[the_guy]

Can the installer please be modified to work on 95, but with the active desktop update installed?

the_guy

[noguru]

Very nice Thanks for posting this.
I used the IE 5.5 browsxxx files trick before because this error troubled me a lot!. I reregistered the the default IE6.0 ones before applying this fix. Unfortunately I could not reproduce the "file-delete" error anymore with 300+ jpg's to see if this fix really works but I know that if it does not the error will come up sooner or later again. So we will see but for now it looks very good, explorer windows including the recyclebin are opening much faster now. That's already a big improvement. I copied 500+ jpg's and deleted them tru recyclebin very smooth.

I removed the shortcut-overlay a long time ago with Xtec-Xsetup and it still works with exception from shortcut's to MS-DOS programs.

This is the most annoying bug in Win98se if you ask me. Lets hope that this is ended now. Cheers to the author !

edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might.

This post has been edited by noguru: 07 November 2006 - 05:32 PM

[MDGx]

hp38guser, on Nov 7 2006, 08:52 AM, said:

However aren't there still some open security holes in the Windows Shell? Will these get patched also sometime?

I'm sure there are, but M$ discontinued support for 9x/ME OSes, so to port other OSes fixes to 9x shell32.dll it's probably not as easy as it seems.
Besides, some of the NTx [NT4/2000/XP/2003] OSes shell32.dll fixes are strictly NTx specific, do not apply to 9x [95/98/ME] OSes.

The anonymous author agreed to fix this bug only because I mentioned it to him [and obviously he is a very nice person], and he has also read about our unsuccessful tests/workarounds/etc, here at MSFN.
Please do not forget that this is only 1 person [not an entire team of software engineers] who does this in his own spare time [which from what I understand is very limited].
But I'll mention this to him nonetheless.

HTH

_____________________________________________

eidenk, on Nov 7 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

MDGx, on Oct 12 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

Author's comments...

Quote

May I use this opportunity to address a common misconception about GDI and
USER resources in Win9x/ME..............

Unless it has just been updated, I had missed that so far.

So, any more information please ?

You say the size of the 32bits segments could be enlarged simply by modifying hidden system settings.

Which ones and where please ?

I'll mention your questions to the anonymous author.

The GDI*.* fixes have not been updated recently.
Last update was 8-9-2006, when Win98SE GDI*.* files were updated to version 4.10.2227 .
To view this update, please go to:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=46581
and scroll down to:
NEW 8-9-2006

HTH

_____________________________________________

Eck, on Nov 7 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

MDGx,

I've noticed that somehow 98SE2ME always leaves me without the stupid arrows on the desktop shortcuts.

I've been running Gape's Unofficial pack, the new Multipatcher, then your 98SE2ME, 98SE2XP, and the MP10 to 98SE thing.

So, if I then run this new Shell32.dll fix will I again lose the tweakUI ability to toggle the shortcut arrows on and off?

Will this patch be included in one of your packs?

Do you accomplish this magic in 98SE2ME with the file already hex edited?

Which method would you choose if all those packs had already been installed and you didn't want to run them all again just to fix this? I'd rather not reapply 98SE2ME, etc just to get small changes. I usually try to apply your future changes manually if it looks easy enough. I prefer not to run huge packs on an already setup system.

And, I use WinZip and WinRAR so I'm wondering whether those would accomplish things you call for stuff like PowerArchiver to achieve.

98SE2ME does this by modifying the registry, not the file.
Quote from READ1ST.TXT:
http://www.mdgx.com/9s2m/READ1ST.TXT

Quote

* ALL system files + settings listed below install independent of selected
option(s) and BEFORE creating any backups = everybody should have them even if
you decide not to install any options.
They all install right after you press Y at 98SE2ME.PIF 1st screen:

- patched Registry entry: properly remove Desktop Icons Overlay [superimposed
small arrows]when using TweakUI [Explorer tab -> Shortcut overlay -> None or
Custom] or similar tweaking tools:
http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#SYS
after installing any of these Win98 SE patches:
- Unofficial 2-4 GB Files Errors SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.610 Fix:
http://support.micro....com/?id=318293
Direct download [473 KB]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE
- Official SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.600 Security Vulnerability Fix:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/...n/ms02-014.mspx
Direct download [834 KB]:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-US/q313829.exe

-----Begin cut & paste here-----
REGEDIT4
; Removes Desktop Icons Overlay [then press F5 to refresh Desktop settings]:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]
@=""
; Restores Desktop Icons Overlay [replace C:\\WINDOWS to match your Win98 SE
; drive letter + directory name if different]:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{63B51F81-C868-11D0-999C-00C04FD655E1}\InProcServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\SHELL32.DLL"

------End cut & paste here------

How to restore original Registry value [this will display Desktop Icons
Overlay for ALL shortcuts]: run this command [%windir% = usually C:\WINDOWS]:
RUNDLL32 %windir%\SYSTEM\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection C:\9!M\BSRESTOR.INF,IO
Then press F5 to refresh the Desktop settings.
Restore NOT necessary because original Registry value BUGgy.
More info [see 3rd FIX]:
http://www.mdgx.com/98-5.htm#PSBF

HTH

_____________________________________________

noguru, on Nov 7 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might.

As I've said before, it is not recommended to patch older files, which do not contain newer fixes, because system file patches are [and should be] cumulative. Patching older files with just 1 fix and ignoring all others defeats the purpose of having a fully-patched OS.

But if you want the older file patched only for experimenting on your computer(s), that's an entirely different matter.
I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.

HTH

_____________________________________________

the_guy, on Nov 7 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

Can the installer please be modified to work on 95, but with the active desktop update installed?

the_guy

Did you or some1 else test this patch on Win95 with Active Desktop?
Does it work?
If it does, I'll modify the installer to make it work on Win95.

HTH

This post has been edited by MDGx: 07 November 2006 - 06:58 PM

[noguru]

MDGx, on Nov 8 2006, 01:57 AM, said:

noguru, on Nov 7 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

edit: Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original shell32.dll file so that different language versions are not needed? I installed this on a dutch Win98se. Offcourse everything is english now and I had to fix my start menu (empty startup and program folders are created on top of the original ones). I don't care but some might.

As I've said before, it is not recommended to patch older files, which do not contain newer fixes, because system file patches are [and should be] cumulative. Patching older files with just 1 fix and ignoring all others defeats the purpose of having a fully-patched OS.

But if you want the older file patched only for experimenting on your computer(s), that's an entirely different matter.
I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.

HTH

With original file I mean the shell32.dll that's already on the system. This fix replaces the shell.dll file with a, in my case, different language version. Is it possible to fix the existing shell32.dll instead of replacing it?

[MDGx]

noguru, on Nov 7 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

With original file I mean the shell32.dll that's already on the system. This fix replaces the shell.dll file with a, in my case, different language version. Is it possible to fix the existing shell32.dll instead of replacing it?

Which different language?
The only language file that was fixed previousy [the unofficial copy files/folders 2-4 GB bug = SHELL98.EXE] is English (United States) = en-us.
The anonymous author patched that shell32.dll 4.72.3812.610 [from SHELL98.EXE] to new version 4.72.3812.620 .
So now SHELL98.EXE contains the new version:

* Unofficial Windows 98/98 SP1/98 SE Explorer Lockups SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.620 Fix:
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=84451
Direct download [475 KB, English]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/SHELL98.EXE

HTH

[erpdude8]

how about patching the WINME SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 file? the "delete large files" bug also occurs under WinME + IE6.x

[MDGx]

erpdude8, on Nov 7 2006, 09:21 PM, said:

how about patching the WINME SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 file? the "delete large files" bug also occurs under WinME + IE6.x

I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.

[erpdude8]

MDGx, on Nov 7 2006, 07:57 PM, said:

Did you or some1 else test this patch on Win95 with Active Desktop?
Does it work?
If it does, I'll modify the installer to make it work on Win95.

You'll have to make the patch detect v4.72 of shell32.dll file under Win95. I've created an unofficial Wordpad patch for Win95 (it has not been released) but the updated wordpad.exe file requires v4.72 of shell32.dll file and will not run with v4.00 of shell32.dll. the wordpad.exe file from Win98/ME can read DLL/EXE files > 64kb while the Win95 version of wordpad.exe cant and will display the "Cannot load executable files" error message

[PsycoUnc]

-hmm, seems like a lot of effort to fix a prob which has a very easy (and completely successful/reliable) workaround...
-when I delete 9000+ files (copies of windows or progfiles dirs), all I need to do is "cancel" the deletion process every 5-7 seconds, and repeat... takes maybe 4 cycles to finish, and no hang/corruption/etc at all... a very easy/simple/quick/reliable workaround, I've done it many many times for years now, no problems...
[sticking w/IE5.5sp2 (+98se2me #3), of course; -never infected, will NEVER "crap-out" my w98se OS w/IE6+]
>;]
.
-ps: I would like to invite anybody to try to "hack/infect" my IE5.5sp2 w98se OS, just out of curiosity... (and I don't usually run an antivirus, except on rare occasions when surfing "dangerous" sites, and even then it's never alerted me to any hack/virus attempts)... so, go ahead, please, attempt to infect me, I don't even believe it's realistically possible, so prove me wrong...
>;]
.
-pps: use Firefox 99.9% of the time; but for the sake of this test, I'll go ahead and use Internet Excrement, see if I get infected...

This post has been edited by PsycoUnc: 11 November 2006 - 08:36 AM

[myelin]

PsycoUnc, on Nov 11 2006, 07:06 PM, said:

-ps: I would like to invite anybody to try to "hack/infect" my IE5.5sp2 w98se OS, just out of curiosity... (and I don't usually run an antivirus, except on rare occasions when surfing "dangerous" sites, and even then it's never alerted me to any hack/virus attempts)... so, go ahead, please, attempt to infect me, I don't even believe it's realistically possible, so prove me wrong...
>;]
.
-pps: use Firefox 99.9% of the time; but for the sake of this test, I'll go ahead and use Internet Excrement, see if I get infected...

You are asking for something which will make you . People are here to fix the problems, not create problems. Why don't you share with us about your security measures in this thread.

MDGx, on Nov 8 2006, 08:30 AM, said:

I'll mention your request to the anonymous author.

Who is that mysterious, hidden, undercover, nameless, shy, genious and selfless anonymous author?

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I just had a chance to test it
and i have to say thank you and Mystery person for this patch.
Win98SE aint never gonna die as long as we got people like you and others
who contribute to a everlasting OS like Win98/SE/ME
thanks again.I also notice files are opening up a lil bit faster.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 11 November 2006 - 06:55 PM

[MDGx]

Hi Guys,

Your questions have been answered by anonymous author:

Quote

Here are the few answers I can provide:

'eidenk' wrote on Nov 7 2006, 09:37 AM:

> Unless it has just been updated, I had missed that so far.

This information has not been posted before.

> So, any more information please ? You say the size of the 32bits
> segments could be enlarged simply by modifying hidden system settings.
> Which ones and where please ?

I suggest posting screenshots from Microsoft's System State Monitor
(http://www.osronline...ildbug_83ol.htm) in this forum
first before I spend some considerable time digging up the settings. I
used them very briefly several years ago and unfortunately have not kept a
reference to them as I typically found more than 90% of the 32-bit
resources to be free. These screenshots should show that only less than
*25%* or so of the 32-bit resources (not to be confused with the 16-bit
resources, which can be depleted easily!) are *free*.

'noguru' wrote on Nov 7 2006, 05:20 PM:

> Would it be possible to create a fix that patches the original
> shell32.dll so that different language versions are not needed?

As MGDx probably already hinted at, M$ never provided a Win98 patch for
Q313829 (4.72.3812.600) in any other language but English although such
localized patches should have been made.

'hp38guser' wrote on Nov 7 2006, 08:52 AM

> However aren't there still some open security holes in the Windows
> Shell? Will these get patched also sometime?

I am afraid the answer is: I have no plans for several reasons. (1) Utter
lack of time (and interest = I know what Win98SE is still good for, but I
am acutely aware of its serious and major shortcomings). Sorry. (2) As
indicated by Microsoft's security posts, some of the vulnerabilities can
be mitigated by closing the NetBIOS ports on a Win98 machine (should be
done in any case!). This can be done easily by 'disabling NetBIOS over
TCP/IP' etc. (http://www.grc.com/su-rebinding9x.htm). (3) Porting code
from the Win2k/XP architecture back to the Win9x architecture requires
either a team of software engineers that has access to the source code or
a group of very dedicated & determined hackers/reverse engineers that can
pinpoint first what was patched in the Win2k shell and then find (sic!)
(and possibly patch) the corresponding code in the Win98 shell and also
the WinMe shell.

'erpdude8' wrote on Nov 7 2006, 09:21 PM:

> How about patching the WINME SHELL32.DLL v5.50.4134.100 file? the
> "delete large files" bug also occurs under WinME + IE6.x

4.72.3812.600 & 5.50.4134.100 are far more different than, for example,
GDI.EXE 4.10.2225 & 4.90.3001. I have no WinME installation to find out if
the same workaround still applies. The bug is most likely not in
SHELL32.DLL and it is not clear if it is a real bug (like wrong parameters
passed to SHELL32.DLL) or some functionality that was implemented with the
Win2k/XP platform in mind and then caused those problems on the Win9x
platform. It would be far better to determine this and then create the
appropriate patch for whatever DLL is the culprit. However, there are too
many other DLLs that play a critical role, BROWSEUI.DLL, SHLWAPI.DLL,
SHDOC401.DLL (!), and SHDOCVW.DLL to name a few. I will check if
5.50.4134.100 even has code similar to what I patched in 4.72.3812.600.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes.

HTH

[Petr]

MDGx, on Nov 13 2006, 07:44 AM, said:

Quote

As MGDx probably already hinted at, M$ never provided a Win98 patch for
Q313829 (4.72.3812.600) in any other language but English although such
localized patches should have been made.

But Q313829 exists in many languages:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-US/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../AR/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-BR/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../CS/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../DA/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../DE/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../EL/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../ES/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../FI/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../FR/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../HE/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../HU/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../IT/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../JA/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../KO/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../NL/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../NO/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../PL/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../PT/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../RU/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../SK/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../SL/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../SV/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../TR/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../TW/q313829.exe
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4.../CN/q313829.exe

Petr

[noguru]

Petr, on Nov 13 2006, 08:14 AM, said:

MDGx, on Nov 13 2006, 07:44 AM, said:

Quote

As MGDx probably already hinted at, M$ never provided a Win98 patch for
Q313829 (4.72.3812.600) in any other language but English although such
localized patches should have been made.

But Q313829 exists in many languages:

...long list

Petr

Thanks for this list. In the dutch version there is a 4.72.3812.600 shell32.dll, exactly the same that I originally had on my system before I installed the 98SP1+98se shell32.dll fix. Only difference is that mine is dated 7-10-2004, because I got it from sesp2nl ver 1.6 (I never updated to 2.1, installed everything seperate from MDGX's site since then)

However, if it's not possible to create a universal fix for all of these versions (I have no clue, I know almost nothing about programming) just like for instance KUP patches all file versions and language versions of kernel32.dll than we just have to live with the fact that there is only a US fixed shell32.dll. You can't ask anybody to fix them all seperate. I'm very happy with this fix anyway, also in english.

[Petr]

noguru, on Nov 13 2006, 01:44 PM, said:

However, if it's not possible to create a universal fix for all of these versions (I have no clue, I know almost nothing about programming) just like for instance KUP patches all file versions and language versions of kernel32.dll than we just have to live with the fact that there is only a US fixed shell32.dll. You can't ask anybody to fix them all seperate. I'm very happy with this fix anyway, also in english.

I think it is possible - at least for most of languages.

Every executable file in Windows 98 has two portions - binary code and resources. While resources are different for all languages, the binary code has only a few variants:
United States (single byte character set)
Middle East (single byte character set, right-to-left writing)
Far East (double byte character set (DBCS))
Thai

More details here: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/w...t7/wrkappa.mspx

An analysis for files contained in sesp21a is here: http://old.winpack.o...rnat_files.html - this table contains the information about files on distribution CD for specific language.

And regarding the shell32.dll fix. I have not looked at it yet but there are two possibilities in general:
- duplicate the binary patch to the localized file (the binary portion should be the same)
- move all language dependent resources from the original localized file to the new fixed file. With Restorator it means just few cliks (maybe with other resource editors too).

So it is not really big problem.

Regards,

Petr

[erpdude8]

PsycoUnc, on Nov 11 2006, 09:06 AM, said:

-hmm, seems like a lot of effort to fix a prob which has a very easy (and completely successful/reliable) workaround...
-when I delete 9000+ files (copies of windows or progfiles dirs), all I need to do is "cancel" the deletion process every 5-7 seconds, and repeat... takes maybe 4 cycles to finish, and no hang/corruption/etc at all... a very easy/simple/quick/reliable workaround, I've done it many many times for years now, no problems...
[sticking w/IE5.5sp2 (+98se2me #3), of course; -never infected, will NEVER "crap-out" my w98se OS w/IE6+]
>;]
.
-ps: I would like to invite anybody to try to "hack/infect" my IE5.5sp2 w98se OS, just out of curiosity... (and I don't usually run an antivirus, except on rare occasions when surfing "dangerous" sites, and even then it's never alerted me to any hack/virus attempts)... so, go ahead, please, attempt to infect me, I don't even believe it's realistically possible, so prove me wrong...
>;]
.
-pps: use Firefox 99.9% of the time; but for the sake of this test, I'll go ahead and use Internet Excrement, see if I get infected...

darn it, PsycoUnc! what the hell is wrong with you!

[eidenk]

MDGx, on Nov 13 2006, 12:44 AM, said:

Hi Guys,

Your questions have been answered by anonymous author:

Quote

Here are the few answers I can provide:

'eidenk' wrote on Nov 7 2006, 09:37 AM:

> Unless it has just been updated, I had missed that so far.

This information has not been posted before.

> So, any more information please ? You say the size of the 32bits
> segments could be enlarged simply by modifying hidden system settings.
> Which ones and where please ?

I suggest posting screenshots from Microsoft's System State Monitor
(http://www.osronline...ildbug_83ol.htm) in this forum
first before I spend some considerable time digging up the settings. I
used them very briefly several years ago and unfortunately have not kept a
reference to them as I typically found more than 90% of the 32-bit
resources to be free. These screenshots should show that only less than
*25%* or so of the 32-bit resources (not to be confused with the 16-bit
resources, which can be depleted easily!) are *free*.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes.

HTH

Thanks a lot for answering. No rush but if you could remember a bit more, it would be nice.

If true, what you are saying is quite groundbreaking as it is so far and to my (very limited) knowledge, totally undocumented that the size of the 32bit resource segments can be changed simply with settings.

Does this hold true for any system or only for one running with a debug kit installed ?

I have no clue of the impact, in terms of performance and stability, of running such a system with debugger but, at least for performance, maybe the impact is very low on a fast machine.

From what you are saying, I understand that for knowing precisely what is in use for both 16bits and 32bits separately, the debugger is necessary.

I have been on the page you quote and I ended up downloading some 18.000 9x related files with Web Reaper. That's a lot. I'll have a read at the specific ones you say, there aren't that many, and I'll try to get something usefull out of it.

Thanks again.

PS : I haven't seen any of the screenshots you speak about on the above quoted site but I might have so far missed them.

This post has been edited by eidenk: 13 November 2006 - 01:21 PM

[MDGx]

Replies from anonymous author to comments originated in this forum:

Quote

Good to know that there are indeed localized versions of 4.72.3812.600 as Petr noted (thanks!).
The binary file I patched is a bit different from what is in
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie4...-US/q313829.exe
but it should still be straightforward for someone else to create localized versions using the method Petr suggested and described. Writing a universal patcher is probably not worth the effort.

I looked at WinME SHELL32.DLL 5.50.4134.100 briefly. It appears to have similar code, so I will not completely rule out a WinME patch - however, I have no time right now I am afraid.

I have looked at the KernelUpdate project briefly when I wrote the two patches for file copying > 2GiByte, but I am not familiar with its specifics. I understand it takes SHELL32.DLL and patches it. So I am not sure I understand PROBLEMCHYLD's question. Does Xeno86's patcher not work with 4.72.3812.610?

HTH

[Acheron]

I have converted the patch to Dutch. However I ran into problems using Restorator 2006 on the patched shell32.dll. Might be because of non-matching Resources, since anonymous patch creator used an build different than the Q313829 one.
I switched over to old Reshacker for the job, but after I finished its job I still can't use Restorator.

you can download the Dutch version here: Shell98FixNL.zip.

I will convert other unofficial patches to Dutch soon, so I can include them in next Service Pack or Intergrator CD.

P.S. Two questions:

1. Does this fix also include the over 2GB copy file patch?

2. If yes, do I also have to install the 2GB kernel32.dll patch?

This post has been edited by hp38guser: 14 November 2006 - 05:19 PM

[noguru]

hp38guser, on Nov 15 2006, 12:00 AM, said:

I have converted the patch to Dutch. However I ran into problems using Restorator 2006 on the patched shell32.dll. Might be because of non-matching Resources, since anonymous patch creator used an build different than the Q313829 one.
I switched over to old Reshacker for the job, but after I finished its job I still can't use Restorator.

you can download the Dutch version here: Shell98FixNL.zip.

I will convert other unofficial patches to Dutch soon, so I can include them in next Service Pack or Intergrator CD.

P.S. Two questions:

1. Does this fix also include the over 2GB copy file patch?

2. If yes, do I also have to install the 2GB kernel32.dll patch?

Thanks!!