[dencorso]

TY2, on 09 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

Norton Security automatically deletes the file after download - This is what Norton Security states when I download the file.

This file risk is medium.
Threat type: Insight Network Threat. There are many indications that this file is untrustworthy and therefore not safe.

False positive, of course!
These reputation-based detections will flag almost anything not hugely popular.
You'll probably get such detections from almost any unofficial update.

[Fredledingue]

An exe file which purpose is to deeply modify your operating system qualifies for "medium risk" indeed.
Thought Norton shouldn't delete it.

Disable Norton the time you do the update.

________________

[submix8c]

Don't know which one you downloaded OR what version of Norton you're using, but I just downloaded (using FlashGet, as the "direct download" was incomplete) the first package, "un-zipped" it and ran a scan (SAV v10) and it found nothing.

You'll have to create a separate folder, tell Norton to EXCLUDE the folder, turn Norton OFF, download the file to that folder, then re-enable Norton. Also Disable Norton when installing.

Definitely a false-positive from your version of Norton. WWW-search on that reveals a LOT of false-positives.

[pjmelect]

Who in their right mind uses Norton?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Updated

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 13 December 2011 - 03:11 PM

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 12 December 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

U98SESP3 12-12-2011

Added registry entry to core packs to make programs think Internet Explorer is installed
Added USP10.DLL 1.626.6002.22402 from Office 2007
Changed some command line switches for IE core packs
Added IO.SYS rloew full Partition Patch + Partition Offset Bug
Moved SCRIPT56.CHM from SPUPDATE.INF to SCR579X.INF, from SP3.CAB to SUPP.CAB. Installs with Windows Scripting Host 5.7

Please rephrase entry as:

Added IO.SYS rloew Full Patch for Partition Offset Bugs

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 12 December 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Please rephrase entry as:

Added IO.SYS rloew Full Patch for Partition Offset Bugs

I'll fix it.

What do you guys think about all modded and patched files having the time and date backdated to
July 11, 2006, 12:00:00 AM since this was the day support ended for Win98SE. All modded and patched files comes from here or MDGx site. We will all be using the same version just different time stamps. Then we all would know the exact origins of those files.
Just a thought

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Updated

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 03 January 2012 - 11:28 AM

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 13 December 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

rloew, on 12 December 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Please rephrase entry as:

Added IO.SYS rloew Full Patch for Partition Offset Bugs

I'll fix it.

What do you guys think about all modded and patched files having the time and date backdated to
July 11, 2006, 12:00:00 AM since this was the day support ended for Win98SE. All modded and patched files comes from here or MDGx site. We will all be using the same version just different time stamps. Then we all would know the exact origins of those files.
Just a thought

Probably OK for the official versions, but doubtful for non-MS modified files. There are multiple versions of some files after that date such as my IO.SYS Patches.
The final release date for your Package would probably be a better choice.

[prowler]

Awesome work PROBLEMCHYLD ! Thank you! Keep it up!

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

prowler, on 15 December 2011 - 01:45 PM, said:

Awesome work PROBLEMCHYLD ! Thank you! Keep it up!

Thanks, I'm hoping maybe someone can improve the patch listed below by

Nexus_06, on 07 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

on another note here is a patch for transparency of icon labels.

It is ONLY for shell32.dll version 4.72.3812.717

offsets and bytes are in hex

offset patch

11cbf 33 c9 49 89 4d 08 90
11d2b 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

This patch will NOT work with any other shell32.dll version, so don't even try it.

It is not perfect, if you drag a window over top of them it makes a bit ugly, but refreshing the desktop fixes it. If anyone can improve on it, feel free.

[RFMaster]

Maybe this is easier solution for transparency of icon labels.

Source:
_{www.computerhope.com/download/win95/transparent42.zip}

Attached File(s)

•  Transparent icon lbl.exe (126.19K)
  Number of downloads: 13

This post has been edited by RFMaster: 19 December 2011 - 02:25 PM

[CharlesF]

RFMaster, on 19 December 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

Maybe this is easier solution for transparency of icon labels.
Source: www.computerhope.com/download/win95/transparent42.zip

RPConfig does it already (with even drop shadows!),
but if you want an exe, I can upload what I was using: it's only 25 KB and allows you to choose the font color.

Charles.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

RFMaster, on 19 December 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

Maybe this is easier solution for transparency of icon labels.

CharlesF, on 20 December 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

RPConfig does it already (with even drop shadows!),
but if you want an exe, I can upload what I was using: it's only 25 KB and allows you to choose the font color.

Charles.

Thank you both for the input, but I'm going to patch the Shell32.dll because it easier.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 20 December 2011 - 09:44 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 13 December 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Probably OK for the official versions, but doubtful for non-MS modified files. There are multiple versions of some files after that date such as my IO.SYS Patches.
The final release date for your Package would probably be a better choice.

More reason to backdate them.
Example: If you just patched IO.SYS a year ago and I backdate all unofficial files,
the service pack will not override your files
because they would be considered new. Your recent files will stay untouched. Its only about 25 files I need to do this to.
Another reason is everybody using different versions of Explorer.exe + other files. Me backdating modded/unoffical files is considered somewhat a safety precaution. Most unofficial files came out after support ended.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 23 December 2011 - 02:00 PM

[dencorso]

Doesn't the service pack decide what to overwrite based on version only, like all MS official updates and packs?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

dencorso, on 23 December 2011 - 03:25 PM, said:

Doesn't the service pack decide what to overwrite based on version only, like all MS official updates and packs?

It depends on the flags that are used.
That's why a lot of files inside the SP doesn't install because of their flags.
If some files don't exist on your system SP will NOT install the updated files.
It varies from file to file and the importance of that file.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 23 December 2011 - 03:52 PM

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 23 December 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

rloew, on 13 December 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Probably OK for the official versions, but doubtful for non-MS modified files. There are multiple versions of some files after that date such as my IO.SYS Patches.
The final release date for your Package would probably be a better choice.

More reason to backdate them.
Example: If you just patched IO.SYS a year ago and I backdate all unofficial files,
the service pack will not override your files
because they would be considered new. Your recent files will stay untouched. Its only about 25 files I need to do this to.
Another reason is everybody using different versions of Explorer.exe + other files. Me backdating modded/unoffical files is considered somewhat a safety precaution. Most unofficial files came out after support ended.

The problem is that earlier non-MS mods would also be considered new.
If you set my latest IO.SYS to 2006, it would not replace my earlier IO.SYS from 2010.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 23 December 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

The problem is that earlier non-MS mods would also be considered new.
If you set my latest IO.SYS to 2006, it would not replace my earlier IO.SYS from 2010.

You make a good point. The date I gave to backdate was just an example. I don't have to use that specific date.
But people have been having problems with the SP, maybe because of files conflicting with each other. I think we should all be on the same page. LoneCrusader made a great point. There should be the original version and only one modded version. IMO your patches for files has yet to let me down. So there is always room in the SP for your files.
Semi off-topic
If erpdude8 patched Explorer.exe and didn't disclose the specifics of what he patched
he must have had good reason and for MDGx to allow it on his site. Everything does not need to be advertised or broadcast. If people feel insecure about using modded files then they shouldn't use any modded files.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 23 December 2011 - 07:06 PM

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 23 December 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

rloew, on 23 December 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

The problem is that earlier non-MS mods would also be considered new.
If you set my latest IO.SYS to 2006, it would not replace my earlier IO.SYS from 2010.

You make a good point. The date I gave to backdate was just an example. I don't have to use that specific date.

The actual date doesn't matter. The issue remains.
Another complication is that I often release updates as Patchers rather than the files themselves, for Copyright reasons, so the date on the file is the date the Patch was applied.
This would not be an issue for prepatched files in your SP but might affect the SP's installation.

Quote

But people have been having problems with the SP, maybe because of files conflicting with each other. I think we should all be on the same page. LoneCrusader made a great point. There should be the original version and only one modded version. IMO your patches for files has yet to let me down. So there is always room in the SP for your files.

Conflicting Mods are always going to be a problem. People may want different combinations of Mods. A single "Core" Version having only Mods, that everyone can agree should be present , would be the basis for a SP file. Anything else would be optional addons.

This post has been edited by rloew: 23 December 2011 - 09:14 PM