[erpdude8]

MDGx, on Aug 29 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Guys,

The author of these [and other] 9x patches:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/918547.TXT
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=77218
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=58780
created a new KERNEL32.DLL patch for Win98SE [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.10.2226] + WinME [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.90.3001] which fixes the correct API function, in order to be able to create/copy/rename/move/delete files [no matter which File Manager/Explorer/similar 16-bit or 32-bit tool is used] of 2 GB and larger in size and up to 4 GB.

I have tested this new Kernel patch on my Win98 SE PC, and MAKE2GB testing tool works properly now.
MAKE2GB tool did not work with previous KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225 patch by LLXX.

More info from the author:

Quote

KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2226 &
4.90.3001 allow file sizes up to 4 Gibyte in Win98SE & WinME,
respectively.

The bug that causes the 2 Gibyte file copy limit is *not* in _llseek. The
matter of fact is: _llseek simply calls SetFilePointer and Win9x's
SetFilePointer API does not comply with the official API definition.

----------
Value Meaning
FILE_BEGIN The starting point is zero or the beginning of the file.
If FILE_BEGIN is specified, DistanceToMove is interpreted
as an *unsigned* location for the new file pointer.
----------

The buggy Win9x code always interprets DistanceToMove as a signed
location.

I have posted here the iexpress installers for 98SE + ME:

WinME fix below here:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#MEU

New > 2 GB Files Kernel patch now fixes correct API function [SetFilePointer]:
* Unofficial Windows ME 2-4 GB Files Errors KERNEL32.DLL 4.90.3001 Fix:
http://support.micro....com/?id=318293
Direct download [329 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/C2GBME.EXE
More info:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=81200

Win98SE fix below here:
http://www.mdgx.com/web.htm#9SU

New > 2 GB Files Kernel patch now fixes correct API function [SetFilePointer]:
* Unofficial Windows 98 SE 2-4 GB Files Errors KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2226 Fix:
http://support.micro....com/?id=318293
Direct download [261 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/COPY2GB.EXE
More info:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=81200

These 2 patches also linked here:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581

Hope this helps.

MDGx, can the anonymous author patch the KERNEL32.DLL file for Win98 FE and update it to version 4.10.2002?

[winxpi]

Quote

* Unofficial Windows 98 SE 2-4 GB Files Errors KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2226 Fix:
http://support.micro....com/?id=318293

Good to know and now there is no need to patch the other 98se kernel32.dll versions.
This kernel32.dll should be used for
new 98SE SP 2.xx version (if not an higher file version also comes out in future).

This post has been edited by winxpi: 29 August 2006 - 04:31 PM

[eidenk]

erpdude8, on Aug 29 2006, 09:01 AM, said:

some advantages of using Winfile than Windows Explorer, eidenk, are that Winfile loads a lot faster than Explorer and that Winfile does NOT suffer from the "deleting large number of files" bug that hangs Explorer for a while. when deleting a very large number of files & folders in Explorer and IE6 SP1 is installed under Win98/ME, Explorer hangs but when deleting a very large number of files/folders in File Manager, Winfile does not hang. also, you are allowed to change the "System" attribute of files & folders in Winfile.

I couldn't be using that over explorer really but some people do. A computer dealer I know in town told me he can't use explorer. He doesn't "get it" and he just only uses winfile for browsing directories on XP.

erpdude8, on Aug 29 2006, 09:01 AM, said:

btw - LLXX and eidenk, can you comment on what CLASYS said about "RAM slowing down with age" here:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=34960

I don't know erpdude. First I am not very knowledgeable in the inner workings of RAM, second I don't "get" CLASYS's posts in general, so it's very hard to answer anything.

But I think your question is this generic one :

Quote

so guys, what do you think of CLASYS saying that all RAM "gets old" with age?

So I'd say, possibly, because of electronic erosion, high energy cosmic ray hits, structural fatigue due to repeated cycles of variation of temperature. But I would think any stick dying for those reasons after a few years would have been near dead when new because of some defect. Maybe there are other factors that are more significant but I can't think of any right now.

Hope this satisfies your query.

MDGX, on Aug 29 2006, 09:01 AM, said:

Guys,

The author of these [and other] 9x patches:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/918547.TXT
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=77218
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=58780
created a new KERNEL32.DLL patch for Win98SE [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.10.2226] + WinME [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.90.3001] which fixes the correct API function, in order to be able to create/copy/rename/move/delete files [no matter which File Manager/Explorer/similar 16-bit or 32-bit tool is used] of 2 GB and larger in size and up to 4 GB.

I have tested this new Kernel patch on my Win98 SE PC, and MAKE2GB testing tool works properly now.
MAKE2GB tool did not work with previous KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225 patch by LLXX.

More info from the author:
QUOTE
KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2226 &
4.90.3001 allow file sizes up to 4 Gibyte in Win98SE & WinME,
respectively.

The bug that causes the 2 Gibyte file copy limit is *not* in _llseek. The
matter of fact is: _llseek simply calls SetFilePointer and Win9x's
SetFilePointer API does not comply with the official API definition.

----------
Value Meaning
FILE_BEGIN The starting point is zero or the beginning of the file.
If FILE_BEGIN is specified, DistanceToMove is interpreted
as an *unsigned* location for the new file pointer.
----------

The buggy Win9x code always interprets DistanceToMove as a signed
location.

I have posted here the iexpress installers for 98SE + ME:

...

What is the point of this patch on Windows ME ? Same question as for the LLXX patch. There is apparently no copy problem here for 2GB + files without patch. So why patching ? What's the benefit of it ? As it has already said by several in this thread, if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

And has this 2GB limit somehow something to see, even loosely, with the FAT16 limit of 2GB ?

[LLXX]

MDGx, on Aug 29 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Guys,

The author of these [and other] 9x patches:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/918547.TXT
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=77218
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=58780
created a new KERNEL32.DLL patch for Win98SE [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.10.2226] + WinME [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.90.3001] which fixes the correct API function, in order to be able to create/copy/rename/move/delete files [no matter which File Manager/Explorer/similar 16-bit or 32-bit tool is used] of 2 GB and larger in size and up to 4 GB.

I have tested this new Kernel patch on my Win98 SE PC, and MAKE2GB testing tool works properly now.
MAKE2GB tool did not work with previous KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225 patch by LLXX.

WHAT?

MAKE2GB worked perfectly fine with patched 4.10.2222 - either they broke SetFilePointer in 2225 or something else is at fault. I have also recieved reports of correct operation from other members here. MDGx please post system configuration and if at all possible, test on a virgin install.

[glocK_94]

Thanks for the work here LLXX. On that + on the 137 Gig limit.

But just a thing :

Quote

I'm surprised English hasn't become universal yet.

Wohw !
What makes you think people wish to abandon their native language ?
Speaking english today is a good thing to be understood all over the world. It doesn't mean you want your OS to be in english.
...it had to come out.

Anyway, here's my contribution :

Unofficial Windows 98 SE 2-4 GB Files Errors KERNELL32.DLL 4.10.2226 Fix translated to french
and
LittyX's Kernell32.dll 4.10.2222 in french version

Tijay -> send me an original kernell32.dll in german and I'll translate the fixed version if you want.

Everyone -> Just tell me if you feel I should translate other versions (WinME? really?...).

This post has been edited by glocK_94: 07 March 2007 - 05:29 PM

[winxpi]

I could translate in Djibouti too *joke*.
Its not so difficult to translate it's only a bit a effort.
BTW did someone hear about the "can't download 4GB files" bug which I think has to do with IE?

This post has been edited by winxpi: 30 August 2006 - 08:30 PM

[glocK_94]

Well you could. Djibouti speaks french...

[erpdude8]

LLXX, on Aug 22 2006, 06:50 PM, said:

- Win95 kernels - probably pointless, as 95's explorer.exe doesn't work correctly with large files anyway.

I looked up some articles on the 2GBcopy problem for Win95 and it is not just limited to Win95 kernel files. Win95's VREDIR.VXD files also have 2GB+ problem as noted in MS article 127852.
http://support.micro....com/kb/127852/

also Win95's Explorer has a bug that reports 4GB of files as 0 bytes as noted in MS article 158045:
http://support.micro....com/kb/158045/

so yeah it's better not to even bother patching the kernel32.dll files for Win95.

LLXX, on Aug 25 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

WinFile has a lot of other internal limits...

yup, one of them is the max. HD space (total and free space) which displays up to 1.99 GB in File Manager; noted in MS article 128794:
http://support.micro....com/kb/128794/
This bug turns out to be a "cosmetic" bug.

The WinNT4 version of File Manager does not have this problem as it does correctly display the total amount of HD space and free space beyond 1.99Gb. The NT 3.1x, 3.5x versions (and the Win3.x versions) of WinFile do have the problem.

erpdude8, on Aug 29 2006, 10:01 AM, said:

Wincorner's FMView & FMLFNs tools are NOT freeware, they're shareware. at least they're "no nag" shareware as MDGx mentioned FMLFNs on his 98SE2ME readme.txt file.

whoops, I take that back. FMLFNs and FMView are NOT no-nag shareware, MDGx. When I installed FMLFNs and after a month of continuous use, it WILL occasionally popup a message to register FMLFNs.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 31 August 2006 - 08:36 AM

[MDGx]

LLXX, on Aug 29 2006, 05:04 PM, said:

MDGx, on Aug 29 2006, 11:45 AM, said:

Guys,

The author of these [and other] 9x patches:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/918547.TXT
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=77218
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=58780
created a new KERNEL32.DLL patch for Win98SE [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.10.2226] + WinME [raised version build (as it should be) to 4.90.3001] which fixes the correct API function, in order to be able to create/copy/rename/move/delete files [no matter which File Manager/Explorer/similar 16-bit or 32-bit tool is used] of 2 GB and larger in size and up to 4 GB.

I have tested this new Kernel patch on my Win98 SE PC, and MAKE2GB testing tool works properly now.
MAKE2GB tool did not work with previous KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225 patch by LLXX.

WHAT?

MAKE2GB worked perfectly fine with patched 4.10.2222 - either they broke SetFilePointer in 2225 or something else is at fault. I have also recieved reports of correct operation from other members here. MDGx please post system configuration and if at all possible, test on a virgin install.

LLXX:

This is the answer from the anonymous author:

Quote

On Aug. 9 2006, 11:45 AM, LLXX wrote:

> MAKE2GB worked perfectly fine with patched 4.10.2222 - either they broke
> SetFilePointer in 2225 or something else is at fault. I have also recieved
> reports of correct operation from other members here. MDGx please post
> system configuration and if at all possible, test on a virgin install.

--

As far as I can tell from the binaries, the C++ source code for _llseek
and Set FilePointer has not changed since Win95. There is no binary
difference in the relevant code between 4.10.2222 & 2225 of _llseek &
SetFilePointer.

There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full
explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

_____________________________

P.S.:
I have tested your patched kernel32.dll 4.10.2225 only on my every-day-workhorse [tweaked] 98SE system, with all these updates installed:
- MS IE 6.0 SP1 + all official + unofficial updates
- WMP9, WMP10 Codecs+DRM, 98SE2XP, 98SEMP10 + all official + unofficial updates
- DirectX 9.0c
- 98SE2ME
- 98SE SP2 2.1a
- all other available official + unofficial updates.
MAKE2GB returned the _llseek error message.
When I'll have the time, I'll test again on a "virgin" [from scratch] 98SE system, and will let you know.

HTH

____________________________________________

erpdude8, on Aug 29 2006, 02:14 PM, said:

MDGx, can the anonymous author patch the KERNEL32.DLL file for Win98 FE and update it to version 4.10.2002?

I have "prophesied" your request, and already asked him.
This is the author's answer:

Quote

'erdude8' may be luckier this time - it does not take very long to implement the patch. I most likely will do 4.10.2001 --> 2002 when I am less busy.

Probably, I will also make the patched SHELL32.DLL available. Like the WinMe, WinXP, etc. versions, it uses SetFilePointer instead of _llseek and works fine with the unpatched KERNEL32.DLL 4.10.2225.

HTH

This post has been edited by MDGx: 31 August 2006 - 03:23 PM

[erpdude8]

thanks MDGx. what version of SHELL32.DLL file should he patch? the one from MS02-014/313829 (version 4.72.3812.600) for Win9x. or how about the SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3843.3100 (for NT4) from MS04-037/841356? or the SHELL32.DLL file version 4.72.3841.1100 (for NT4) from MS04-024/839645 even?

I have confirmed that FMLFNS is NOT no-nag shareware (it WILL occasionally popup messages to register FMLFNS after more than 30 days of use at Windows 9xME startup). Anyway, a FULL version of FMLFNS (this one w/out the nag messages) can be ordered here:
http://www.wincorner...ome/orders.html
Cost only $11 U.S. dollars or 10 European dollars. affordable

[eidenk]

Quote

There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

Does not inspire confidence

[erpdude8]

eidenk, on Sep 1 2006, 06:35 AM, said:

Quote

There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

Does not inspire confidence

eh, that is now a dead issue for ME as I'm getting over it.

want more proof that FMLFNS for Win9xME's File Manager app is NOT no-nag shareware?
Look at the FMLFNS.HLP file and in the "Why should I register and what do I get for it" section. quote-

Quote

Peace of mind
The unregistered version of FmLfns has almost the full functionality of the registered version. To remind you to register, the caption of all windows contains in addition to their regular title "Unregistered Copy".
A reminder dialog will pop up twice a month asking you to register.

sorry eidenk but FMLFNS isnt free software. gotta pay for it if you continue to use it for more than a month.

[eidenk]

I have never said it was free. I just said there were ad-ons for Winfile here and there.

And after that, I did not ask for proof of anything with regards to some of those add-ons' status as freeware or not freeware.

You should chill out really.

[awergh]

Did someone say they wanted to patch kernel32 from NT4 because i have it. I would need to find somewhere to host it first though

[eidenk]

erpdude8, on Sep 1 2006, 09:24 AM, said:

eidenk, on Sep 1 2006, 06:35 AM, said:

Quote

There are some advantages in patching the WinME version, but a full explanation is too lengthy, I am afraid.

Does not inspire confidence

eh, that is now a dead issue for ME as I'm getting over it.

Well that's not so dead an issue really as there is currently a kernel32 2GB+ patch for Windows ME by anonymous, packaged and distributed by MDGX, that no one really knows what benefit it brings to the Windows ME platform.

Furthermore there is another similar patch by LLXX, which makes the issue even more alive.

I had expected to witness a "battle of the 2GB+ patchers" but it did not happen so I have learned nothing.

I am sure a full explanation would not be too lenghty if it goes concisely to the point.

I understand that, as this patch fixes a bug in 98SE, and as the same faulty code is also present in ME, then it may make some sense to also fix it in ME despite the fact that the bug corrected in 98SE cannot be found in ME. But still I'd like to know where it benefits if only so I could also possibly see where it could do harm eventually.

Anyway I think MDGX has been too fast to distribute that anonymous patch like that.

Is it better than LLXX's for example ?

One thing I am sure about is that the only unnoficial patch I run is the 137GB LLXX patch. It does the job it is meant to do and it does it well.

And anonymous had said that the 137GB LLXX patch was not good because it was not patching enough code if I recall correctly.

Also something I wanted to say is that redistributing those patched files is maybe not very legal, and, as to avoid as much as possible potential problem with MS, should be distributed under the form of patchers rather than hacked files, I tend to think.

[LLXX]

I'm not sure why, but MDGx is the only one here to say that Make2Gb didn't work with my patched 2226 kernel. All others, and confirmed testing on my own (virtual and real) machines show otherwise. Perhaps that is his reason for release the one he thinks to be working?

Quote

Also something I wanted to say is that redistributing those patched files is maybe not very legal, and, as to avoid as much as possible potential problem with MS, should be distributed under the form of patchers rather than hacked files, I tend to think.

Much of this site goes against M$ EULA anyway - nLite, some unattended setup files, etc. Also, remember that M$ provides no support for Win9x anymore. If they were to complain about the contents of this site, the projects in these subforums definitely won't be their first target. I'd say http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=23719 is more vulnerable to legal threat.

...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA

This post has been edited by LLXX: 02 September 2006 - 12:42 AM

[eidenk]

LLXX, on Sep 2 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA

That's not very clever really.

I have seen that Mr Loew, who is registered on this forum, has been around the 137GB patch thread recently. I guess he has inspected your patches and has been satisfied that his work has not been simply copied by you, otherwise I guess he would have said something.

So why this tease LLXX ? Can you tell me what is the point of it ?

[randiroo76073]

I would'nt call that a tease Eidenk, just a simple statement that he[Mr Loew] couldn't do it & if he could he would have charged for it, he seems kinda snakey to me anyway. JMHO

LLXX: I used your patch & sucessfully transfered a 4.25gb file from 1 hdd to another & then again to my USB hdd, crc's matched

This post has been edited by randiroo76073: 02 September 2006 - 03:34 PM

[LLXX]

eidenk, on Sep 2 2006, 09:30 AM, said:

LLXX, on Sep 2 2006, 12:39 AM, said:

...although a certain Mr. Loew might be a bit irritated by Enable48bitLBA

That's not very clever really.

I have seen that Mr Loew, who is registered on this forum, has been around the 137GB patch thread recently. I guess he has inspected your patches and has been satisfied that his work has not been simply copied by you, otherwise I guess he would have said something.

So why this tease LLXX ? Can you tell me what is the point of it ?

Noone is going to pay for his patch when there's a free (and better-performing, too) alternative available. I wouldn't even watn to copy his code, because it simply isn't that great.

Quote

LLXX: I used your patch & sucessfully transfered a 4.25gb file from 1 hdd to another & then again to my USB hdd, crc's matched

4.25? The maximum filesize of FAT32 is only 4Gb - 2 bytes...

[randiroo76073]

Hmm, the file is a Red Hat Fedora DVD iso I dld & Win reports as: 4.25 gb, 4,572,612,608 bytes, 4,572,618,752 bytes used. Win doesn't lie does it I use "HashCalc" for my checksum checks. Maybe with all the changes to Win 98se[USP2, 98se2ME, WUPG, + other little tweaks] , it just wierded out on me

PS: Maybe 2 + 2 doesn't always = 4 .....? LOL!

This post has been edited by randiroo76073: 03 September 2006 - 01:29 AM