the_guy

Service Pack for Windows ME

550 posts in this topic

Riched32.dll

Version 5.0.1461.82 : Size = 212,992 bytes. Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control. Dependencies are Advapi32.dll, GDI32.dll, Kernel32.dll, Ole32.dll, Shell32.dll and User32.dll.

Version : 5.0.2008.1 : Size = 3,856 bytes. Wrapper Dll for Richedit. Dependencies are Riched20.dll and User32.dll.

Version 5.0.2134.1 : Size = 3,856 bytes. Wrapper Dll for Richedit. Dependencies are Riched20.dll and User32.dll.

Version 5.1.2600.0 (xpclient.010817-1148) : Size = 3,584 bytes. Wrapper Dll for Richedit. Dependencies are Riched20.dll and User32.dll.

There is also a version 5.2.3790.0 ((srv03_rtm.030324-2048) that I haven't got.

Is there a reason not to use the later versions ? It seems to me when looking at the sizes and dependencies that what Riched32 was doing could now be handled by Riched20 so that if there is a newer Riched20, there should also be a newer Riched32. Or am I wrong ?

Edited by eidenk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again the_guy,

It appears that the Win2000 color scheme is the same as the default WinME color scheme so there is no point including it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newest RICHED20.DLL that works with 9x/ME I'm aware of is 5.31.23.1224 from Win2003 SP1:

http://www.mdgx.com/ws3toy.htm#SP1

Available as unofficial RTF (RichEdit) fix for 95/98/ME:

http://www.mdgx.com/add.htm#RTF

File:

http://www.mdgx.com/files/RICHED9X.EXE

RICHED9X.EXE installs newest versions of:

OK, so the origin is

Form Windows Server 2003 SP1:

RICHED20.DLL 5.31.23.1224 Rich Text Edit Control, v3.1, Microsoft RichEdit Control, version 3.1

USP10.DLL 1.422.3790.1830 Uniscribe Unicode script processor

From Windows Me:

RICHED.DLL 4.0.834.839 Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control, Microsoft® Windows Operating System 4.0

RICHED32.DLL 5.0.1461.82 Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control, Microsoft Exchange 5.0 Service Pack 4

From Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 Service Pack 6:

RICHTX32.OCX 6.1.97.82

RICHTX32.OCX is not present in Windows 98 SE nor in Windows Me - do you know what programs use it?

Both Windows 98 Gold and Windows 98 SE contains binary identical file:

RICHED.DLL 4.0.834.839

so it is not needed for these OSes.

SESP 2.1 contains exactly the same version:

RICHED32.DLL 5.0.1461.82 Windows 95 Rich Text Edit Control, Microsoft Exchange 5.0 Service Pack 4

that comes from Q249973. But the file size differs:

RICHED32.DLL from WindowsMe: 212992 bytes, internal date 06/09/2000 02:35:49

RICHED32.DLL from Q249973: 203024 bytes, internal date 12/13/1999 21:04:55

Anyway, in WinME it already exist and for Win98 the Q249973 version should be OK.

So the result is that for Windows 98 Service Pack just the following files are necessary:

RICHED20.DLL 5.31.23.1224

USP10.DLL 1.422.3790.1830

RICHED32.DLL 5.0.1461.82

and for Windows Millennium Service Pack just:

RICHED20.DLL 5.31.23.1224

USP10.DLL 1.422.3790.1830

Right?

Petr

Is there a reason not to use the later versions ? It seems to me when looking at the sizes and dependencies that what Riched32 was doing could now be handled by Riched20 so that if there is a newer Riched20, there should also be a newer Riched32. Or am I wrong ?

Maybe the reason is that none of these files is available in any Service Pack or update. This file only can be bought with Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 or Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the reason is that none of these files is available in any Service Pack or update. This file only can be bought with Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 or Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

I haven't gotten those files from any of those OSes. They all came bundled with one software installer or another and got written in the system directory. I actually install quite a lot of software so I can't remember which ones.

Well I have just googled a bit and I come up with SpecsIntact for 98 / NT/ 2000 / XP SP 1, a free software from NASA. It does install Riched32.dll version 5.0.2134.1 along with Riched20.dll 5.30.23.1203 and Richtx.ocx 6.00.8804.

Considering this, there shouldn't be a legal problem with redistributing Riched32.dll 5.0.2134.1.

http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/software/software.htm

http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/software/S...systemreq32.htm

http://si.ksc.nasa.gov/specsintact/pdf/files.pdf

PS : I have downloaded the installer. It is a self-extracting Install Shield installer. Files can easily be extracted from data1.cab by using a nice freeware GUI tool : Winpack : http://snoopy81.ifrance.com/snoopy81/dl_en/WinPack300b.zip

Edited by eidenk
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the reason is that none of these files is available in any Service Pack or update. This file only can be bought with Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 or Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

I haven't gotten those files from any of those OSes. They all came bundled with one software installer or another and got written in the system directory. I actually install quite a lot of software so I can't remember which ones.

Maybe, but the versions of RICHED32.DLL you have mentioned are from the folowing OSes:

4.0.410.59 is part of Windows 95 Gold and OSR2

4.0.834.839 is part of Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE

4.0.835.1374 is part of Windows NT 4.0

4.0.993.4 is part of Visual Studio 6.0

5.0.1461.82 is part of Q249973

5.0.1461.82 is part of Windows Millennium

5.0.2008.1 is part of Windows 2000 Beta 3

5.0.2134.1 is part of Windows 2000

5.1.2600.0 (xpclient.010817-1148) is part of Windows XP

5.2.3790.0 (srv03_rtm.030324-2048) is part of Windows Server 2003

Only 5.0.1461.82 (part of Q249973) seems to be freely available.

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have waaay too much time... ;)

In order to test all these different builds on all 9x OSes takes some time, especially because I would need to reinstall Win95 retail, 95B OSR2, 98 FE, 98 SP1 + ME all over again. And I'm afraid I don't have that kind of free time at the moment. :(

Maybe sometime in the near future...

BTW:

This link is invalid outside Ifrance.com servers:

http://snoopy81.ifrance.com/snoopy81/dl_en/WinPack300b.zip

WinPack home [English]:

http://snoopy81.ifrance.com/snoopy81/en/winpack.htm

D/l page:

http://snoopy81.ifrance.com/snoopy81/download.htm

WinPack300b.zip must be downloaded from within that server [page above].

I guess Ifrance servers have anti-leech protection. :(

Edited by MDGx
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anybody tested OLE components from WS2003SP1?

asycfilt.dll 5.2.3790.1830

oleaut32.dll 5.2.3790.1830

olepro32.dll 5.2.3790.1830

stdole2.tlb 5.2.3790.1830

There seems to be no unresolved dependencies.

Just regsvr32.exe 5.2.3790.1830 has unresolved dependencies in kernel32.dll.

SESP contains also upgrade of crypto functions from KB835732 - NT4 version. Windows ME contains some files with higher numbers, so probably KB835732 for Windows 2000 should be used, but...

Windows ME files:

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2133.3

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.0.1557.1

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2133.2

MSASN1.DLL 4.4.0.3420

MSCAT32.DLL 5.131.2133.2

MSSIP32.DLL 5.131.2133.2

SCHANNEL.DLL 4.89.1962.2133/5.00.2133.2

SOFTPUB.DLL 5.131.2133.2

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2133.2

Q329115 for Windows ME

Crypt32.dll 5.131.2133.6

Cryptdlg.dll 5.0.1558.6072

Q329115 for Windows 98 SE

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.1878.12

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.6072

SCHANNEL.DLL 4.87.1964.1878/5.00.1878.13

SOFTPUB.DLL 5.131.1877.9

KB835732 for Windows NT used in SESP:

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.1880.14

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.0.1558.6072

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.1878.14

MSASN1.DLL 5.0.2195.6905

MSCAT32.DLL 5.131.1880.14

MSSIP32.DLL 5.131.1878.13

SCHANNEL.DLL 4.87.1964.1880/5.00.1880.14

SOFTPUB.DLL 5.131.1880.14

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.1880.14

How it is with Windows 2000:

Original CD-ROM without any SP:

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2173.1

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1557.1

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2181.1

MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2134.1

MSCAT32.DLL 5.131.2134.1

MSSIP32.DLL 5.131.2134.1

SCHANNEL.DLL 5.00.2170.1 - many unresolved dependencies

SOFTPUB.DLL 5.131.2134.1

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2143.1

Q265381 - SP1 for Windows 2000 and Q289907 - SP2 for Windows 2000

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2195.2833

SCHANNEL.DLL 5.00.2195.2922 - many unresolved dependencies

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2195.2779

Q321295 - SP3 for Windows 2000

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2195.4558 unresolved SystemFunction041 in ADVAPI32.DLL

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.4434

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2195.5432

MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2195.4067

SCHANNEL.DLL 5.00.2195.5284 - many unresolved dependencies

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2195.3775

KB813432 - SP4 for Windows 2000

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2195.6661 unresolved SystemFunction041 in ADVAPI32.DLL

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.6608

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2195.6628 unresolved GetComputerNameExW in KERNEL32.DLL and functions in NETAPI32.DLL

MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2195.6666

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2195.6624

KB835732 for Windows 2000

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2195.6824 unresolved SystemFunction041 in ADVAPI32.DLL

MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2195.6905

SCHANNEL.DLL 5.1.2195.6899/5.00.2195.6899 - many unresolved dependencies

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2195.6824

KB891861 - Update Rollup 1 for Windows 2000 SP4

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2195.6926 unresolved SystemFunction041 in ADVAPI32.DLL

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.6608

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2195.6824 unresolved GetComputerNameExW in KERNEL32.DLL and functions in NETAPI32.DLL

MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2195.6905

SCHANNEL.DLL 5.1.2195.6960 /5.00.2195.6960 - many unresolved dependencies

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2195.6824

So it looks like just only

CRYPT32.DLL 5.131.2195.2833 (from SP1)

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.6608 (from Rollup 1)

CRYPTUI.DLL 5.131.2195.5432 (from SP3)

MSASN1.DLL 5.00.2195.6905 (from Rollup 1)

WINTRUST.DLL 5.131.2195.6824 (from Rollup 1)

have fully resolved dependencies. But will they work?

And for completeness IE 6.0SP1

CRYPTDLG.DLL 5.00.1558.4434

SCHANNEL.DLL 4.87.1959.1877/5.00.1877.6

Petr

note that these "crypto" system files require IE 5.x/6.x as they BREAK earlier versions of IE (such as IE 4.x & earlier).

The OLE components from Win2003 SP1 should be for Win2003 systems only. They're incompatible with Win9x/ME systems and can break 9xME OSes.

Maybe also the following fixes for Windows 98 SE will work on ME:

Q258680

Deskw95.cpl 4.72.3717.300

Powercfg.cpl 5.00.3103.1000

Q245272

EnhTrig.dll 4.10.2224

Q240896

Opengl32.dll 4.1.1381.7035

What is the reason for not adding the OLE update 4522?

ASYCFILT.DLL 2.40.4522.0

OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4522.0

OLEPRO32.DLL 5.0.4522.0

STDOLE2.TLB 2.40.4522.0

I don't know how it is with version 4526 (KB886765), this version has big problems on Windows 98 SE (some IE plugns do not work) but maybe on WinME it could be OK?

NO PETR! OLE update 4526 (KB886765) is NOT OK under WinME. It broke the Help and Support Center program included in ME. Q240896 opengl32.dll NOT necessary under WinME. original opengl32.dll file in ME is fine and has copyright years from 1981-1997, while the copyright years from opengl32.dll file from Q240896 is from 1981-1996. WinME's opengl32.dll file does NOT have the problem in MS article Q240896.

as for Q258680, Deskw95.cpl ver. 4.72.3717.300 can be used under WinME. Powercfg.cpl ver. 5.00.3103.1000 is NOT compatible under WinME. Original powercfg.cpl file in ME is 4.90.3000.1.

Q245272 EnhTrig.dll ver. 4.10.2224 might be safe to use. WinME originally included v4.10.2223 of that file.

@Petr: I only have one of the files you said. I have the same version of cdfs.vxd. All of the others I do not have. If you have them, please email them to me. (pm me for it)

@all: I have the file. It is at YouSendIt.

Please test it as vividly as possible.

the_guy

Hi, the_guy, sorry to say this but the WinME pack is no longer available at the YouSendIt site [link or download has expired]. any other site you are aware of where I can download the ME service pack?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm considering the crypt files. I don't have all of the files, but that shouldn't be too hard.

I will add the deskw95.cpl and the enhtrig.dll files in the next version (coming in the next week). There are also some other things I will be changing:

-Removal of metapad.exe

-Updating Adaptec ASPI to 4.71a2

-Updating 891711 to U891711

-Removal of 2000 theme

-Addition of Unofficial updates-????

-Switching to the .bat file Petr suggested to Gape (to use for cab files)

Anyway, here is the first version reposted (yousendit ran out) mesp202-a1.exe.html

the_guy

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm considering the crypt files. I don't have all of the files, but that shouldn't be too hard.

nah, I think those crypt files from Win2000 SPs and W2k updates can break WinME & probably any third party apps used under WinME. just use the crypt files from WinME's Q329115 patch for stability for now.

since that link you gave is a Rapidshare site, I wont download it with my dialup connection. I'll hold off until a beta (rather than an alpha) is posted other than at the Rapidshare site.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give a link and I'll test that in a QEMU WinME virtual PC. Try to upload on Megaupload or Yousendit instead of RapidShare as it's less of a pain to download from those. Maybe it's a bit early for MajorGeeks and Softpedia, don't you think ?

I couldnt agree more with eidenk. post the WinME SP at a site other than just Rapidshare, the_guy.

alpha versions shouldnt be posted at Majorgeeks & Softpedia yet. beta versions of the winme SP, maybe.

see the "New 98 FE + 98 SE + ME patches available" topic for any new ME patches received by MDGx.

I think the WinME pack should first show a dialog box to clearly warn users to disable WinME's SFP feature first, otherwise the SFP feature will reject many of the updated files from the ME pack and the pack will be worthless. alpha 1 of the unofficial WinME service pack did NOT prompt users to disable the winme system file protection feature before running the WinME pack.

To disable SFP in ME, open the MSConfig tool and uncheck the *StateMgr entry and reboot. I would also disable the PCHealth [PchSchd.exe -s] entry for a little faster startup and less interruptions while using ME.

Edited by erpdude8
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also found a typo in the opening WinME service pack dialog box.

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

UNOFFICIAL WindowsME Service Pack 2.0.2

This update is only for *ENGLISH* version of Windows98 SECOND EDITION (4.90.3000). This update is NOT from Microsoft. It is a unofficial compilation of Microsoft's update files and more.

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

The next alpha or beta release of the winme SP should be corrected to say:

"This update is only for *ENGLISH* version of Windows Millennium Edition (4.90.3000). This update is NOT from Microsoft. It is a unofficial compilation of Microsoft's update files and more."

I first thought that I couldnt get the winme pack from the Rapidshare site but I did. I was lucky my dialup connection was a little faster and stable enough to get it, even though it took about an hour to fully download the pack.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"This update is only for *ENGLISH* version of Windows Millennium Edition (4.90.3000). This update is NOT from Microsoft. It is a unofficial compilation of Microsoft's update files and more."

BTW, Microsoft uses often also "Microsoft Windows Millenium Edition" spelling, with one "n" only, especially in the MS Knowledgebase it is confusing.

Petr

BTW, what is the magic in MS Windows Me hotfixes that they don't require to switch file protection off?

I'm not very familar with Windows Me.

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, what is the magic in MS Windows Me hotfixes that they don't require to switch file protection off?

For those whose files are in use and are replaced after reboot there shouldn't be any particular magic as SFP monitors only file access not size or checksum AFAIK. For the others I don't know as 1) I don't use SFP at all, 2) Inf syntax is way beyond me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, Microsoft uses often also "Microsoft Windows Millenium Edition" spelling, with one "n" only, especially in the MS Knowledgebase it is confusing.

BTW, what is the magic in MS Windows Me hotfixes that they don't require to switch file protection off?

I'm not very familar with Windows Me.

Petr

The single "n" spelling is wrong [as you well know], therefore MS developers need sometimes to check their spelling. :blink:

WinME hotfixes contain CAT files which are digital signatures [MDSum or MD5Sum probably ??] of newly installed files, and because of that System Restore always updates its database accordingly.

The INF file usually contain a postsetup command to run [generic example]:

%windir%\SYSTEM\SUCATREG /D:Qxxxxxx.CAT

after respective CAT file was copied to %windir%\INF\CATALOG folder.

I have never tried to find out how CAT files are created by MS.

Hope this helps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WinME hotfixes contain CAT files which are digital signatures [MDSum or MD5Sum probably ??] of newly installed files, and because of that System Restore always updates its database accordingly.

The INF file usually contain a postsetup command to run [generic example]:

%windir%\SYSTEM\SUCATREG /D:Qxxxxxx.CAT

after respective CAT file was copied to %windir%\INF\CATALOG folder.

I have never tried to find out how CAT files are created by MS.

Hope this helps.

I supposed something like that. In fact, I never seen any use of .CAT files in Windows 98 SE, is this different in Windows Me?

I just looked at some Q310695 fix and the sequence (in the form of .SED file lines) is:

AppLaunched=QFEREG.INF

PostInstallCmd=310695UP.INF

QFEREG.INF contains lines:

[DefaultInstall]
CopyFiles = Register.cat
RunPostSetupCommands = UnprotectMe

[SourceDisksNames]
1="CAT File Source","",1

[SourceDisksFiles]
WSE22366.cat = 1

[DestinationDirs]
Register.Cat = 17,CATALOG; Windir\inf\catalog directory

[Register.Cat]
WSE22366.cat

[UnprotectMe]
;The following command will register the CAT file. Add another entry
;just like it if there are more than one, specifying the next CAT.
"%11%\SUCATREG.EXE /D:WSE22366.CAT"

So at first tha .CAT file is copied to

So at first the catalog file is copied to Windir\inf\catalog directory and then it is registered.

And after this, 310695UP.INF copies file to three locations: (unneeded lines removd)

[DefaultInstall]
CopyFiles=WMeUpd.Copy.qfe,WMeUpd.Copy.Hlp,WMeUpd.Copy.Install,WMeUpd.Copy.Options,WMeUpd.Copy.VMM32
AddReg=WMeUpd.AddReg

[DestinationDirs]
WMeUpd.Copy.Options=10,options\cabs
WMeUpd.Copy.Install=10,options\install
WMeUpd.Copy.VMM32 = 22

[WMeUpd.Copy.VMM32]
UDF.VXD,,,32

[WMeUpd.Copy.Options]
UDF.VXD,,,32

[WMeUpd.Copy.Install]
UDF.VXD,,,32

So this is the official way.

But what is the meaning of "Options" and "Install" directories?

Can we do the same in the servicepack? For all official updates/hotfixes for sure, the procedure would be:

1. To copy all .CAT files from MS fixes

2. To register them by SUCATREG

3. To copy all files as it is done at present, maybe also into "Options" and "Install" directories.

The question - how it is with unofficial, patched files? They never have correct .CAT file. I suppose this file has to be signed by Microsoft to be valid.

If it is possible to switch SFP off, copy any updated files (with no .CAT files), reboot and switch SFP on, what are these .CAT files meaningful at all?

I also suppose that could be possible to switch off the SFP by the installator, or not?

I don't have Windows ME experience but I believe there should be a way how to handle everything by the Service Pack installator.

Petr

0

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.