[jds]

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

Just my 2c worth ...

I think that instead of having a KEX option in the SP, there should just be the standard SP (say SP3.1) and a KEX update (say SP3.1KEX). This will minimize bloat and hopefully make the workload easier. The KEX update SP would provide all the newest DLL's that need KEX to run, and have the standard SP (of the same series, eg 3.1) as a prerequisite (to avoid duplication/bloat).

Joe.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Edit: Misinformation

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 30 June 2012 - 01:36 PM

[tomasz86]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 26 June 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

You were RIGHT
I have replaced it with the older version from Windows 2000 SP4.

What problems did you experience?

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 26 June 2012 - 09:58 PM

[PhaytalError]

SP 3.1 breaks the Start Menu with a fresh win98 SE install on actual hardware when installed via 98lite... the start button is there but when clicked it it just remains depressed with no actual menu.

That systems specs are: 700Mhz Slot-1 Pentium III "Coppermine", ASUS P3B-F Motherboard, 256MB RAM, Diamond Stealth 64 4MB VRAM PCI, SB16 SCSI + NEC XR385 [DB60XG clone], 13GB Hard Drive, 3.5" Floppy Drive, Internal 100MB ZIP Drive.

The real question is which component of the Service Pack breaks it? If I remember correctly I don't *think* SP 2.1a broke it, but it may have as well I don't remember not installed it in along time.

Thanks in advance for any and all help in this.


P.S. I know that SP 3.1 breaks completely with the 98micro setting; EXPLORER.EXE crashes upon Windows startup, I'll do some more testings and see what's going on with the no start menu when using 98lite [Sleek setting].

This post has been edited by PhaytalError: 27 June 2012 - 11:31 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

PhaytalError, on 27 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

SP 3.1 breaks the Start Menu with a fresh win98 SE install on actual hardware when installed via 98lite... the start button is there but when clicked it it just remains depressed with no actual menu.

That systems specs are: 700Mhz Slot-1 Pentium III "Coppermine", ASUS P3B-F Motherboard, 256MB RAM, Diamond Stealth 64 4MB VRAM PCI, SB16 SCSI + NEC XR385 [DB60XG clone], 13GB Hard Drive, 3.5" Floppy Drive, Internal 100MB ZIP Drive.

The real question is which component of the Service Pack breaks it? If I remember correctly I don't *think* SP 2.1a broke it, but it may have as well I don't remember not installed it in along time.

Thanks in advance for any and all help in this.


P.S. I know that SP 3.1 breaks completely with the 98micro setting; EXPLORER.EXE crashes upon Windows startup, I'll do some more testings and see what's going on with the no start menu when using 98lite [Sleek setting].

I don't use the sleek version of 98lite. So I would assume SP 3.x versions doesn't support this option.
I'll make note of this. Thanks for testing. I might be able to fix this. I'll give it a shot.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 30 June 2012 - 01:36 PM

[buyerninety]

Happy enough for you to take as long as you like to bring out next Ver
of 98 SE SP X.x BUT; when the new Ver goes on your download page,
if you could state the exact Size of it in bytes (not Mb, Mib, kb, etc.,) next
to it as an extra method of ID of what ver it is (e.g.when files Details
pane view is active), promise, I Won't Even look or care if you do/don't
place the actual Version number also further to the right...
[I'm talking about the bare .exe size, not any compression container size]

This post has been edited by buyerninety: 02 July 2012 - 10:40 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

buyerninety, on 02 July 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Happy enough for you to take as long as you like to bring out next Ver
of 98 SE SP X.x BUT; when the new Ver goes on your download page,
if you could state the exact Size of it in bytes (not Mb, Mib, kb, etc.,) next
to it as an extra method of ID of what ver it is (e.g.when files Details
pane view is active), promise, I Won't Even look or care if you do/don't
place the actual Version number also further to the right...
[I'm talking about the bare .exe size, not any compression container size]

You mean, how its in big red bold letters on the homepage and the size is 58 (MB)
Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.2
I'm not sure what you are asking. I think is everything is fine the way it is.
When a new update is release, then the headline becomes
Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.3
When you download updates from Microsoft, do you ask them for the exact size of their files?

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 July 2012 - 11:13 AM

[tomasz86]

Maybe he wants something like this?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

tomasz86, on 02 July 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Maybe he wants something like this?

This person isn't complaining about SP messing up his/her system, but complaining about me not adding the exact file
size. Some people have way toooo much time on their hands. I've tried my best to ignore it. You got to admit though, this
$h!+ is funny . I'm sorry, but it is. Please don't encourage my negative behavior

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

[Fredledingue]

Were we flooded with demands of exact file size in bytes for each new version, I could do a small PhP script to display it,... but I don't have too much time at the moment for the pleasure of one unique person.

Poeple will have to content with an aproximative "58 Mb" for all versions unless the size change dramaticaly.

(I'll rather be more absent because the summer is the hot job season for me so be aware)

This post has been edited by Fredledingue: 02 July 2012 - 02:31 PM

[Drugwash]

People can build simple scripts to check for specific text on web pages. Having the exact file size displayed on the page together with keeping at least the top structure of the page identical, would help people know when there is a new alpha/beta/release published, without the hassle of forum login/logout/search/etc. More so when lots of intermediary versions are being released within short periods of time, when one may not be able to keep count whether they downloaded a particular release or not; the exact size would help avoiding useless redownloads, thus alleviating server's load.
So the way I see it it may not be just a whim but an automation attempt.

On another note, I haven't been able to download current release, neither from main link (download doesn't start at all) nor from the mirror (download freezes somewhere after 8MB). In Firefox I see no notice, but in SlimBrowser it says my number of downloads has exceeded 6 in 24 hours. So using FlashGet to make sure the package comes integer (due to this bad modem connection - max 10kB/s download at the time of typing this - and large package size) practically kills any chance for me to get anything from the main site. Wonderful! Why do I even bother...

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

WHENEVER A NEW UPDATE IS AVAILABLE, THE TEXT ON MSFN IS UPDATED.
THE DATE IS UPDATED.
THE TEXT ON THE MAIN WEBSITE IS UPDATED.
THE TEXT IN MY SIGNATURE IS UPDATED.
THE VERSION NUMBER IS UPDATED.
WTF MORE DO YOU WANT?
AS FRED SAID ITS BEEN ABOUT 58 (MB) FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM. READ THE FUCI<!NG CHANGELOG!
YOU WANT ME TO ACCOMMODATE YOU MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE.
THEN PLEASE DON'T USE SP.
I'M NOT GOING TO LOSE ANY SLEEP SINCE YOU DON'T CARE.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 July 2012 - 04:16 PM

[Drugwash]

Oh, sorry... Sleep well!

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Drugwash, on 02 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

Oh, sorry... Sleep well!

It wasn't aimed @ you.

[buyerninety]

Taken only as an easy example:
_
All cited files are Called -- "U98SESP3.EXE" --, & display same Version.
The Download Webpage Approx Dates;
----------"4-1-12"-(4 Jan 2012)---------------"01-23-12"-(23 Jan 2012)---
_____ / Size Stated / File Size________/ Size Stated / File Size
w_o IE already installed;
______"40MB"----(42,661,888 bytes)____"42MB"----(44,140,032 bytes)
w_IE5.5 sp2 core;
______"45MB"----(47,762,944 bytes)____"46MB"----(49,044,992 bytes)
w_IE6 sp1 core;
______"46MB"----(48,352,768 bytes)____"47MB"----(49,663,488 bytes)
-
Possible conversation;-
{'Hey joe blow, what version of U98sesp3 did you see that behaviour on?'
}'Err..the 46MB one!!'
{'Yeah!? I'll test that.'
_
Less sleepy heads may recognize that it has been entirely possible for
two people, believing that they are tracking a problem with the same
baseline EXE applied, to in fact have been mistakenly using different EXE's.
Suggestion is to display thusly on new versions webpage;
_
e.g__________U98SESPn.n ___(61,008,896 bytes)
_
The (61,008,896 bytes) is that size of the file, as displayed in that files
W98 or WinME files Properties Dialog (note for WinME=not 'size on disk').
The brackets merely act as a helpful hint which 'size' on the dialog is
being refered to.
While in no way <i>unique</i>, the size plus the file dates will do most as
sufficient to be comfortable. ( I don't think anyone who has tracked file dates
back through Device Manager, through dialogues, through INFs, would want
to rely only on displayed file dates. Biting tongue on dat­ing conventions.)
In closing, also acts as signpost in case <i>something</i> adds itself into
the EXE; with the size plainly stated on the website, harder for black hats to
'play'. ...(Very close Tomasz86...even simpler. Drugwash more so. No attacks
intended or implied to anyone. Pass the marshmallows ...or a fire extinguisher.)

This post has been edited by buyerninety: 03 July 2012 - 02:40 AM

[jds]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 02 July 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

buyerninety, on 02 July 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Happy enough for you to take as long as you like to bring out next Ver
of 98 SE SP X.x BUT; when the new Ver goes on your download page,
if you could state the exact Size of it in bytes (not Mb, Mib, kb, etc.,) next
to it as an extra method of ID of what ver it is (e.g.when files Details
pane view is active), promise, I Won't Even look or care if you do/don't
place the actual Version number also further to the right...
[I'm talking about the bare .exe size, not any compression container size]

You mean, how its in big red bold letters on the homepage and the size is 58 (MB)
Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.2
I'm not sure what you are asking. I think is everything is fine the way it is.
When a new update is release, then the headline becomes
Unofficial Windows 98 Second Edition Service Pack 3.3
When you download updates from Microsoft, do you ask them for the exact size of their files?

I think what he wants is to identify what beta version is on his HD, hence the request for the exact file size. However, just to check if the version on his HD is up-to-date, he can simply compare its date on the HD (which corresponds to the download date) against the date given on the main SP page.

Related to this, the only quibble is that the date format on the SP page is in US format, which can be ambiguous whenever the day field is less than 13. You might consider using the Japanese format, since this has no ambiguity between the day and month fields.

Anyway, onto more important matters ...

I see you still bundle 'MLANG.DLL' version 6.0.2800.1599. Please avoid this or any other version beyond 6.00.2800.1106 (actually, that's the only 6.X version I know of that is designed to work properly on W98). They are all afflicted by the "Outlook 2000 may not display a complete HTML message" bug, which was first reported for version 6.0.2600.0 here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318256

Joe.

This post has been edited by jds: 03 July 2012 - 03:03 AM

[buyerninety]

Not so, jds,
"The Download Webpage Approx Dates;" refers to approximate dates upon
which the U98SESP webpage (at htasoft) had for download same named
and samed versioned ->but_different<- versions of U98SESP3.EXE.
Understand:
.The webpage as it existed on "4-1-12" had a 46MB 'same no. version'.
.The webpage as it existed on "01-23-12" also had a 46MB 'same no. version'.
These two 46MB versions were NOT the same file, and were NOT able to be
applied without, for instance, understanding that one '46MB' was only for
application to a IE5.5 system, while the other '46MB' file was only for
application to a IE6 system.
Therefore, the >Contention< that you can refer to or identify a U98SESP version
by simply referring to whatever 'nnMB' size it showed on (previous) htasoft
webpage(s) demonstrably did not hold true in the past.
To prevent such an occurance In The Future, a minimally better way to
identify the file(s) on future productions of that webpage was requested
(And for Additional Reasons put forward by myself and Drugwash).
PROBLEMCHYLD and Fredledingue deserve great kudos for continuing
excellent work on this software - its worth making the extra effort to improve,
especially where such improvement can head off users making simple
mistakes and incorrectly blaming the software.

This post has been edited by buyerninety: 03 July 2012 - 06:03 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

buyerninety, on 03 July 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

Taken only as an easy example:
_
All cited files are Called -- "U98SESP3.EXE" --, & display same Version.
The Download Webpage Approx Dates;
----------"4-1-12"-(4 Jan 2012)---------------"01-23-12"-(23 Jan 2012)---
_____ / Size Stated / File Size________/ Size Stated / File Size
w_o IE already installed;
______"40MB"----(42,661,888 bytes)____"42MB"----(44,140,032 bytes)
w_IE5.5 sp2 core;
______"45MB"----(47,762,944 bytes)____"46MB"----(49,044,992 bytes)
w_IE6 sp1 core;
______"46MB"----(48,352,768 bytes)____"47MB"----(49,663,488 bytes)
-
Possible conversation;-
{'Hey joe blow, what version of U98sesp3 did you see that behaviour on?'
}'Err..the 46MB one!!'
{'Yeah!? I'll test that.'

This was a while back when I had 3 versions of SP. I combined them all into one package and made it all optional.
If you right click the file, got to properties, you will see the updated version.
I have been doing this since the final release of 3.0.
Things are easier now that I'm not updating 3 packages.

jds, on 03 July 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

I see you still bundle 'MLANG.DLL' version 6.0.2800.1599. Please avoid this or any other version beyond 6.00.2800.1106 (actually, that's the only 6.X version I know of that is designed to work properly on W98). They are all afflicted by the "Outlook 2000 may not display a complete HTML message" bug, which was first reported for version 6.0.2600.0 here : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318256

Joe.

Because anyone who uses the core files shouldn't be using IE.
We had members in the past report problems with this issue.
You can't install Office with out IE. I though the bug only applied to Outlook 2002 is why I added it back.
I probably will remove IE6 core files because IE5 core files are more stable and solid.
It also will shave off approximately 4mb and some change.
If you don't plan on using IE as browser, then IE5 cores is the best solution IMO.
I will also be removing the Smart Card option because the exact same file is present on the Win98 CD.
Location is D:\Drivers\Scard

Drugwash, on 02 July 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

More so when lots of intermediary versions are being released within short periods of time

Lately I have been releasing an update once a month. If I am aware of an issue I will fix it asap.
Have you tried downloading lately?
The website was down due to moving to a new server.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 03 July 2012 - 09:45 AM

[Drugwash]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 03 July 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Lately I have been releasing an update once a month. If I am aware of an issue I will fix it asap. <br />Have you tried downloading lately?<br />The website was down due to moving to a new server.<br />

<br /><br />I've tried yesterday, precisely at the time of posting. Took me almost two hours to download through IE's simple download, since any other kind of download manager that'd accept resume would be banned for "too many connections" or whatever that PHP script may be filtering for. I've been using FlashGet for about ten years now, precisely for the resume feature, because anyone would go crazy when their large download would break at 98% due to bad connection. But that's not your problem, since you're not the website manager.

Anyway, what I said above is based on those two dozen or more testing releases for the previous version, when one never knew which is what. And funny thing is, I could download those versions just fine through FlashGet, at the time. Now, I won't even try it again - I got a limited download quota and can't afford download attempts that may fail at any time, without a resume option ("thank you", Microsoft!!!!!).

[billyb]

Just wanted to say that I'm still enjoying playing with the Service Packs on 6 of my old old pcs. So much fun. By the way, SP 3.2 took 12 seconds to download via one of my Win7 64bit IE9 systems on Fios.