself and so is the code in KB891711.EXE/Q891711.DLL. This may
trigger some bug in the 16-bit subsystem, a bug that is there all the
time, but is almost never triggered unless KB891711.EXE is running. For
example, KB891711.EXE allocates and releases additional GlobalMemory
through the 16-bit subsystem (KRNL386.EXE) whenever 'LoadImage' is called.


Hope this helps.

#50
eidenk

eidenk

    MSFN Addict

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Joined 28-March 05

Please post original crash error messages if you have them.

Unfortunately I did not make note of them but I will run the patch again and will post them if those occasional GDI crashes arise again.

If I understand you well, the GDI resources are exclusively 16bits. Have you got any knowledge of the 32bits part of the resources, which may not be GDI but USER and SYSTEM. I understand that the 32bits resources are of an arbitrary size far below their theoretical limit unlike 16bits ones and that it should be eventually possible to set a larger amount of memory for them quite easily for someone who's got the knowledge of those inner workings.
Asus A8V Deluxe - Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6Ghz - 1GB DDRAM 400 - Windows ME (IE 5.5 SP2 Shell) + KernelEx 4.0 and Revolutions Pack 10




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users