[MDGx]

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.ifra...WinPack300b.zip
WinPack home [English]:
http://snoopy81.ifra.../en/winpack.htm
D/l page:
http://snoopy81.ifra...81/download.htm
WinPack300b.zip must be downloaded from within that server [page above].
I guess Ifrance servers have anti-leech protection.

This post has been edited by MDGx: 27 November 2005 - 06:16 PM

[erpdude8]

Petr, on Nov 26 2005, 05:20 AM, said:

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.

Petr, on Nov 25 2005, 08:15 PM, said:

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.

the_guy, on Nov 25 2005, 03:05 PM, said:

@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?

[the_guy]

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

[erpdude8]

the_guy, on Dec 3 2005, 06:36 PM, said:

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.

[erpdude8]

eidenk, on Nov 24 2005, 11:33 PM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 05 December 2005 - 05:56 AM

[erpdude8]

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.

[Petr]

erpdude8, on Dec 5 2005, 01:01 PM, said:

"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

[eidenk]

Quote

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.

[MDGx]

Petr, on Dec 5 2005, 05:26 AM, said:

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.

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.

[Petr]

MDGx, on Dec 5 2005, 10:55 PM, said:

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

[eidenk]

Quote

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

During a fresh install of WinMe, all the setup files are copied by setup into windir/options/install. When installing a hotfix, updated files are also copied into this directory and into a sibling directory windir/options/cabs. AFAIK runing setup again should use the updated files copied in those directories instead of the original ones in the cabs.

[eidenk]

the_guy, on Dec 3 2005, 06:36 PM, said:

There are also some other things I will be changing:

-Updating Adaptec ASPI to 4.71a2

the_guy

Why would you do this ? Everyone says (me included) that 4.60 performs better.

[erpdude8]

Petr, on Dec 5 2005, 06:26 AM, said:

erpdude8, on Dec 5 2005, 01:01 PM, said:

"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

the word "millennium" is commonly misspelled the first time, Petr. I looked at most of the MS KB articles and MS does spell it with two n's instead of one. I think they made the corrections.

[eidenk]

MDGx, on Dec 5 2005, 03:55 PM, said:

WinME hotfixes contain CAT files which are digital signatures [MDSum or MD5Sum probably ??] of newly installed files

Not really important but the checksum algorithm used is SHA1 apparently.

[erpdude8]

eidenk, on Dec 6 2005, 06:49 AM, said:

the_guy, on Dec 3 2005, 06:36 PM, said:

There are also some other things I will be changing:

-Updating Adaptec ASPI to 4.71a2

the_guy

Why would you do this ? Everyone says (me included) that 4.60 performs better.

uh yeah, everyone except me. The Adaptec ASPI v4.71 drivers worked fine on my WinME system. I even installed them on my brother's XP laptop machine and they worked fine. and the v4.71 drivers are more
compatible with ME/XP/2k3 systems than the v4.60 drivers. go for it, the_guy.

other inclusions for the WinME pack I like to see:

-unofficial winme krnl386.exe 4.90.3001 patch [fixes a bug that microsoft forgot to patch]

-unofficial winme update.sys 4.90.3001 patch

-Metapad 3.51 [new release]

BTW - Win2000, XP & 2003 hotfixes also use .CAT files. some but not all Win98se hotfixes also contain .CAT files to digitally sign updated files.

[Petr]

BTW, does anybody know good worldwide list of used operating systems? Here it is for Czech Republic: http://www.toplist.cz/global.html and Windows 98 has about 10% but Windows Me below 0.1%, 100 times less. Is it similar in USA or in UK?

Petr

[eidenk]

Actually in the UK there is only one user of Windows ME and that's me. (Joke) Seriously it must as low or almost as low as in the Czech Republic I believe which bears the question whether a service pack is really worth the effort. Rhelic from the US posted a stat of hits on a website in the form of a graphic the other day. Windows ME did not even appear on it.

[the_guy]

I have decided not to update the adaptec aspi to 4.71a2. It will stay as 4.6. As for Metapad, I will probably include 3.51.

As for the unofficial updates, I will add them (as an option)

the_guy

[erpdude8]

good thing I had tested the ME service pack on two ME machines (one slow and one fast).

alpha 1 of the ME pack is a DUD! after I clicked on OK to install the Main hotfixes from the ME pack,
the pack crashed with a RUNDLL32 error message. and many of the updated files did NOT install.
what a bummer! It kept on crashing each time it tried to install the fixes, even when ME's SFP feature
was disabled completely [on BOTH computers].

I noticed the ME pack was created with version 5.0.2920.0000 of the Wextract. Try creating the ME pack
with version 6.0.2800.1106 of Wextract instead. The 98FE and 98SE packs were created from version
6.00.2800.1106 of Wextract.

[the_guy]

Ok, I will use that version for alpha2. I am using a 2000 computer to make the service pack.

Expect a new version this weekend.

the_guy