Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 



Gape

98 SE SP 3.32

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edit:

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

Bye,

Mcv'93

Edited by mcv93us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

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. Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Edited by bphlpt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :yes:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :yes:

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

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.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×