[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I am testing these files atm.

ASYCFILT.DLL 2.40.4534.0 Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4532.0 Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1231 XPSP3 Hotfix
SETUPAPI.DLL 5.0.2183.1 Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

If someone can test these other files, we can speed the process up.

MSJET40.DLL 4.0.9514.0
T2EMBED.DLL 5.0.2195.7349
MSADCE.DLL 2.81.3010.0
MSADO15.DLL 2.81.1145.0
MSADOMD.DLL 2.81.1145.0
MSADOX.DLL 2.81.1145.0
MSJRO.DLL 2.81.1145.0
ODBCBCP.DLL 2000.85.3009.0
SQLOLEDB.DLL 2000.85.1128.0 2000.85.3006.0
SQLSRV32.DLL 2000.85.1128.0 2000.85.3009.0

[mcv93us]

I tested these files with no problem.
I also successfully tested these here:

DISPEX.DLL5.7.0.16599
VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.8.6001.23141
WSHCON.DLL 5.7.0.16599

Bye,
Mcv'93

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

mcv93us, on 13 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

I tested these files with no problem.
I also successfully tested these here:

VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.8.6001.23141

Bye,
Mcv'93

Thanks for testing.
VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.8.6001.23141 breaks VBscript files on my system. So I won't be adding it.
When you tested these files, did you test without KernelEX?. I know that it will allow newer files to work.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 13 June 2012 - 08:50 AM

[mcv93us]

Yes, I installed the kernelex... for what to me no problems?

Edit:
You're right, on the other PC without kernelex blocks scripts ... the other hand files are fine.

Bye,

Mcv'93

This post has been edited by mcv93us: 13 June 2012 - 10:37 AM

[Fredledingue]

problemchyld,

If you can upload files to the website, I could do my share of testing.

VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.8.6001.23141 Could be added to the list of updates working with KerneleX.

Without kernelex, we stumbled on uncompatible VBSCRIPT.DLL when MDGx did his pack 2 years ago.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

mcv93us, on 13 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Yes, I installed the kernelex... for what to me no problems?

Edit:
You're right, on the other PC without kernelex blocks scripts ... the other hand files are fine.

Bye,

Mcv'93

This is what I'll be adding to SP 3.2
I like to ask everyone that uses SP 3.x, please test files that doesn't require KernelEx.
Even if they work I will not add them.
I was going to create a option and add KernelEx files, due to lack of interest, its water under the bridge now.
About the Mdac files, it requires (some) testing connections to an SQL Server etc....
I don't use MDAC, so I'm not able to test the newer files.
I know the older files work because no one has reported any problems in the many years of use.

Fredledingue, on 13 June 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

problemchyld,

If you can upload files to the website, I could do my share of testing.

VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.8.6001.23141 Could be added to the list of updates working with KerneleX.

Without kernelex, we stumbled on uncompatible VBSCRIPT.DLL when MDGx did his pack 2 years ago.

Sure, I place it in the folder. You can delete it once you copy it.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 20 June 2012 - 08:16 PM

[Hu$tle]

The service pack is really stable. Can you reconsider the KernelEx option?

[submix8c]

Hu$tle, on 14 June 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

The service pack is really stable. Can you reconsider the KernelEx option?

KernelEx is a kind of "mod" inappropriate to an actual Service Pack ("Just the fixes, Ma'am"), hence listing items separately (and not including) that work with it. Are you speaking about using it (and associated Fix Files) as OPTIONAL?

[Hu$tle]

Yeah, just adding the windows files not the actual KernelEx app. Thanks

[rloew]

Hu$tle, on 14 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Yeah, just adding the windows files not the actual KernelEx app. Thanks

They would not only have to be OPTIONAL but they would have to be identified as "For KernelEx Systems only".
Of course, at that point, you might as well include KernelEx as another OPTION.

[bphlpt]

rloew, on 14 June 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

They would not only have to be OPTIONAL but they would have to be identified as "For KernelEx Systems only".
Of course, at that point, you might as well include KernelEx as another OPTION.

Seems to me that if you go down that road, and I would like to see that, that KernelEx and ALL the files that are "For KernelEx Systems only" should be ONE single option. That way the folks that want a more "pure" solution can have that, and the folks that want a more expanded solution could have that with a group of files that have been tested to all work together correctly with the basic 98 SE SP 3.x files. Any more fine tuning of which files to include and which to leave out puts too much of a burden and workload on PROBLEMCHYLD. A single all or nothing kind of option only. For anything else the user can choose not to select the option and then add in the individual files that they want.

Cheers and Regards

This post has been edited by bphlpt: 14 June 2012 - 05:19 PM

[rloew]

bphlpt, on 14 June 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

rloew, on 14 June 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

They would not only have to be OPTIONAL but they would have to be identified as "For KernelEx Systems only".
Of course, at that point, you might as well include KernelEx as another OPTION.

Seems to me that if you go down that road, and I would like to see that, that KernelEx and ALL the files that are "For KernelEx Systems only" should be ONE single option. That way the folks that want a more "pure" solution can have that, and the folks that want a more expanded solution could have that with a group of files that have been tested to all work together correctly with the basic 98 SE SP 3.x files. Any more fine tuning of which files to include and which to leave out puts too much of a burden and workload on PROBLEMCHYLD. A single all or nothing kind of option only. For anything else the user can choose not to select the option and then add in the individual files that they want.

Cheers and Regards

How many options is up to him, but including it in the basic package is not a good idea. I use a "pure" system in all but one of my Windows 98SE Instances. KernelEx alters the nature of Windows 98 in ways that can cause problems with Software not written to expect it, or cause developed Software to work that will then fail on non-KernelEx Systems.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 14 June 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

KernelEx alters the nature of Windows 98 in ways that can cause problems with Software not written to expect it, or cause developed Software to work that will then fail on non-KernelEx Systems.

I agree. Maybe if KernelEx comes more stable in the future, I'll consider it. ATM is not going to happen.
Its an great addon, but when I wanted to run certain programs KEX couldn't do it. So I have no use for it.

bphlpt, on 14 June 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Any more fine tuning of which files to include and which to leave out puts too much of a burden and workload on PROBLEMCHYLD.

This is not a (PROBLEM) for me. I love working on the SP. As long as the Lord give my breath, I will work on it until its finished.

[loblo]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 15 June 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

rloew, on 14 June 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

KernelEx alters the nature of Windows 98 in ways that can cause problems with Software not written to expect it, or cause developed Software to work that will then fail on non-KernelEx Systems.

I agree. Maybe if KernelEx comes more stable in the future, I'll consider it. ATM is not going to happen.

It seems to me, guys, your posts are extremely unfair with KernelEx and give a completely wrong impression of its compatibility with programs running on stock 98 systems and stability.

KernelEx is rock solid and there are currently no known pending issues with it and programs also running on stock systems.

[Dave-H]

loblo, on 16 June 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

It seems to me, guys, your posts are extremely unfair with KernelEx and give a completely wrong impression of its compatibility with programs running on stock 98 systems and stability.
KernelEx is rock solid and there are currently no known pending issues with it and programs also running on stock systems.

Quite agree. I've been using KernelEx for ages, and never had a moment's problem with it.
It enables me to run Opera and Java 6 and Flash 10.
Whether its files should be included in a future version of the service pack is debatable.
I would say not.
I certainly would have no problem with KernelEx being included as an optional extra install though.

[rloew]

loblo, on 16 June 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 15 June 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

rloew, on 14 June 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

KernelEx alters the nature of Windows 98 in ways that can cause problems with Software not written to expect it, or cause developed Software to work that will then fail on non-KernelEx Systems.

I agree. Maybe if KernelEx comes more stable in the future, I'll consider it. ATM is not going to happen.

It seems to me, guys, your posts are extremely unfair with KernelEx and give a completely wrong impression of its compatibility with programs running on stock 98 systems and stability.

KernelEx is rock solid and there are currently no known pending issues with it and programs also running on stock systems.

I personally did not comment on it's stability.

The Package has been stable because development has stopped. There are many things missing or only stubbed. The latest versions of SumatraPDF cannot print because KernelEX stubs PrintDlgEx. Some MSFN members worked out a workaround, and I have a DLLHOOK based fix in my KEXEX Package, but it belongs within KernelEx.

The fact that it is sometimes necessary to disable KernelEx for individual Programs is a sign of the issues I pointed out. If a Program is not listed in a compatability database, the user has to debug his setup by trying different combinations. This can be particularly diffcult if the Package has multiple Executables especially if they are not well documented. In addition, if KernelEx cannot completely hide it's existence when disabled, then a Program that runs on a Stock system will not function properly. My original DLLHOOK Program and Packages based on it such as my 64-Bit File Emulator were incompatable with KernelEx regardless of setting. I had to redesign DLLHOOK to work with and without KernelEx.

The second part of my comment relates to the subtle and often undocumented changes to Functions that can cause a Program developed on a KernelEx based Computer to not work on a Stock system, even if no new Functions are Called. I have been working on a Project, I call WDMEX, which is a superset of WDMSTUB. I am currently attempting to load the generic USB 3 Stack Drivers for Windows XP that appear to be in common use. I already found a case where a Driver calls a Function that exists in both Windows 98 and XP, but they are not the same even though the documentation is the same. The XP version zeroes out a returned buffer while Windows 98 does not. Clearly the Programmer who wrote the Driver assumed that the buffer was zeroed and of course it worked in XP, but it crashes in Windows 98.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Dave-H, on 16 June 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

loblo, on 16 June 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

It seems to me, guys, your posts are extremely unfair with KernelEx and give a completely wrong impression of its compatibility with programs running on stock 98 systems and stability.
KernelEx is rock solid and there are currently no known pending issues with it and programs also running on stock systems.

Quite agree. I've been using KernelEx for ages, and never had a moment's problem with it.
It enables me to run Opera and Java 6 and Flash 10.
Whether its files should be included in a future version of the service pack is debatable.
I would say not.
I certainly would have no problem with KernelEx being included as an optional extra install though.

I wasn't saying KernelEx wasn't good. What I was saying at the same time it allows certain apps to run
it also breaks some at the sametime. KEX is great for you, but it doesn't suit my needs. No offense intended.

[Dave-H]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 16 June 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

I wasn't saying KernelEx wasn't good. What I was saying at the same time it allows certain apps to run
it also breaks some at the same time. KEX is great for you, but it doesn't suit my needs. No offense intended.

None taken PROBLEMCHYLD.
I think KEx is a worthwhile tool if you want to keep some things working on 98, as long as you're aware of its limitations.
Whether it should be included in the pack is completely up to you.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4532.0 Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
Does not work. It breaks VB scripts and display an ActiveX error.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 24 June 2012 - 06:28 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

These files have been tested. If you guys know of any newer files please list them.
I will be releasing an update sometime this week hopefully.

ASYCFILT.DLL 2.40.4534.0 Windows 2000 SP4
COMCAT.DLL 5.0.2600.1 Office 2003
CSCRIPT.EXE 5.7.0.16535 Windows XP SP3
DISPEX.DLL 5.7.0.16599 Windows XP SP3
HTML32.CNV 2003.1100.8165.0 Office XP
IMAGEHLP.DLL 5.1.2430.1 Windows XP Pre-Release
MSCONV97.DLL 2003.1100.8202.0 Office XP
MSWRD632.WPC 2004.10.25.0 Windows XP SP1
MSWRD832.CNV 2003.1100.8313.0 Office XP
OLEAUT32.DLL 2.40.4522 Windows 2000 SP4
RICHED20.DLL 5.30.23.1231 Windows XP SP3
SETUPAPI.DLL 5.0.2183.1 Windows 2000 SP4
SYSMON.EXE 4.10.0.1999
T2EMBED.DLL 5.0.2195.7349 Windows 2000 SP4
USBDSC1.SYS 4.10.0.1998 Casio USB Driver
USBDSC2.VXD 4.0.0.950 Casio USB Driver
VBSCRIPT.DLL 5.7.0.5730 Windows XP SP2
WRITE32.WPC 2004.11.7.0 Windows 2000 SP4
WSCRIPT.EXE 5.7.0.16535 Windows XP SP3
WSHCON.DLL 5.7.0.16599 Windows XP SP3

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 26 June 2012 - 06:59 PM