Service Pack for Windows ME
Posted 14 February 2006 - 06:23 PM
Still, it would be interesting to read the differing opinions about this. I would say that having these processes enabled on the computers built back when Windows Me was released probably taxed the system. But on computers built in the last couple of years? It probably slows things down a bit, but at tolerable levels.
I remember heavy gamers complaining about some of this stuff coming on while they were playing their games and causing pauses, delays, freezes, etc. I can see where an "off" switch would be a good idea for the times when you'll be battling out on the internet with other gamers. Is just turning off System Restore in the system properties good enough, or does part of the System Health stuff suddenly turn on and slow up things anyway?
With all the memory and processor speeds we have today, perhaps just using the same memory optimizations the Gape uses in the Service Pack and setting a defined swap file min and max would help.
When using older software, I usually felt safer when installing them while using Windows Me because SFP was there to put the newer files back. I'm just not sure whether this works quite as well as the Windows XP version of it. I remember checking the folder and log once in awhile and noticing updates being replaced by older original Windows Me versions of things. So I never knew whether something like WMP, for example, was really updated. The version in the software could report the updated version, but the actual files were hijacked by SFP!
So, SFP would be a great thing if we could really trust it to judge properly what it should let get replaced. Heck, I'm not even sure if XP decides correctly all the time.
Posted 17 February 2006 - 07:42 PM
As he stated, he doesnt use SFP on his ME computer. guess that means he disabled it completely.
besides, when SFP loaded on my WinME computer, it locks up the system a few times while loading the desktop.
I had to reboot WinME just to make WinME and SFP load properly again. there are times when I want SFP disabled so that it wont hang ME when the desktop loads.
note to the_guy:
can you add the updated npdsplay.dll file [v126.96.36.1999] in the next beta of the ME service pack?
I've just found out that in one of the WinME setup CAB files, it contained an older version of
the npdsplay.dll file [v188.8.131.526]. Microsoft says in MS security bulletin MS06-006 that
Win98/ME systems are not affected. They are WRONG! If a Win98 user installed
the full version of WMP 6.4 or WMP 7.1 (which includes older versions of the npdsplay.dll file)
they ARE vulnerable to the security problem. And so are ME users.
fortunately, I've asked MDGx to make an unofficial npdsplay.dll patch that will install under
Win9x, ME and NT4 systems.
I have the newer U891711 fix that has version 4.10.2225 of the KB891711.exe file. The author
of the U891711 patch erroneously dated version 4.10.2225 of KB891711.exe file as 10/4/2005,
that's the same date as version 4.10.2224 of KB891711.exe file. I had to make a correction
to v4.10.2225 of the KB891711.exe file by changing the date to 2/11/2006 so that users can
easily tell the difference between different versions of the KB891711.exe file. I'll send this
new U891711 to you when I get the chance.
Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:06 PM
1 Quick question: Is npdsplay.dll protected in ME? I have a feeling it's not, but it might be.
I have the patches for 911565 ready, with a seperate ME one due to the SR/SFP disabling.
Posted 17 February 2006 - 08:53 PM
Protected files are listed in Filelist.xml I think.
Posted 20 February 2006 - 04:39 PM
Yes it is entirely removed. I have used Beta10 Oppcom for Windows ME.
SEE, Eck! eidenk doesnt have SFP on his ME computer.
Npdsplay.dll is NOT protected by ME's SFP feature. If it aint listed in the "sfpdb.sfp" file (this file is stored in the 'WINDOWS\SYSTEM\SFP' folder) then it is not protected and thus can be overwritten.
BTW - Filelist.xml is placed in the 'WINDOWS\SYSTEM\RESTORE' folder. ME hotfix Q297958 has latest filelist.xml file available. and no, the npdsplay.dll file is not listed in the filelist.xml file either.
See my topic about the "CacheWriteDelay" registry value:
I recommend adding the REG files delay2.reg, delay4.reg, delay8.reg and nodelay.reg file into the next beta release of the ME service pack. The Q273017 updates for 98se/ME install these 4 REG files into the 'WINDOWS\INF\QFE\273017' folder. Because installing the ME service pack creates the "CacheWriteDelay" registry value and sets it to 2000, this setting may not be suitable for all ME users. Some ME users will have to use the REG files to change the "CacheWriteDelay" value to 8000, 4000 or even 0 after installing the ME service pack.
This post has been edited by erpdude8: 20 February 2006 - 04:34 PM
Posted 24 February 2006 - 11:40 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 04:54 AM
Those who have MS Frontpage 2000 installed can install the FP2000 version of the Q282132 patch instead of the Windows ME version or they can install the KB892211 update. I've found a FP2k hotfix mentioning a newer version of the Fp4awec.dll file which has version 184.108.40.20610. I will request this Frontpage 2000 hotfix from MS that has the newer build of the fp4awec.dll file.
If ever the ME service pack reaches RC [release candidate], that should be posted at least TWO sites, maybe Softpedia and Majorgeeks.
you could try uploading the ME SP beta at Mytempdir.com and Freeware Files.com as RapidUpload cant allow resuming partially downloaded files.
This post has been edited by erpdude8: 27 February 2006 - 04:55 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 06:59 AM
I don't think so but I am not 100% sure. I haven't looked in the CD as I don't know where it is ATM but it is not in the install cabs that are on my disk.
It is a new file of the Active Accessibility component apparently so I guess it should be included in the service pack even if it's not originally in WinME as Active Accesssibility is part of WinME (Oleacc.dll being present in the install cabs for example).
This post has been edited by eidenk: 27 February 2006 - 07:06 AM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 11:56 AM
* Microsoft Windows 9x/NT4 SP6a/2000/ME Active Accessibility Redistributables (MSAA) 32-bit include DLLs (MSAATEXT.DLL, OLEACC.DLL + OLEACCRC.DLL), documents, tools + sample code (English):
- MSAA RDK v2.0 for Windows 98/NT4 SP6a/2000/ME [736 KB]:
- MSAA SDK v1.3 for Windows 95/OSR1/OSR2 [3.47 MB]:
Windows XP + 2003 include MSAA!
This can be found here:
Please note that MSAATEXT.DLL from WinME setup CD is older than MSAATEXT.DLL installed by MSAA RDK (above).
Hope this helps.
Posted 27 February 2006 - 03:37 PM
If you plan adding MSAA files to your WinME pack, please add the newer ones from the MSAA web based package [newer], not from the WinME setup CD [older].
Looking forward to trying your updated ME SP.
This post has been edited by MDGx: 27 February 2006 - 03:38 PM
Posted 27 February 2006 - 05:23 PM
For example, I have the old Topics Complete Classical Music cd set. If I install Mozart (a cd program with the history of Mozart with music and stuff) on Windows Me with State Mgr not loaded, Windows Me is destroyed. (Will not start Windows again, ever. Must format.) I've never been able to figure out what the Mozart installation changes that causes this. 98SE doesn't suffer from this. It suggests changes to AutoExec.bat, but it lets you not make those changes so the problem is not there.
But if I have the normal full StateMgr running, Windows Me is not adversly effected by anything Mozart installs so there is no problem.
I can see turning off System Restore and SFP for the service pack install, but then reinstating it following its use.
Just a suggestion, but I hope this option to reinstate the default behavior is included in some future version of a Windows Me service pack. When I use Windows Me, I usually have followed MDGx's advice to use CoolKill to turn off SFP and also make sure I disable System Restore when installing some of the unnofficial updates as it is the only way to get them installed. But I then restart System Restore and generally have it active when using the operating system.
can you respond to this?
This post has been edited by erpdude8: 27 February 2006 - 05:23 PM
Posted 28 February 2006 - 06:48 AM
I don't know too much what to respond as I have never installed that Mozart stuff he speaks about.
One thing is sure, if Eck wants to know what screws his system when installing Mozart without SFP he should monitor the install with InstallWatch, making sure to do a full system scan.
What may happen is that this Mozart stuff downgrades some system files (or worst even upgrades some to XP only ones) and hence if SFP is disabled, it might indeed create some big problems that not even a reinstall of the OS on top of itself may solve in the latter case.
But IMO you never need to format unless the FAT is screwed which I doubt is the case after installing a software.
As for improvements of ME over 98, certainly SFP comes handy for some people, but it is not the only improvement. Generic USB mass storage drivers and the enhanced search applet as well as the faster boot and enhanced stabilty in low resources conditions are for me the top ones. The rest I can do without easily.
Dunno if this answers your question, erpdude.
Posted 28 February 2006 - 01:36 PM
It must attempt to change something that 9x needs but 98SE and XP don't seem to be affected by it. The only time I had the problem was when installing it to Windows Me without statemgr loaded.
It's actually been a long time since I've installed the set (comes with other of the same types of classical music stuff). I used it more when I was going for my music degree and was heavily into learning and enjoying stuff about the history of music.
That one program was just an example of why the System Health stuff in Windows Me can be helpful. Whether the 9x resourse limitations make using it a memory hog is another story. I can certainly understand why folks would be upset when Windows Me will suddenly turn on one of these things while they are gaming and freeze their game or something!
Possibly it's a case where the idea is nice, but 9x has a problem smoothly implementing it. I just like the idea of my system files being protected, rather than the OS allowing any changes to dll's, etc whenever an installer wants to.
I haven't used an installation monitor since experimenting long, long ago with stuff like Norton CleanSweep and McAfee Uninstaller. I saw that these kinds of programs would sometimes interfere with installers and even other Windows programs if they were allowed to run in the background so I pretty quickly stopped using them.
Perhaps what you're talking about is less intrusive than those old programs were. Still, I usually install a boatload of programs on a system I'll be using for a long time. I might find it a nuisance to need to be comparing files every time I installed something.
That's why I find it useful to have something like SFP built in to the OS so it can keep an eye on things automatically. I used to speculate whether it might be possible to somehow bring it from Windows Me to Windows 98SE, until I noticed that so many people hated it so much they were disabling it on Windows Me!
Posted 03 March 2006 - 02:52 AM
I have discovered a way to install unofficial [packed with Iexpress using SED + INF scripts] WinME patches/fixes/updates directly, without the need for manually disabling System Restore [from Control Panel], or using CoolKill [or similar tool] to kill Stmgr.exe, or using MSCONFIG to disable Statemgr.exe, etc... etc...
All you need is run NIRCMD [freeware]:
to kill the running SR [System Restore] + SFP/WFP [System File Protection/Windows File Protection] processes/TSRs/services.
You also need [? = not sure if it makes any difference] to delete %windir%\WININIT.LOG before attempting to copy any system files to %windir%\SYSTEM or to %windir% .
But you must delete *all* backed up system files from C:\_RESTORE\TEMP , %windir%\SYSTEM\SFP\ARCHIVE and from %windir%\SYSBCKUP [if any].
This is my OLEUP.INF example with necessary nircmd lines [must have START.EXE (from WinME setup CD) + NIRCMD.EXE ( http://www.nirsoft.n...ils/nircmd.html ) in the same directory where the *.INF file(s) reside]:
; Unofficial Windows 95/98/NT4/ME OLE 2.40.4526 Update [Version] Signature=$CHICAGO$ AdvancedINF=2.0 [DefaultInstall] DelFiles=LX,BX,DX,SX CopyFiles=OS,OW UpdateInis=WX AddReg=OR RunPreSetupCommands=WL1 RunPostSetupCommands=WL2 SmartReboot=I [WL1] "START /W NIRCMD killprocess MSTASK.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess PCHSCHD.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess RSTRLFN.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess RSTRUI.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess STATEMGR.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess STMGR.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess VXDMON.VXD" [WL2] "START /W NIRCMD killprocess MSTASK.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess PCHSCHD.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess RSTRLFN.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess RSTRUI.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess STATEMGR.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess STMGR.EXE" "START /W NIRCMD killprocess VXDMON.VXD" [WX] %10%\WININIT.INI,Rename,,"%11%\OLEAUT32.DLL=%11%\OLEAUT32.001" %10%\WININIT.INI,Rename,,"NUL=%10%\WININIT.LOG" %10%\WININIT.INI,Rename,,"DIRNUL=%31%\_RESTORE\TEMP" [OS] ASYCFILT.DLL OLEAUT32.DLL OLEPRO32.DLL STDOLE2.TLB [OW] REGTLIB.EXE [BX] ASYCFILT.DLL OLEAUT32.DLL OLEPRO32.DLL STDOLE2.TLB [DX] ASYCFILT.DLL OLEAUT32.DLL OLEPRO32.DLL STDOLE2.TLB [SX] ASYCFILT.DLL OLEAUT32.DLL OLEPRO32.DLL STDOLE2.TLB [LX] WININIT.LOG [OR] HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnceEx\o2","OleAut32",,"%11%\REGSVR32.EXE /S %11%\OLEAUT32.DLL" HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnceEx\o2","OlePro32",,"%11%\REGSVR32.EXE /S %11%\OLEPRO32.DLL" HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnceEx\o2","StdOle2",,"%10%\REGTLIB.EXE /Q %11%\STDOLE2.TLB" [DestinationDirs] OS=11 OW=10 LX=10 WX=10 BX=10,SYSBCKUP DX=11,DLLCACHE SX=11,SFP\ARCHIVE [SourceDisksNames] 1=,,0
This is my SED file [I created OLEUP.EXE with Iexpress.exe 6.00.3790.1830 from Win2003]:
[Version] Class=IEXPRESS SEDVersion=3 [Options] PackagePurpose=InstallApp ShowInstallProgramWindow=0 HideExtractAnimation=0 UseLongFileName=0 InsideCompressed=0 CAB_FixedSize=0 CAB_ResvCodeSigning=0 RebootMode=IS InstallPrompt=%InstallPrompt% DisplayLicense=%DisplayLicense% FinishMessage=%FinishMessage% TargetName=%TargetName% FriendlyName=%FriendlyName% AppLaunched=%AppLaunched% PostInstallCmd=%PostInstallCmd% AdminQuietInstCmd=%AdminQuietInstCmd% UserQuietInstCmd=%UserQuietInstCmd% SourceFiles=SourceFiles TargetNTVersion=4.0.1000-4.0.1999 [Strings] InstallPrompt="Install Unofficial Windows 95/98/NT4/ME OLE 2.40.4526 Update?" DisplayLicense=C:\TEMP1\O1.TXT FinishMessage= TargetName=C:\TEMP1\OLEUP.EXE FriendlyName="Unofficial Windows 95/98/NT4/ME OLE 2.40.4526 Update" AppLaunched=OLEUP.INF PostInstallCmd=<None> AdminQuietInstCmd=OLEUP.INF UserQuietInstCmd=OLEUP.INF FILE0=ASYCFILT.DLL FILE1=OLEAUT32.DLL FILE2=OLEPRO32.DLL FILE3=REGTLIB.EXE FILE4=STDOLE2.TLB FILE5=OLEUP.INF FILE6=NIRCMD.EXE FILE7=START.EXE [SourceFiles] SourceFiles0=C:\TEMP1\ [SourceFiles0] %FILE0%= %FILE1%= %FILE2%= %FILE3%= %FILE4%= %FILE5%= %FILE6%= %FILE7%=
I use OLEUP.INF above to install this patch:
* Microsoft Windows 95/98/NT4/ME OLE Automation Libraries (DLLs) OLEAUT32.DLL, OLEPRO32.DLL + STDOLE2.TLB Update:
Unofficial OLE Update build 2.40.4526 for Windows 95/98/NT4/ME [468 KB, English]:
This way I have successfully installed OLEUP.EXE on a WinME computer with SR/SFP/WFP running [stmgr, statemgr, rstrui, rstrlfn + vxdmon.vxd].
Erpdude8 also tried OLEUP.EXE on his WinME computer, and it worked ok.
Hope this helps.
- ← Unofficial ClamWin patch for Win98SE
- Windows 9x Member Projects
- Linksys WMP54Gx ,WMP54GX4,WPC54GX in Windows 98se →