[Gape]

swgreed, on Dec 12 2005, 09:59 PM, said:

Is there an alternative installation method?
maybe another number than ",4"

Use ",32"

[Petr]

swgreed, on Dec 12 2005, 07:59 PM, said:

maybe another number than ",4"

Here is complete list of numbers:
http://www.winpack.o...eb/copyfile.htm

You can combine them, e.g. 1024 + 4 = 1028, 1024 + 32 = 1056 etc.

Petr

Edit: new URL

This post has been edited by Petr: 12 December 2005 - 05:46 PM

[swgreed]

Gape, on Dec 12 2005, 08:10 PM, said:

Use ",32"

thanks a lot.
also for the "copyfile"-link@Petr

This post has been edited by swgreed: 12 December 2005 - 04:48 PM

[controltheweb]

Thank you so much for the terrific work. Win98SE was unable to download new updates until applying the Unofficial Win98 SE SP -- works fine again now. Sent you a donation. Awesome .. thank you!!!!!!!

[MDGx]

Maximus-Decim:
Many thanks for the VIP.386 4.10.2227 hotfix.

BTW...
Found it also here:

Microsoft Windows 98/98 SE HP Omnibook Portable Computer Docking Error VIP.386 (build 4.10.2002 for Win98/98 SP1 + build 4.10.2227 for Win98 SE) Fix:
http://www.martini-man.com/pub/HPOmnibook/...9388/README.TXT
Direct download [189 KB, English]:
http://www.martini-man.com/pub/HPOmnibook/.../269388USA8.EXE

[mamas6667]

REGARDING MY problem

I installed your sesp21a-en.exe
And my 2nd windows98 wouln't boot up
IO.SYS was corrupted etc..................

The file I downloaded from Rapidshare (i think) was corrupt evnthough it passed the MD5 and WINRAR test.
The SP2.CAB was corrupt the rest OK!

So I got a new copy from Majorgeeks. And this time everything went all right!! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did a complete reinstall of windows.

The only problem is that I lost my "shortcut arrows" on links after I installed 98SE2ME Option 2 (700 WinME system files ) after SP2.1a, and I want them Back!!

I know that if I install Option 3 [Windows Graphical User Interface (GUI),
Shell + Browser Integration Controls + APIs]
I will be able to see the arrows again.
But I don't want to because option 3, slows down my windows responsivenes, believe or not!

So how do I get the "shortcut arrows" back!!!


PLs help me.


Thks to the whole team for their efforts in keeping windows 98SE alive, and running faster than any other OS!!

[eidenk]

@mamas6667

Quote

So how do I get the "shortcut arrows" back!!!

Install TweakUI if you haven't do so and then go in Control Panel/TweakUI/Explorer/Shortcut Overlay. Tick the appropriate radio button. Click OK. Log-off or reboot. Arrows should be back.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 14 December 2005 - 06:28 PM

[mamas6667]

Sorry Tweak UI 1.33 was not able to solve my problem!

I think there has to be another solution, and i'm sure this is happened before to some of you!

It happens to me every single time I install the 98se2ME option 2.

[bristols]

mamas6667, on Dec 15 2005, 04:21 PM, said:

It happens to me every single time I install the 98se2ME option 2.

For this reason, you should post your question in the 98SE2ME thread.

[MDGx]

mamas6667, on Dec 14 2005, 04:17 PM, said:

The only problem is that I lost my "shortcut arrows" on links after I installed 98SE2ME Option 2 (700 WinME system files ) after SP2.1a, and I want them Back!!

I know that if I install Option 3 [Windows Graphical User Interface (GUI),
Shell + Browser Integration Controls + APIs]
I will be able to see the arrows again.
But I don't want to because option 3, slows down my windows responsivenes, believe or not!

So how do I get the "shortcut arrows" back!!!


PLs help me.


Thks to the whole team for their efforts in keeping windows 98SE alive, and running faster than any other OS!!

Hi,

Thanks for using 98SE2ME.
Hope you like it.

This issue is detailed in 98SE2ME READ1ST.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT
under the "98SE2ME.PIF COMPLETE GUIDE" chapter. Quoted fragment:

Quote

- patched Registry entry: properly remove Desktop Icons Overlay [superimposed
small arrows]when using TweakUI [Explorer tab -> Shortcut overlay -> None or
Custom] or similar tweaking tools:
http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#SYS
after installing Win98 SE SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.600 Security Vulnerability
Fix:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms02-014.mspx
Direct download [834 KB]:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-US/q313829.exe

-----Begin cut & paste here-----
REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]
@=""

------End cut & paste here------

How to restore original Registry value [this will display Desktop Icons
Overlay for ALL shortcuts]: copy + paste text between cut & paste lines
below into Notepad or similar plain text editor/viewer and save it as
OVERLAY.REG (example):

-----Begin cut & paste here-----
REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\SHELL32.DLL"

------End cut & paste here------

Then run OVERLAY.REG.
Modify C:\\WINDOWS above to match your actual Windows folder name and/or
drive/partition letter if different on your computer(s).
Restore NOT necessary because original Registry value BUGgy.
More info [see 3rd FIX]:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#PSBF

I have added this REG tweak to 98SE2ME because most of the people I know do not want to see those arrows on their desktops.

BTW:
Please post all your comments/bugs/problems/etc related to 98SE2ME in the 98SE2ME forum:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46349

Hope this helps.

This post has been edited by MDGx: 15 December 2005 - 11:23 AM

[PsycoUnc]

...hmm, strange, I've never lost the shortcut arrows, even with repeated installs of (updated) 98se2me's, or fresh os installs...
-but I also use X-SETUP to make sure those arrows are there... (free version)...
>;]

[bristols]

I wonder if there is any reason why SP2.1a contains DHTMLED.OCX build 6.01.9231, instead of DHTMLED.OCX build 6.01.9232?

When MDGx suggested this file he referenced the later build from Win 2000 SP4 Update Rollup 1. As I understand it, SP4 UR1 was revised because of specific problems that many people were experiencing with it. So, in full, the update is now called SP4 UR1 v.2 (I think). Could it be that the DHTMLED.OCX build in SP2.1a is from the original SP4 UR1, and that v.2 contains the later build?

Anyway, thanks to anyone who offers an explanation of the different build numbers.

Also, does anyone know the source of Vredir.vxd build 4.10.2231 in SP2.1a? The latest build of this file I am able to find is 4.10.2230, in Q293793.

Again, thanks.

This post has been edited by bristols: 15 December 2005 - 08:51 PM

[Petr]

bristols, on Dec 16 2005, 03:41 AM, said:

I wonder if there is any reason why SP2.1a contains DHTMLED.OCX build 6.01.9231, instead of DHTMLED.OCX build 6.01.9232?

I suppose it is because both these files come from MS05-013: Vulnerability in the DHTML editing component ActiveX control could allow code execution and there must be some (unknown to us) reason why Microsoft have different file in Windows 98 SE version and Windows 2000 version of this fix.

Quote

When MDGx suggested this file he referenced the later build from Win 2000 SP4 Update Rollup 1. As I understand it, SP4 UR1 was revised because of specific problems that many people were experiencing with it. So, in full, the update is now called SP4 UR1 v.2 (I think). Could it be that the DHTMLED.OCX build in SP2.1a is from the original SP4 UR1, and that v.2 contains the later build?

No, SE SP 2.1a contains Windows 98 version of this file.

Quote

Anyway, thanks to anyone who offers an explanation of the different build numbers.

Also, does anyone know the source of Vredir.vxd build 4.10.2231 in SP2.1a? The latest build of this file I am able to find is 4.10.2230, in Q293793.

It comes from Directory Services Client Update for Windows 98. The simplest thing is to google for vredir.vxd 4.10.0.2231 - the first result is this knowedgebase article.

Petr

This post has been edited by Petr: 16 December 2005 - 12:55 AM

[shaddam]

bugreport 2.1a German:

dsound.dll seems older than from directx 9c... after install of servicepack the dsound.dll from directx9 was overwritten and diablo2 crashed on start, also DXDIAG reports an version error with dsound.dll ... after reinstall of direct x 9c, it works again.

dsound.dll in servicepack comes from dx7?
please change install behaviour of this dll.

[mamas6667]

THKS Mr. MDGx it worked perfect! :-) :-) :-)

I aplied OVERLAY.REG, then I hit F5, and magic all shortcuts back!

Quote

How to restore original Registry value [this will display Desktop Icons
Overlay for ALL shortcuts]: copy + paste text between cut & paste lines
below into Notepad or similar plain text editor/viewer and save it as
OVERLAY.REG (example):

-----Begin cut & paste here-----
REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\SHELL32.DLL"

------End cut & paste here------

Then run OVERLAY.REG.

THKS to all for your time and quick response!

THKS Mr. MDGx it worked perfect! :-) :-) :-)

I aplied OVERLAY.REG, then I hit F5, and magic all shortcuts back!

Quote

How to restore original Registry value [this will display Desktop Icons
Overlay for ALL shortcuts]: copy + paste text between cut & paste lines
below into Notepad or similar plain text editor/viewer and save it as
OVERLAY.REG (example):

-----Begin cut & paste here-----
REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\SHELL32.DLL"

------End cut & paste here------

Then run OVERLAY.REG.

THKS to all for your time and quick response!

[erpdude8]

swgreed, on Dec 12 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

dsound.dll (again)

installing the SP2.1a after DirectX9c (as recommended) with the following line

DSOUND.DLL,,DSOUND.TMP,4

in the update.inf, makes the SP overwrite the new dsound.dll (4.09) from DirectX9c with the old one (4.07) from the SP
DxDiag also recognizes the deprecated file and recommends the reinstallation of DirectX9c

Is there an alternative installation method?
maybe another number than ",4"

another good reason why the dsound.dll file (4.07) should either not be included in the 98se SP or the
pack should not install that file if DX8 or DX9 is installed under Win98se.

I sure like to see vip.386 version 4.10.2227 included in the next release of SE SP.

and I would like to see the pack display a dialog box asking whether or not to un-install the 98se SP.
Double-clicking on SE SP in Add/Remove programs uninstalls the pack immediately, without prompting
the user whether to uninstall the pack or not. that's kinda dangerous since one time I accidently clicked on the uninstall SE SP entry in Add/Remove programs on a Win98se machine. ouch!

[Gape]

erpdude8, on Dec 16 2005, 04:41 PM, said:

and I would like to see the pack display a dialog box asking whether or not to un-install the 98se SP.
Double-clicking on SE SP in Add/Remove programs uninstalls the pack immediately, without prompting
the user whether to uninstall the pack or not. that's kinda dangerous since one time I accidently clicked on the uninstall SE SP entry in Add/Remove programs on a Win98se machine. ouch!

2.1a does that.

This post has been edited by Gape: 16 December 2005 - 08:26 AM

[Petr]

erpdude8, on Dec 16 2005, 02:41 PM, said:

swgreed, on Dec 12 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

dsound.dll (again)

installing the SP2.1a after DirectX9c (as recommended) with the following line

DSOUND.DLL,,DSOUND.TMP,4

in the update.inf, makes the SP overwrite the new dsound.dll (4.09) from DirectX9c with the old one (4.07) from the SP
DxDiag also recognizes the deprecated file and recommends the reinstallation of DirectX9c

Is there an alternative installation method?
maybe another number than ",4"

another good reason why the dsound.dll file (4.07) should either not be included in the 98se SP or the
pack should not install that file if DX8 or DX9 is installed under Win98se.

In English version of SESP it is correct.

Quote

and I would like to see the pack display a dialog box asking whether or not to un-install the 98se SP.
Double-clicking on SE SP in Add/Remove programs uninstalls the pack immediately, without prompting
the user whether to uninstall the pack or not. that's kinda dangerous since one time I accidently clicked on the uninstall SE SP entry in Add/Remove programs on a Win98se machine. ouch!

No, in the current version the dialog should appear. Have you used the last version?

Petr

[bristols]

Petr, on Dec 16 2005, 06:52 AM, said:

I suppose it is because both these files come from MS05-013: Vulnerability in the DHTML editing component ActiveX control could allow code execution and there must be some (unknown to us) reason why Microsoft have different file in Windows 98 SE version and Windows 2000 version of this fix.

Ah, I didn't know this. So, I guess it remains to be determined whether the DHTMLED.OCX from the 2000 fix (build 6.01.9232) is in any way superior to the 98 SE version (assuming, of course that they both have the same functionality on 98 SE systems and that it's ok to install 6.01.9232 on them), because if it had been judged superior, it would be in the SP2.1a... Is that right? The policy of including files from other OS is sometimes followed by SP2.1a, is it not?

Anyway, not to worry, just curious.

Quote

It comes from Directory Services Client Update for Windows 98. The simplest thing is to google for vredir.vxd 4.10.0.2231 - the first result is this knowedgebase article.

Thank you. The simple answers are sometimes the best.

This post has been edited by bristols: 16 December 2005 - 09:52 AM

[Big Monstro]

Hello,
this SP is naturally a good new but, before I'll tested, I've some questions:


1) I noticed some of updates integrated in this pack concern Microsoft Office.
I believed SPs contain only fixes for the operating system.
Why integrate these fixes and not integrate fixes for Media Player by example?
What happened on computers, which haven't Office? I asked that because it's possible installing this pack at first. Do the files modified concern also WordPad?


2) Another fix, Q885836, is integrated in this pack. Is programming security fix for Win98 it possible?
Because, at this address: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms04-041.mspx ,
it's clearly indicated:

" Microsoft" said:

No. None of these vulnerabilities are critical in severity on Windows 98, on Windows 98 Second Edition, or on Windows Millennium Edition.

" Microsoft" said:

Non-critical security issues are not offered during this support period.

3) Is the problem about Windows 2000 icons (which I've already mentioned) resolved?

Thank you in advance for your replies.