[loblo]

I personally have no use for this pack so please feel free to ignore my opinion that it is not a good idea to 1) remove ASPI, and 2) include a stub for installing IE6 off Microsoft's servers.

This post has been edited by loblo: 12 November 2011 - 08:34 AM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

loblo, on 12 November 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:

I personally have no use for this pack so please feel free to ignore my opinion that it is not a good idea to 1) remove ASPI, and 2) include a stub for installing IE6 off Microsoft's servers.

First of all who added a stub?
Second Adaptec is a 3rd party app. I removed this long time ago. You can always download it here http://www.adaptec.c...pi_v471_exe.htm
3rd, if you don't use the pack why even comment. You are more than welcome to download a few hundred updates and install them 1x1. While your system is outdated mines will be updated.

loblo, on 12 November 2011 - 08:20 AM, said:

jaclaz, on 12 November 2011 - 07:03 AM, said:

I mean, do you accept ideas from BOTH Win9x AND Me users or you just want to meet the other 3 (three) persons in the worlds that run normally Windows Me?


jaclaz

What's that actually supposed to mean?
Typical flame bait trolling IMO.

Way to go Jaclaz!

Looks like you doing the same thing

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 12 November 2011 - 09:00 AM

[Drugwash]

Children, play nice, please.

Let's not carve things in stone - Adaptec's ASPI is not an application, strictly speaking, but a driver and it is required on most systems that operate an optical CD/DVD unit. Sure, Ahead's Nero does install its own driver for this purpose, but that is a commercial application, while Adaptec released their driver freely, so I'd say let it in. After all, we don't need a 100% MS setup - we need a 100% functional system that can do the most possible, given the circumstances.

Personally I'd be more concerned about any possible issues such as dll version mismatching, BSOD, etc. reported by users through the topic (if any). I'd imagine Gape has gathered such information, in time and tweaked the pack accordingly; let's be careful and not throw all his work to the bin, shall we?

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 12 November 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

rloew, on 12 November 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

Why are you removing ASPI. It is needed to directly access CD/DVD Drives.

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 11 November 2011 - 10:01 PM, said:

No 3rd party applications as of this point.

It is part of the standard set of drivers provided by Microsoft. I'm sure I am not the only one who distributes applications that use it.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 12 November 2011 - 10:15 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 12 November 2011 - 06:47 AM, said:

rloew, on 12 November 2011 - 12:25 AM, said:

Why are you removing ASPI. It is needed to directly access CD/DVD Drives.

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 11 November 2011 - 10:01 PM, said:

No 3rd party applications as of this point.

It is part of the standard set of drivers provided by Microsoft. I'm sure I am not the only one who distributes applications that use it.

I will add them back. I did not know they were drivers. Thanks Drugwash and rloew

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Updated

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 19 November 2011 - 10:55 PM

[loblo]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 12 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

Looks like you doing the same thing

Sorry to see you taking it this way as I was just trying to be helpful.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

loblo, on 12 November 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 12 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

Looks like you doing the same thing

Sorry to see you taking it this way as I was just trying to be helpful.

Well, I apologize if I misunderstood you. I'm sorry

[loblo]

No worries.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

loblo, on 12 November 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

No worries.

Thanks

The last and final update will include from MDGx site.

ATL70A.DLL
ATL71A.DLL
MFC70.DLL
MFC70U.DLL
MFC71.DLL
MFC71U.DLL
MSVCI70.DLL
MSVCP70.DLL
MSVCP71.DLL
MSVCR70.DLL
MSVCR71.DLL

I'm sorry that I wasn't able to add the 4 usb packages, let me explain why.

NUSB.EXE - it works with some of my usb devices but not all.
USB20DRV.EXE - needed to run side by side with NUSB.EXE.
WIA11.EXE - I don't have a scanner so I can't test this.
X360C.EXE - it works when I have both NUSB.EXE + USB20DRV.EXE + HKR,,NTMPDriver,,"wdmstub.sys,USBSTOR.SYS has to be loaded in order for it to work. Thats just too much trouble.
But if someone can combine the 2 NUSB.EXE + USB20DRV.EXE we might have something.

Other than that, the only things that's not added are

Internet Explorer
DirectX 9
Microsoft Data Access Components
.NET Framework


Soon you guys will be able to enjoy a fully updated 98SE SP. Thanks to Gape for starting the foundation

[Drugwash]

Quote

NUSB.EXE - it works with some of my usb devices but not all.

Namely? List of VID & PID? It does work with my storage devices and camera. No bluetooth but that's more complicated than the NUSB driver. But and however, I suppose anyone would gladly have at least some of their devices working, rather than none.
Not sure about USB20DRV.EXE, I've had some trouble with it not so long ago. Hasn't it been merged with NUSB 3.5 or am I just dreaming?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

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

nice if someone can improve this patch.
Also I will be adding rloew patch if he don't mind http://www.msfn.org/...post__p__977356

One last thing, I was wondering if anybody can look at the
http://www.msfn.org/...post__p__630699

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I found a small not so major bug. I just did a clean install testing the final version and,
I was told by windows that the version WINASPI.DLL 4.6.0.1021 was older than the original.
Please click ignore if you get this prompt. Everything went smoothly afterwards. Final build will be release tomorrow.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Here are some patches that I'm going to add to my own personal service pack.
If you guys want these patches let me know. I would patch the file first, then add it to the service pack.

http://www.mdgx.com/files/PASSLOCK.ZIP this is for MS Outlook/Express
http://www.netcult.c...lmueSoft-en.htm scroll down to FileOpenPatcher
http://www.sonicspot...atecdfsvxd.html

[Drugwash]

Hold on on the last one (CDFS.VXD). While possibly useful to some of us, there's a size display patch by Rudolph Loew for the same driver. I'd first wait for Mr. Loew's opinion on whether his patch would work correctly on both original and modified drivers and then the service pack should make sure that any patching will occur after the driver file has been replaced and not before. But heck, I don't even know if the Service Pack includes Mr. Loew's patch...

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Drugwash, on 13 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

Hold on on the last one (CDFS.VXD). While possibly useful to some of us, there's a size display patch by Rudolph Loew for the same driver. I'd first wait for Mr. Loew's opinion on whether his patch would work correctly on both original and modified drivers and then the service pack should make sure that any patching will occur after the driver file has been replaced and not before. But heck, I don't even know if the Service Pack includes Mr. Loew's patch...

I just tried rloew CDFS.VXD patch, it works but not on the modified version. So far the only files I have that needs to be patched are

Patched CDFS.VXD from rloew unique patch script
Patched COMDLG32.DLL from http://www.netcult.c...lmueSoft-en.htm
Patched IO.SYS from rloew unique patch script
Patched MPR.DLL from http://www.mdgx.com/

[Drugwash]

As a general rule, IMHO safer than anything, patchers with proved compatibility over different file versions should be preferred over already patched/modified files, simply because installers based on version numbers or just plain dumb installers, might break functionality in already patched files, bringing confusion (or mayhem) to an otherwise perfectly working system.
Let's not be hasty, but search/wait for the right solutions.

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on 12 November 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

Not sure about USB20DRV.EXE, I've had some trouble with it not so long ago. Hasn't it been merged with NUSB 3.5 or am I just dreaming?

No it has not. Maximus-Decim did once include the WDMSTUB.SYS in NUSB 3.1, IIRR, but then he removed it. I can discuss the operation of USB20DRV in more detail, but fact is that if one installs NUSB 3.5, then adds just the files from USB20DRV.EXE manually, and then modifies the USBSTOR.INF to say <HKR,,NTMPDriver,,"wdmstub.sys,USBSTOR.SYS>, it'll work all right. The registry modifications that USB20DRV.EXE makes are not really needed and the USBHUB20.SYS it includes is required just for VIA chipsets... for all others, the one in NUSB3.5 is newer and better. In short, I'd just add USBEHCI.SYS, USBPORT.SYS and WDMSTUB.SYS from USB20DRV and modify the USBSTOR.INF, and that should be enough.

[Drugwash]

Except that VIA and SiS are the most resiliant chipsets with regard to Win9x (as in drivers still available) and thus most likely to be used by people in the present and near future. Therefore we may just have to find out how to recognize an installed and enabled VIA chipset (or USB standalone chip) and complete the installation with the USBHUB20.SYS driver. I myself use a VIA-based motherboard plus a standalone VIA USB2.0 PCI board currently, while other two machines have SIS chipsets.

[jumper]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 13 November 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

Here are some patches that I'm going to add to my own personal service pack.
...
http://www.sonicspot...atecdfsvxd.html

This modified version of CDFS.VXD appears to be based upon the Win95 driver:

Version:      4.00.1030
Description:  CDFS Virtual Device  (Version 4.0)
Copyright:    Copyright © Microsoft Corp. 1988-1995

Several years ago I tried it on two of my 98FE systems. It did do quite nicely what it claims (WAV files for all audio tracks), but prevented me from reading some of my important CDR's.

Removing this driver and restoring the 98FE version allowed me to read my CDR's on both systems again.

I vote: (or make it optional with a caveat in the description.)

This post has been edited by jumper: 13 November 2011 - 09:00 PM