Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

98 SE SP 3.32

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
2359 replies to this topic

#126
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,190 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

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!! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rapidshare.de, that's the problem! That host sucks IMO, because my download has gotten cut off before when I downloaded a file from them! :realmad:

Also, rapidshare.de will prohibit you from resuming downloads unless you cough up money to them!

Thus I'm forced to completely start over again then pray that the download don't get cut off again! :realmad:

Major Geeks never gave me major problems. In fact, they seem to keep files for a long time.

Edited by RJARRRPCGP, 27 January 2006 - 01:21 PM.

Asus P5QL Pro, Core 2 Duo E4500, eVGA GeForce 9500 GT with XP Pro x64 Edition -> Works great with Asus P5QL Pro!


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#127
superpippo32

superpippo32
  • Member
  • 2 posts
Italian group for UNOFFICIAL Windows98 Second Edition Service Pack 2.1

Italian Link

Portiamo avanti questo progetto.

Edited by superpippo32, 04 February 2006 - 04:58 AM.


#128
Chozo4

Chozo4

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
If rapidshare provides such poor service, would it be best to not use them at all? Would seem that corrupted packs from rapidshare will bring in more complaints toward the pack than good.

To note: I too highly recommend MajorGeeks. They are often the first mirror I pick if it's available for anything.

#129
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Ditto here:
http://www.msfn.org/...ndpost&p=372977

#130
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

If rapidshare provides such poor service, would it be best to not use them at all? Would seem that corrupted packs from rapidshare will bring in more complaints toward the pack than good.

To note: I too highly recommend MajorGeeks. They are often the first mirror I pick if it's available for anything.


And I highly recommend downloading the 98se SP from Softpedia as well. Majorgeeks and Softpedia allow resuming partially downloaded file transfers w/ download managers & no restrictions.

NEVER get any large size files from Rapidshare unless you have a broadband internet connection like cable, DSL or LAN.

let's tell mamas6667 to NEVER, EVER EVER download the latest version of the 98se service pack from Rapidshare,,,NEVER AGAIN. download only from Majorgeeks and Softpedia sites when using a dial-up connection.

Don't get me wrong. I am not for forcing good tools on chickens who are afraid of trying it.
But read my lips for once: WINTOP WORKS FOR ME ON WINDOWS 98SE.
Sorry, I don't care that the page says win95 only.


appp is right. ivman is wrong! sure, RJARRRPCGP, the Wintop powertoy is listed on a Win95 page but Wintop works on all Win9xME systems. I ran Wintop under Win98, 98se & ME and it worked just fine on those 9x versions of Windows. I'm serious!

Edited by erpdude8, 24 February 2006 - 07:05 PM.


#131
ivman

ivman

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 30 posts




Don't get me wrong. I am not for forcing good tools on chickens who are afraid of trying it.
But read my lips for once: WINTOP WORKS FOR ME ON WINDOWS 98SE.
Sorry, I don't care that the page says win95 only.


appp is right. ivman is wrong! sure, RJARRRPCGP, the Wintop powertoy is listed on a Win95 page but Wintop works on all Win9xME systems. I ran Wintop under Win98, 98se & ME and it worked just fine on those 9x versions of Windows. I'm serious!


This is ivman reporting back in. Actually, I was not speaking as an expert on the app - I was just going by what info was on the site. Here's what I actually said in my only post on this subject: "On the site you gave, it says specifically *not* to use that PowerToy with Win98. Have you had any problems using it with 98SE? Just wondering why they say not to...."

Are there not apps made for Win95 that WON'T work on Win98?!? When the page specifically says not to use the app on Win98SE, what was I to assume? How can one be "wrong" when all he does is quote the info on the download site?!? Sheesh! You might more correctly say the download site is wrong.

Since then, on the recommendations of others on this thread, I *have* tried it on my Win98SE, and it works fine on my computer too. :yes:

ivman

#132
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

Rapidshare.de, that's the problem! That host sucks IMO, because my download has gotten cut off before when I downloaded a file from them! :realmad:

Also, rapidshare.de will prohibit you from resuming downloads unless you cough up money to them!

Thus I'm forced to completely start over again then pray that the download don't get cut off again! :realmad:

Major Geeks never gave me major problems. In fact, they seem to keep files for a long time.


Yeah, it's ridiculous for Rapidshare to charge users to have to resume downloads from their site especially for people who use dial-up internet connections.

Note to all downloading the 98se service pack now: AVOID downloading the pack from the Mytempdir.com site. The 98se SP has been removed from that site giving the "The file was removed. Reason: Hosting period expired." error message. Gape might want to remove the link to the Mytempdir.com site off his 98 SE Service Pack page.

#133
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
I was browsing the windowsbbs.com boards yesterday and noticed a post about the Service Pack.

A moderator there dissed the pack when replying to the question of whether it was safe or recommended to use it. All were in agreement about how dangerous it was to use this thing, and how wonderful Microsoft Windows Update was in providing what is needed to update 98SE.

The kind of work put into the Service Pack and all the other testing, files, and support provided by folks here could not go undefended. So I added my 2 cents, and gave them my order of install so someone there wouldn't go and run it on an already borked 98SE system and then say,"see, it messed up my system."

If anyone wants to jump on the bandwagon

http://www.windowsbb...ead.php?t=52183

Heh, the guy mentioned that he might upgrade to XP since his hardware could handle it, so I said that I upgraded to 98SE from XP since my hardware could handle it! :w00t:
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#134
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

This is ivman reporting back in. Actually, I was not speaking as an expert on the app - I was just going by what info was on the site. Here's what I actually said in my only post on this subject: "On the site you gave, it says specifically *not* to use that PowerToy with Win98. Have you had any problems using it with 98SE? Just wondering why they say not to...."

Are there not apps made for Win95 that WON'T work on Win98?!? When the page specifically says not to use the app on Win98SE, what was I to assume? How can one be "wrong" when all he does is quote the info on the download site?!? Sheesh! You might more correctly say the download site is wrong.

Since then, on the recommendations of others on this thread, I *have* tried it on my Win98SE, and it works fine on my computer too. :yes:

ivman


OH GET OVER IT IVMAN! The Wintop issue is now over and done with. END OF STORY. PERIOD! MOVE ON!

I was browsing the windowsbbs.com boards yesterday and noticed a post about the Service Pack.

A moderator there dissed the pack when replying to the question of whether it was safe or recommended to use it. All were in agreement about how dangerous it was to use this thing, and how wonderful Microsoft Windows Update was in providing what is needed to update 98SE.

The kind of work put into the Service Pack and all the other testing, files, and support provided by folks here could not go undefended. So I added my 2 cents, and gave them my order of install so someone there wouldn't go and run it on an already borked 98SE system and then say,"see, it messed up my system."

If anyone wants to jump on the bandwagon

http://www.windowsbb...ead.php?t=52183

Heh, the guy mentioned that he might upgrade to XP since his hardware could handle it, so I said that I upgraded to 98SE from XP since my hardware could handle it! :w00t:


well, I would say that the 98se SP is NOT for every Win98se user out there since it does have the potential of breaking a Win98se computer. when I tested the SP on and old Win98se computer, it worked fine. when few other win98se users tested out the SP they found problems with it. so it isnt for everyone. results of installing the Win98se service pack will vary.

like Gape said in another post, nobody cant create a "perfect" service pack because it will cause some problems with some users (I'm paraphrasing what he said).

BTW, Eck - is that guy who mentioned he is upgrading to WinXP, will he install XP SP2? I know that SP2 will cause some problems with some old software and some hardware because MS noted the problems in their KB articles. XP users may have to upgrade some of their apps to be fully XP SP2 compatible.

#135
Marius '95

Marius '95

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 122 posts
  • OS:95
  • Country: Country Flag
I have been using WinTop on Win98 for 2 years on many different hardware configurations. Never had a problem.

#136
celtish

celtish

    Win98SE Forever!

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 268 posts

98 SE SP 2.1aDownload

Any idea when the next update will be out?
celtish of Southport
Just my twopenn'orth!
Computer Club http://www.celticsurf.net/computers/
Internet Abuse http://www.celticsur...cape/abuse.html

Posted Image

#137
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
erpdude8,

Yes I suppose he'll discover these new incompatibilities if he uses some of the problem applications. I had a problem with an old game, Star Trek Captain's Chair. Well, not actually a game but a program that uses Shockwave Director with embedded Quicktime mov files. When I had XP SP2 running at the time, the only way to run the game was to install 98SE on VMWare. Before SP2 this game ran fine on XP. Surprisingly my other old games that use this type of thing still ran properly on XP SP2.

I remember reading of your experiences with the Unofficial Service Pack. I agree that certain things it does probably result in the negative effects you experienced. In fact, I don't remember how my system was setup at the time but I had some of the same fun you did with Windows no longer starting up properly and/or resetting my registry back to a saved copy automatically, resulting in losing a whole days worth of updating the system. Since I had no idea where exactly I was at the time of the registry restore I just formatted and started over.

I hate when that happens. Same thing used to happen to me when rebooting after installing RealPlayer. That's when I started disabling the ethernet and setting ZoneAlarm to not run at startup immediately after installing RealPlayer. Once rebooted I reenable everything. I do this even on XP now, as recently XP would no longer startup after installing RealPlayer. So I do the disable ethernet and ZoneAlarm before restarting on XP as well now. I don't want to take a chance.

So we're never completely assured that some software glitch won't potentially bring Windows to its knees no matter what version of Windows (even the supposedly protected XP.) We all do the best we can to set Windows up to run as stable as possible.

I'll be making a return to XP soon since I'm testing out my new Foxconn 748K7AA board. I just ordered a second one since I have 2 Socket A CPU's (actually 3 as I just ordered the OEM Sempron 3300+ so I'll have my 2 Socket A motherboards both running at the best speeds possible for Socket A.) I'll just be retiring the boards I've been using in favor of the 2 Foxconn boards since I like the SiS748 chip better than all the Via chips I've been using. And, XP will go in since I now know the Foxconn runs 98SE fine. I want to see what XP SP2 can do on it. I'll run 98 on VMWare.

The Unofficial Service Pack has worked fine for me with the exception of the one time I had a similar experience to what you reported. I don't remember exactly what happend, except reformatting.

I just don't like it being dismissed so easily for those folks who would generally do nothing except go to Windows Update. I'd rather have them try using the Service Pack as most folks probably wouldn't know how to manually apply some of the tweaks that the Service Pack will do for them, as well as some of the hotfixes it applies. If they're starting with a fresh install, and Service Pack doesn't work for them, they won't lose much time by starting over fresh again without it. I figure it's worth a shot.
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#138
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

The Unofficial Service Pack has worked fine for me with the exception of the one time I had a similar experience to what you reported. I don't remember exactly what happend, except reformatting.

I just don't like it being dismissed so easily for those folks who would generally do nothing except go to Windows Update. I'd rather have them try using the Service Pack as most folks probably wouldn't know how to manually apply some of the tweaks that the Service Pack will do for them, as well as some of the hotfixes it applies. If they're starting with a fresh install, and Service Pack doesn't work for them, they won't lose much time by starting over fresh again without it. I figure it's worth a shot.


good point Eck. those guys are wussies just downloading stuff only from Windows Updates. Dont they ever heard of the Microsoft Download Center? I download many of the same Win98 updates listed at Windows Update that are also found at MS Download Center. Heck, I even found more Win98 downloads at the MS Download Center that are not listed at Windows Update.

98 SE SP 2.1aDownload

Any idea when the next update will be out?


Nope. Please wait patiently until Gape releases the next version. You may want to contact him personally by email and ask him when the next version of the 98se service pack will be ready.

#139
CLASYS

CLASYS

    Windows installer, chief cook and bottlewasher

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 218 posts
First of all:

Hi to everyone; been busy, etc. [Alleged to have life beyond SP!]

Hearing all of this noise about Windows Update from people who think it's the be-all/end-all just brings up the main point with regard to just about everything this group stands for, which is the total lack of actual credibility MS really has with regard to fixing *anything*.

Eck: I haven't been an active member on WindowsBBS since something like 2004; they were wussies then and nothing has changed. The sad part is that people go there believing they actually know anything!

We may make noises at each other on msfn, consider it just a lot of "family" squabbles, etc., but all of us are, in theory, on the "same side" with regard to the fundamentals: Just trying to get Windows to work knowing that there are fixes, in various states of officialdom or lack thereof, and we want to use them to fix problems we know about or have heard about, etc.

Here are a few reality points [excuse the bandwidth if you know about any of these already, but I think a summary is in order]:

1) No version of Windows has ever been released without quickly needing fixes. This of course years ago gave rise to the perfectly sensible "Don't use Version 1.0 of anything" phrase, and it just about always applies.

2) It has never been easy to get fixes from MS, and they are always ready to make it even harder. I laud various individuals for having "intestinal fortitude" to get past some of this. Without them, we would be quite frustrated. However, on this forum, we have become empowered to the point that we can anticipate getting some measure of control of the situation.

3) Windows Update can be a cruel joke. Far too many people believe it to be both complete and accurate. Most of the time neither apply. Some problems over the years:

a ) Lost updates that were at one point on WU, but now aren't nor replaced with "better" ones. Fortunately for all of us, we have recourse, primarily from top members right here!

b ) Never-had updates simply because MS policy about what is expected to be in WU itself changes. Is it a place for bugs to be fixed? Or security updates? Both? Neither? It seems that for certain specific sore points all four have applied at some time or other.

c ) Total lack of timeliness: I have maintained an unofficial list of WinXP "should-be"s in terms of stuff I don't understand why these aren't in WU. Some were removed because they became allegedly replaced by other updates, that I suspect in some cases was a misplaced trust with regards to whether the replacement actually accomplished anything positive. Still others just seem to have no reason not to be there and months go by. And in a few cases, apparently after a baffling amount of months, amazingly they eventually get to WU! [But once there do they stay there?] Some of these are fairly recent MS security bulletin subjects. Yet, they don't surface quickly [or ever?].

I believe there were some 9x updates that were promised and either never were delivered, or were delivered after one would long ago given up hope, yet verbiage would have you believe it was "real soon now" that they would get there.

d) Improper distribution of updates: How many updates obviously pertain to more systems than are nominally offered for? What about the ones where you have to do sneaky things with the innards to get them to install where they are needed, unless you just so happen to be running ME? Some of these updates include arrogant verbiage from self-appointed MS policy makers proclaiming the obsolescence of various systems and thus the justification for non-support, etc. Yet, these statements themselves are fatuous and totally wrong! [Note: In some cases, the specifics are fantasy notions that proclaim obsolescence well before any official drop-dead dates, and I am not talking about when such dates eventually were modified. Yes, official support was extended to June 30, 2006. But this was back before there even was a need to extend it, before the old expire dates, etc. These people were just making up their personal notion of obsolescence, etc. Additionally, since the extension to this June, what about the total lack of change of policy on these updates? Clearly they deserve to be rewritten to include proper support, etc., yet how many just didn't get any changes?]

Again, many thanks to all in this forum for getting around much of this, but to continue to allow WU to have anyone's respect is pure fantasy.

And if anyone thinks this is just some overall MS policy to get rid of all things prior to XP, here's a few tidbits to give pause:

1) Indiscriminately, before and during the XP era, MS personnel made much of the KB useless by making the notion of date of article totally worthless. Articles were updated merely to point out that they were changing their name from Qxxxxxx to xxxxxx where xxxxxx is the KB article number. Non-information was used to change the effective date of an article because all that was added was a notice of when an article was reviewed, adding nothing literally except the update of the date/time of the review itself.

2) KB articles mysteriously disappear, including XP-related ones, never to be heard of again. Some KB articles contain dead links to others because the demise of the linked page is news to the maintainers of the referring page!

3) KB articles have contradictory contents. Some examples are the infamous "stonewalling" language many of us are familiar with, where they essentially "dare" you to get an update that does clearly exist as documented there, etc. Yet, in some cases, after all that spiel, a download link is actually provided!

I once saw a KB article for a recently-released security bulletin update that used the stonewalling language! Fortunately, the actual security bulletin itself added a download link to trump the KB article. But some bulletins use language that depends on the KB article, and in some cases the KB article never has the download link, or in some cases, the KB article itself is never posted! [Or perhaps it was removed?]

For those of you familiar with t h e h o t f i x . n e t, it appears there are nearly 300 updates post SP2 for XP, but something like only 60 of them can be counted as ever having been in WU at some point, and usually more like 40 at any point in time. It's true that some of the "extra" 20 come from the claim of having been replaced, but it doesn't seem to hold for all of them. And remember, some took at least 9 months to eventually even be added to WU, so in part it depends on just when you went to WU. It makes it seem like for XP, WU is essentially a "popularity contest" of the most requested recent XP updates, etc.

But in this larger list, we find literally hundreds of things MS has at least made a half-hearted effort to fix, many in the "stone-walled" form in terms of the corresponding KB article. [Users of that site can get them there anyway, etc.] Far too many of them are fixes to things admitted by MS as being broken by the application of SP2.

The reader is advised not to install these fixes unless absolutely necessary, because they haven't been "regression tested" or some other Micro-speak phrase. Yet, the stuff that went through WU has had to be either re-released or replaced at times. Notice how many updates are of the "v2" variety. At certain times, it seemed that WU only provided an update that needed to be replaced less than a week later because the fix, presumably rushed into WU, was actually incorrect and replaced, etc.

The point is that WU is not a "seal of approval" on many of these updates, yet there are individuals that basically pronounce all things not in WU as unusable and all things actually in WU as perfect and flaw-free; obviously reality dictates that both of these notions are wrong.

For the longest time, some XP updates are in internal conflict, i.e., certain updating methods exist that cannot be applied to something like a sore-point duo or trio. i.e., you have to either use WU or manually install after-the-fact, but not according to the normal rules of server-based installs, etc. Yet, in spite of the known problems, these updates just don't get changed. And of course, WU just continues to make them available. Thus, the widespread use of WU means that MS never hears sufficiently about the actual problems with the update interaction, etc.

If XP is a priority, I hate to think of how long a non-priority takes to get implemented. How many months/years does it take for MS to actually bring out a SP? How many months/years more than they claim? And just what about it actually breaks the alternative of the previous SP augmented by available hotfixes regardless of whether "WU-approved" or not?

As of this writing, MS envisions Vista to be out, possibly sometime later this year, or next year, or who knows when? But more importantly, they now, having changed their tune several times, admit they intend to bring out an SP3 for XP, but only *AFTER* they release Vista. Dates implied by this mean that not only are there those hundreds of not-quite-available fixes for post-SP2 XP, but probably there will be many more in the next year or so that would also have to be added on so an SP3 could even be half-way relevant. [Maybe they'll change it to release after Vista SP1!]

All of this means that some people will always remain clueless; this doesn't mean we have to. On the contrary, because of all of the long and hard work by all involved here, we don't have to operate in "wussie" mode like some others, etc.

Please keep up all the good work, as always!

cjl
"In ten years, OS/2 will be on everyone's desktop"
Bill Gates, 1992

#140
nudgegoonies

nudgegoonies
  • Member
  • 5 posts
Hello,
i found something unusual with my latest german SP2.1B (german). After i installed a TV (BT848) and a NIC (3C905) there is a stange thing after changing network options (TCP IP for example). I installed SP2.1B before those cards. Aufter installing the btwincap wdm driver for the BT848 the network icon on desktop appeard. I wanted to restart after installation but there came the message that one task is busy. I clicked on wait and after some time there was a normal restart. I remeber that there are somtimesm, after a driver installation seems finisched, there ist still activity in the background copying files from the win98 dir. aufter that i installed the driver for the nic and set ip adresses, gateway, dns, name, workgroup, domain, ipx ,file and printerscharing. ater restart everything works. the unusial thing ist that after clicking ok in the network options, even if i clicked nothing but ok, the ndis.vxd is always copied from SP2.CAB. Is this normal or did something went wrong?

Bye,

#141
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
nudgegoonies,

If everythings working it seems fine. The sp2 is where the updated versions of the files are, so that's fine.

And changing the Network properties usually includes some file copying so that seems fine too.

Now, I'm no networking guy, just a home hobby at this point so I hope someone else will confirm my logic for you.

CLASYS,

Heh, heh. "Wussie mode." I like that.

Nice report on the Windows Update stuff. Yes, I was aware of most but that was nicely stated all in one spot. Interesting reading. I'm gonna print that out in case an argument ever comes up. I won't go out of my way to push it over there. I'll just leave sleeping dogs lie. (He, He.) They're not setting up my computers so there's no point to my trying to push too much.

I couldn't sit while they were trashing all this work though.

Edited by Eck, 12 March 2006 - 01:15 PM.

Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#142
nudgegoonies

nudgegoonies
  • Member
  • 5 posts
Thank you very much for your Answer. And sorry for posting the question here. I didn't mention that the whole subforum is dedicated to the SP. I was confused because i cant't rememer that ndis activity in my previous installation where i tried the sp first. I did a new one because of so many changes in the system and i forgot the 'line up' mentioned on the german side (first ie, dx, drivers,sp,windows update) and i installed the SP and WU before the drivers. All Microsoft Stuff first and than the rest was my motto (i hope this word exists in english).

Regards,

#143
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
That's cool, nudgegoonies. Glad it's working.

By the way, not all at the windowsbbs are fraidy cats! And even those who aren't thrilled with 3rd party updates have lot's of knowledge and are helpful folks. I don't want to diss them just like I don't like to see the Service Pack's dissed.

Especially good is the Netscape, Mozilla forum there. No one can acuse Ramona of being unwilling to try different stuff to fix problems, etc.

Nice folks there.
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM

#144
CLASYS

CLASYS

    Windows installer, chief cook and bottlewasher

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 218 posts

By the way, not all at the windowsbbs are fraidy cats! And even those who aren't thrilled with 3rd party updates have lot's of knowledge and are helpful folks. I don't want to diss them just like I don't like to see the Service Pack's dissed.

Especially good is the Netscape, Mozilla forum there. No one can acuse Ramona of being unwilling to try different stuff to fix problems, etc.

Nice folks there.

And that's why I am still a member there. All of us wear lots of "hats" which some people here need to remember!

cjl
"In ten years, OS/2 will be on everyone's desktop"
Bill Gates, 1992

#145
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
Clas, thanks for the great disertation on "WU" ! Hope you don't mind if I use it[with kudos & proper reconition of author] in my little local[printout] newsletter. B)

#146
CLASYS

CLASYS

    Windows installer, chief cook and bottlewasher

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 218 posts

Clas, thanks for the great disertation on "WU" ! Hope you don't mind if I use it[with kudos & proper reconition of author] in my little local[printout] newsletter. B)

Go ahead, make my day :)

cjl

ps: Don't forget our unsung heroes here [erp, mdgx, etc.] who "somehow" get ahold of all of these updates from others [not just me! I'm a contributor, but by no means a large one; just capitalizing on opportunities: Long before XP SP2 came out, I received an XP post-SP1 update as a "crackerjack" within support downloads for my cell phone! Apparently MS updates pop up when least expected. Anyone care to reveal how 299014, which first was in WU for ME, then disappeared from there, and now is available again, not from WU, but from someone here, etc. actually became "reincarnated"? For the longest time I was manually "synthesizing" the update because fortunately I had an ME system that had been to WU at the right time, so I lifted the registry entries and files, and did it manually, etc.]. Without the updates, we wouldn't have an SP, and we'd all lose to WU and its largely empty promises believed by the those in "clueless" and "wussie" modes (or both).
"In ten years, OS/2 will be on everyone's desktop"
Bill Gates, 1992

#147
randiroo76073

randiroo76073

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 264 posts
I sing praises to them all the time[LOL!] :thumbup :w00t: Wouldn't have such a great 98se w/o them :yes:

#148
erpdude8

erpdude8

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,139 posts

ps: Don't forget our unsung heroes here [erp, mdgx, etc.] who "somehow" get ahold of all of these updates from others [not just me! I'm a contributor, but by no means a large one; just capitalizing on opportunities: Long before XP SP2 came out, I received an XP post-SP1 update as a "crackerjack" within support downloads for my cell phone! Apparently MS updates pop up when least expected. Anyone care to reveal how 299014, which first was in WU for ME, then disappeared from there, and now is available again, not from WU, but from someone here, etc. actually became "reincarnated"? For the longest time I was manually "synthesizing" the update because fortunately I had an ME system that had been to WU at the right time, so I lifted the registry entries and files, and did it manually, etc.]. Without the updates, we wouldn't have an SP, and we'd all lose to WU and its largely empty promises believed by the those in "clueless" and "wussie" modes (or both).


HEY CLASYS,

I remember downloading the WinME Q299014 Help & Support update from WU in summer 2001. This update replaced the older Help & Support update [Q278497] which sometimes hangs while trying to install the files.

Q299014 was removed from WU after MS updated to V4 of the WU site. V4 of Windows Update site started to work for Win98/ME systems in November 2002. Q299014 was featured in V3 of WU.

#149
Dels

Dels

    X2K Project Leader

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 332 posts
btw, i have heard about other member project "98 Service Pack 2.1b" that contain file newer than 2.1a can i see the link?

thanks
Posted Image
X2K Project
Click Me

#150
Eck

Eck

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
Maybe you mean the Windows 98 Gold project? I haven't seen any 2.1b references for the Unofficial 98SE Service Pack.
Epox EP8KRAIPRO AthlonXP3200+ NVidia GeForce 6600GT AGP Audigy 2 ZS Crucial 2x1024MB 3200 RAM




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN