[MDGx]

Petr, on Sep 26 2006, 11:56 PM, said:

No, it is not, IEAK 6.0 SP1 contains wextract.exe 6.00.2800.1106.

Petr

My bad, didn't pay enough attention to ver numbers.

[CLASYS]

I raised yet again the issues over using BROWSELC.dll and BROWSEUI.dll taken from 5.5-related releases over the same files installed by updates to IE6.0 SP1, etc. [see my previous post above.]

Can anyone address a new concern:

I notice references in the registry to the browseui.dll in \windows\system as opposed to the one registered in \windows.

Thus:

Is the copy now in \windows [as suggested] and then regsvr32'd there actually replacing the copy in \windows\system? Should it instead go into \windows\system so there is only one copy? [Notwithstanding the IE6-related files are in program files\internet explorer, where perhaps they either do no harm or perhaps are merely ignored?]

I don't understand how/why registering the file does NOT completely obliterate references to the ones there before this attempt at fixing the file copy/hang problem, etc.

So, is the recommended method flawed as I describe or is this by design and in fact we have perhaps as many as three sets of files deliberately placed for some definable reason?

This does not seem to be a problem of browselc.dll at all, just browseui.dll.

cjl

[noguru]

It is strange yes. Explorer will only use the 5.5 versions of the files when these are regsrv32'd. You can simply see this in a taskmanager. Funny thing is that with IE both fileversions will show up. Perhaps because explorer is a "part" of IE (in this case "integrated" would be a wrong word, it's co-existing) . I have no idea which of the file versions is actually used bij IE but they seem to co-exist fine without issues. The question is why IE behaves this way. I mean, why does it not use the registered file only?
More important, do we still benefit from the increased security from the newer files because of this IE behaviour? If so then it's a good thing to leave things as they are now.

All I'm sure about is that explorer uses the 5.5 versions only and will keep doing that even when newer files are installed by updates, that's what this workaround is about.
When you replace the files in windows/system/ by the 5.5 versions they will be overwritten when you apply a update containing these files. If you then feel the need to replace them again you're basically back at the point where this all started.

[the_guy]

To me, the way it works is that IE uses the files in the SYSTEM directory, and Windows Explorer uses the regsvr32'd files. Why, I have no idea.

Also, alpha 1 should be available this weekend. I'm just fine-tuning it now. There will probably be an alpha 2 release a couple of weeks after to add new files from the October update release.

the_guy

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I use BROWSELC.DLL 6.0.2900.2180
BROWSEUI.DLL 6.0.2800.1692
and it seems when i delete large files it loses system resources
the reason for the problem we having now.if it didn't eat resources so much
i think they would be ok.But i still use them anyway.

I had notice this when i was deleting 7000 files a week ago

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 01 October 2006 - 02:21 PM

[eidenk]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 1 2006, 02:16 PM, said:

I use BROWSELC.DLL 6.0.2900.2180
BROWSEUI.DLL 6.0.2800.1692
and it seems when i delete large files it loses system resources
the reason for the problem we having now.if it didn't eat resources so much
i think they would be ok.But i still use them anyway.

I had notice this when i was deleting 7000 files a week ago

How did you notice that exactly ?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

eidenk, on Oct 1 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

How did you notice that exactly ?

I get a Low Resource error saying

Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit
any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding.

this only happen when i delete a large number of files.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 October 2006 - 12:25 AM

[CLASYS]

When I delete many files/large files [machine has 512 MB main memory] the screen tends to have one window semi-freeze. Moving it with the mouse leaves a "trail" of frozen images all over the screen where the window had been. Eventually, it figures it out and cleans up the old images, etc.

When emptying out the recycle bin there can be a similar problem. First there is a lengthy delay if there are really a lot of files and/or drives where there needs to be file removal, and then a later effect where the window will fixup later as above.

I think the timing of the problem is related to when the delayed writes for carrying out the file processes start kicking in is the common factor. These large file operations mean that you cannot completely cache them, i.e., they are unable to complete within the time before the earlier operations would start to be finalized and still are attempting to add new things to do to the cache, etc. [Or at least it seems to be this is the case.]

Again, the presented arguments are that regsvr32-applied copies in \windows are being used for most purposes while clearly the ones in \windows\system are being used in others, and I have seen signs in the registry supporting some aspect of this, etc.

Thus, I ask again: What is the point of actually bothering with three sets of files? If IE is using the ones in \program files\internet explorer, then why have the ones that are in \windows\system at all? Or, is it that the ones in \program files\internet explorer are actually superfluous?

Can someone make a case for less than three sets? I haven't yet seen a proper reason as to what exactly continues to use the \windows\system copy, but apparently something still does. If not IE, then what?

And what exactly is the downside of using the 5.5-related files in \windows\system instead of having two copies [while having first moved the 6-related files to program files\internet explorer]:

first unregister the 6-related files in \windows\system then delete them.

then replace with the 5.5-related files and register them.

I don't mind temporarily replacingregistering the two original files in \windows\system should there be another update I can appy, THEN restoring the 5.5-related files again, so I don't consider the need to avoid this as an issue. Even if any of this has to be done from DOS, etc.

But I am concerned about all of this hanging/freezing that seems to continue even with this so-called "fixed" situation, where the so-called fix seems to be somewhat nebulous. In some ways this is the proverbial cure is worse than the disease.

In case it matters, I am not concerned about any IE settings becoming impossible to further adjust, as long as I can get them where I want/need then have them become quasi-permanent unless reverting some files transiently for readjustment purposes then re-"fixating" them, etc. [I believe someone once raised an issue that some of these problems could interact in such a way that you were no longer able to access some IE parameters to change, as opposed to being able to first set them as needed; if this were the only down-side, it's a good compromise if this file-maintenance problem would disappear.]

Fixing the overall problem may not be seen by all as that important; and there are people who never use explorer to move even a single file. But others do a lot of file maintenance and it can be quite frustrating.

Please also note that despite all of the other problems, using 98lite with the Sleek [win95] shell NEVER has any of these problems and is rock-steady for any possible file operation. Unfortunately, this option is not compatible with a lot of recent applications; the ability to switch back and forth, as the author intended, is simply not possible. To do so requires a complete reinstall of IE 6.0 SP1 and all of its updates at the minimum. The fast switching mechanism was designed when IE 5.5 was just getting started, and there didn't seem to be much to worry about; but with MS bringing out IE 6.0 deliberately incompatible with 95 [and additionally not all that compatible with 98, 98SE or ME!!] this has become quite problematic. [For those who are unfamiliar, the Win95 shell lacks support for a small class of calls to shell32.dll. Where possible, 98lite patches affected files to instead use shell32.w98, which is actually the original shell32.dll renamed, or its descendant as described in q313829 with that same rename. I have successfully applied this method to many applications such as IE 6.0 and 6.0 SP1, Adobe Reader 6.0.0 through 6.0.5, the latest AIM classic client, but a growing number of applications aren't able to have them applied such as PowerArchiver beyond Version 8.80, Norton AntiVirus 2003 and up, SpySweeper.]

If instead, the Win95 shell itself could have these missing functions added on, this would allow the original 95 system to be more compatible with many applications, and also allow it to replace the 98/SE shell as in 98lite Sleek, but wouldn't require any patches at all. Presumably if this could be accomplished, this entire problem would cease to exist.

Here's a list of the features currently lost [or gained!] using 98lite Sleek:

1) There's a bug reporting the size of a folder or file such that the size is reported modulo 4 GB instead of actual.

2) There is no support for the registry patch to enable details view to display attributes; just ignores the settings either way.

3) A couple of minor cosmetic settings that for the most part I tend to turn off in the regular shell anyway. The only one I miss is the ability to turn off the autocasing of files and folders [first letter capitalized, rest lower case]. Is there a registry setting that should make the shell turn off this "feature"? [Sometimes referred to as allowing all upper-case names].

4) Extremely fast recycle bin emptying even with multiple drives. However, if drives are removable, fails to notice a recently added drive in need of emptying unless something is added to that drive's recycle bin first. This seems to have been crudely fixed in the regular 98 shell but the tradeoff is that emptying always takes an inordinate amount of time if you have a lot of drive letters. Win XP seems to be more like Win 95 in this regard, although this doesn't imply the same implementation, etc.

Of course all of this is the norm for win95 as well.

I would assume also there is no interaction with any greater than 137 GB stuff; I haven't seen any and have used 250 GB disks connected through the Promise Ultra TX2-133 and using their mini-port driver.

My normal install is 98lite with Sleek first, then install IE6.0 SP1. At this point, make a shell choice and stick with it. Then apply any and all IE/OE updates, etc.

The Sleek choice gives me total stability with the few predictable minor problems, but a growing number of apps that cannot be accomodated because they cannot be patched to get around the shell problem. But no file management problems whatsoever.

The Chubby choice give me exactly what everyone else here is describing, except that I lose overhead associated with the Active Desktop; this is not a shell component change so much as a bunch of favorable registry settings to remove overhead. I believe that 98lite chubby could be achieved by a .reg file! Especially in light of the inability to "quick change" shells now virtually impossible in light of IE 6.0 etc.

To raise a possible alternate solution: How badly does the 98FE shell react to IE 6.0 SP1 and any browseui/browselc issues? If I replace SHELL32.DLL, COMDLG32.DLL and EXPLORER.EXE with the 98FE counterparts, would anything be different regarding the file hang/freeze issues? I daresay the 95 shell incompatibilities would disappear! [And MGDx, if you are reading this, same question for using the ME files?]

cjl

[eidenk]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 1 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

eidenk, on Oct 1 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

How did you notice that exactly ?

I get a Low Resource error saying

Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit
any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding.

this only happen when i delete a large number of files.

I have never experienced such a thing on both 98SE and ME.

Are you sure you were not already very low for other reasons before deleting ?

Actually I moved more than 50.000 small files, 1-2 clusters or so, ( the entire textiles.com website linked by LLXX in another thread) from my desktop to another drive just two days ago with the resource meter on screen (for testing purposes having nothing to do with the copy files freeze problem) and noticed no impact on the resources at all.

Of course, Explorer froze (with IE 5.5 SP2).

I am pretty sure the freeze problem is about explorer not being able to keep up properly with the copy speed. It can't update itself as fast as the data actually changes in Windows and ends up freezing.

Pretty sure also that there is a disk write speed setting somewhere in Windows that could solve the problem (which is of no real consequence for me as I have a fast workaround to get to normal explorer again in one click and 2-3 seconds).

Possibly, using Total Copy, which allows to limit the copy speed, will generate no freeze problem for such operations.

But I haven't done specific testing of that so can't really say.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 02 October 2006 - 07:43 AM

[erpdude8]

better yet, delete the large number of files from within File Manager instead of Windows Explorer.
WinFile does a lot better job of removing large number of files and does it faster and more reliable than in Explorer and will not drain Windows resources.

If wonder why PROBLEMCHYLD hasn't tried deleting the large number files from the File Manager [WINFILE.EXE] applet instead of using Windows Explorer.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 02 October 2006 - 03:18 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

eidenk, on Oct 2 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 1 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

eidenk, on Oct 1 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

How did you notice that exactly ?

I get a Low Resource error saying

Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit
any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding.

this only happen when i delete a large number of files.

I have never experienced such a thing on both 98SE and ME.

that is how mine reacts exactly i had no low resources

Quote

better yet, delete the large number of files from within File Manager instead of Windows Explorer.
WinFile does a lot better job of removing large number of files and does it faster and more reliable than in Explorer and will not drain Windows resources.

If wonder why PROBLEMCHYLD hasn't tried deleting the large number files from the File Manager [WINFILE.EXE]applet instead of using Windows Explorer.

it doesn't support folders/files on the desktop meanin it has no desktop option
but i'll give it a shot

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 October 2006 - 03:30 PM

[eidenk]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 2 2006, 03:23 PM, said:

eidenk, on Oct 2 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 1 2006, 11:57 PM, said:

eidenk, on Oct 1 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

How did you notice that exactly ?

I get a Low Resource error saying

Ninety Percent or more of your system resources are in use.To free up system resources,quit
any programs that you are not using.If you do not your computer may stop responding.

this only happen when i delete a large number of files.

I have never experienced such a thing on both 98SE and ME.

that is how mine reacts exactly i had no low resources

How many percent of resources exactly (or even aproximately) were free when you started deleting ?

If you didn't have the resource meter on to monitor that, you could have been anywhere between 11 and 90%.

If you were at 11 it is possibly normal. If you were significantly higher it is not and it would be interesting to get to know which MS file leaks resources on your system.

Also you could have a leak on a shell extension you have installed.

I once had one like that, which was an archiver shellex, Quickzip if I recall correctly.

Each time I was using the context menu, 1 or 2 percent of resources were going away to never come back.

After 50 or so right-clicks in explorer the OS was dead.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

System 91%

User 91%

GDI 99%

this is how it is before deleting large files

i don't have any leaks that i know of
i have all the latest updates,patches,and unofficial patches
as i said before i lose lots of resources when deleting large files and then it hangs & explorer crashes

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 October 2006 - 05:17 PM

[eidenk]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 2 2006, 05:12 PM, said:

System 91%

User 91%

GDI 99%

this is how it is before deleting large files

i don't have any leaks that i know of
i have all the latest updates,patches,and unofficial patches
as i said before i lose lots of resources when deleting large files and then it hangs & explorer crashes

Can you actually clarify whether you delete large files or large amounts of files ?

You wrote :

Quote

and it seems when i delete large files it loses system resources

Quote

I had notice this when i was deleting 7000 files a week ago

Or is it actually large amounts of large files ?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

eidenk, on Oct 2 2006, 06:44 PM, said:

Or is it actually large amounts of large files ?

large amount of files

[eidenk]

Quote

i have all the latest updates,patches,and unofficial patches

It's very possibly one of them then. You must find out which one now by downgrading updated files one by one until you isolate the culprit.

Post your results once you are there. Everyone will benefit.

Oh yeah I forgot another question. How do you manage the amazing 99% of free GDI resources ? Any tips ?

This post has been edited by eidenk: 02 October 2006 - 05:58 PM

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

eidenk, on Oct 2 2006, 06:57 PM, said:

Oh yeah I forgot another question. How do you manage the amazing 99% of free GDI resources ? Any tips ?

nothing is running but mandatory system components i have a very lite system because it is
a test machine for my other Win98SE systems.i have no 3rd party apps on my test machince
I have only microsoft apps installed on my test machine.

Keep in mind it doesn't remain @ 99% once i start opening apps

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 02 October 2006 - 06:21 PM

[eidenk]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on Oct 2 2006, 06:11 PM, said:

eidenk, on Oct 2 2006, 06:57 PM, said:

Oh yeah I forgot another question. How do you manage the amazing 99% of free GDI resources ? Any tips ?

nothing is running but mandatory system components i have a very lite system because it is
a test machine for my other Win98SE systems.i have no 3rd party apps on my test machince
I have only microsoft apps installed on my test machine.

I have just done this on my Win ME IE 5.5 SP2 system. It's quite interesting, read on :

Starting with system and user resources at 65% free, GDI at 75% free

I copied one folder containing 56,493 files and 619 folders totaling 1.55 GB (1,668,057,987 bytes) and occupying 2.07 GB (2,223,521,792 bytes) of disk space.

No freeze while copying. Resources didn't change of even 1%.

I then enabled explorer view. GDI fell to 70%.

I then copied over files and folders in several steps into the top folder obtaining 12383 objects (including 447 folders).

GDI resources fell at 64% when I selected all objects.

I dropped them into an empty folder but the window froze (but not the rest of explorer), instead of waiting a bit I killed and restarted the explorer from a batch on my middle mouse hook.

I was back then with resource level I had begun with.

I went again in the folder with the 12383 objects and did reenable explorer view. The resources did not change unlike above when I lost 5% of GDI doing almost the same thing.

I did reselect all 12383 objects and tried to drop again in an empty folder. The window froze again but this time I waited and the files finally copied over. The GDI resources did not change unlike above where they fell by another 4% trying to do that.

Only after everything was copied did explorer attempt to refresh the view. System and User resources fell briefly to O before jumping back to their normal value. GDI resources did not change but the entire explorer was frozen.

So that the "classic" explorer freeze we speak about in this thread appears to take place when explorer updates the view for a large number of files.

I killed and restarted it and was back to normal.

I did reselect the 12383 objects by click and drag and then did a right-click. It took several seconds to diplay the context menu. I then did choose delete.

When the deleting was finished, explorer did refresh the view of the folder and again System and User resources fell briefly to 0 after which the explorer was frozen again. The GDI resources did not visibly change at any point.

I did then empty the recycle bin but without having it opened. During the operation, System and User resources fluctuated by 6-7%.

Explorer did not freeze doing that but I am pretty sure it would have if I would have had the recycle bin opened.

[eidenk]

PS : Internet Explorer remained opened all along on that page of MSFN and remained unnafected just as the rest of my system.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 02 October 2006 - 07:45 PM

[CLASYS]

I almost forgot to mention a perhaps crucial factor to this entire hang/freeze situation:

A lot of the overhead can be removed merely by unchecking the setting "Show window contents while dragging" and then applying to all folders. It would appear that leaving this set aggravates the problem because the slightest mouse motion to disturb a window setting will cause a backup of the screen update sequences.

In any case, all of this talk about too-few resources has little to do with it. The problem can exist with over 80% resources free. My test machine starts from 512 MB main memory and Windows-managed swap file and the SP 2.1a settings for caching etc. for use with over 64 MB.

cjl