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

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



soporific

The complete list of hotfixes & updates for Windows 98se

Recommended Posts

What wmp files are obselete now that we have WMP90_98.EXE

it should be all the updates listed in the Windows Media Player module in the Auto-Patcher contents file.

soporific,

maybe you should have an incompatible section for updates that don't work in 98SE anymore?

...

Interestingly, the xml updates released this year are having problems where the late 2006 updates work okay.

I bit like MS dropping the bda.cab and directx.cab files after the DirectX December 2006 release...

The incompatible section -- I think that's a good idea, and it looks like we need to wait a bit for some testing to occur on the new releases before we release into the wild. All the Win98se projects should take this approach me thinks.

Edited by soporific

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

The incompatible section -- I think that's a good idea, and it looks like we need to wait a bit for some testing to occur on the new releases before we release into the wild. All the Win98se projects should take this approach me thinks.

soporific,

I have tested the other two new updates I mentioned with the XML 4.0 SP2 update 936181.

So...

921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL does not work. It causes HTML script errors with library not found messages...

936021 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML3.DLL does not work. It causes application errors...

And as mentioned earlier,

936181 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML4.DLL does not work. XML 4 simply does not do anything... Broken...

I welcome others to test these updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The incompatible section -- I think that's a good idea, and it looks like we need to wait a bit for some testing to occur on the new releases before we release into the wild. All the Win98se projects should take this approach me thinks.

soporific,

I have tested the other two new updates I mentioned with the XML 4.0 SP2 update 936181.

So...

921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL does not work. It causes HTML script errors with library not found messages...

936021 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML3.DLL does not work. It causes application errors...

And as mentioned earlier,

936181 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML4.DLL does not work. XML 4 simply does not do anything... Broken...

I welcome others to test these updates.

Thanks for this really important testing info ... i should send a note to MDGx about this as we're going to see more and more cases like these and we don't want to be breaking all the few remaining fully functioning Win98 systems out there! We want to do the opposite ... we need to maybe formalise a testing window where we ask for volunteers to test the new updates we want to release, maybe a fortnight, and then do the proper release.

I better get started on the new section for this thread's first post!

Thanks again RetroOS, you are a very welcome member of the unofficial Windows 98 SE support team!! :thumbup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL does not work. It causes HTML script errors with library not found messages... [...]

That's quite true and, at the same time, it is not! :D

In fact, RetroOS and soporific, it's complicated...

kb921503 points to MS07-043, and this points back to kb921503, but also to kb924053, among other possible security updates to remedy the vulnerability in MS07-043. And here is the catch: the OLEAUT32.DLL (v. 2.40.4531.0) in Windows2000-KB921503-x86-ENU.EXE really does not work with Win 9x/ME. But VB6-KB924053-x86-ENU.exe contains no less than 5 versions of OLEAUT32.DLL, TWO of which identify themselves as v. 2.40.4519.0! One of them (named oant4.dll in the pack) does work well with Win 9x/ME and IS the most up-to-date version of OLEAUT32.DLL known to do so, even if it does have a version number below v. 2.40.4522.0, which was formerly the most up-to-date version of this file. Well, I warned you it is complicated! :rolleyes: erpdude8 was the first to find out about v. 2.40.4519.0, but was rather terse about it. When I understood how confused was this matter, I tried to spell it out as best as I was able to, so if you want to read more on this conundrum, see my long post on it here. HTH

BTW, thanks for the heads up on MSXML3 and MSXML4, RetroOS. :thumbup You rock!

Edited by dencorso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL does not work. It causes HTML script errors with library not found messages... [...]

That's quite true and, at the same time, it is not! :D

In fact, RetroOS and soporific, it's complicated...

kb921503 points to MS07-043, and this points back to kb921503, but also to kb924053, among other possible security updates to remedy the vulnerability in MS07-043. And here is the catch: the OLEAUT32.DLL (v. 2.40.4531.0) in Windows2000-KB921503-x86-ENU.EXE really does not work with Win 9x/ME. But VB6-KB924053-x86-ENU.exe contains no less than 5 versions of OLEAUT32.DLL, TWO of which identify themselves as v. 2.40.4519.0! One of them (named oant4.dll in the pack) does work well with Win 9x/ME and IS the most up-to-date version of OLEAUT32.DLL known to do so, even if it does have a version number below v. 2.40.4522.0, which was formerly the most up-to-date version of this file. Well, I warned you it is complicated! :rolleyes: erpdude8 was the first to find out about v. 2.40.4519.0, but was rather terse about it. When I understood how confused was this matter, I tried to spell it out as best as I was able to, so if you want to read more on this conundrum, see my long post on it here. HTH

BTW, thanks for the heads up on MSXML3 and MSXML4, RetroOS. :thumbup You rock!

Thanks for the information dencorso and RetroOS. OLEAUT32.DLL v2.40.4519.0 functions well in my Win 982SE computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

soporific,

You should probably clarify the actual version numbers of incompatible update files.

Since 921503 for example does have a compatible file hidden away in the mix as pointed out in the last posts.

So the actual dud files are:

921503 (MS07-043) OLEAUT32.DLL is 2.40.4531.0

936021 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML3.DLL is 8.90.1101.0

936181 (MS07-042 936227) MSXML4.DLL is 4.20.9848.0

Essentially, versions of these three files that are numerically less than those listed, should be okay in 9x.

Hopefully we do not need to use the incompatible section too much...

As time rolls on and MS try to quietly exclude 9x (9x? I hear MS saying), this section might expand...

:w00t:Viv' la Windows 9x! :hello:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest a new section: Update(er)s to avoid at any cost.

DANGEROUS UPDATES

Not because of the updated files themselves but basicaly because the installer is not working and the author (who wants to remain anonymous) doesn't understand the risks of playing with system files (and would better not to).

U891711.EXE

Q891711.EXE :realmad:

Q891711F.EXE

EXPLOR98.EXE

KB918547.exe

Especialy Q891711 (and all the *891711 flavors)

For the second time (same problem as with the previous version 2 months ago) my computer was unable to restart and I had to reinstall windows.

It said "unable to load user.exe" then shut down in 1/10th of a second. Clack! (You know, the sound when the PC power is turned off). I didn't have the possibility to restart it! ===> Boot Floppy! :ph34r:

Q891711 IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS UPDATE: DO NOT USE IT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May I suggest a new section: Update(er)s to avoid at any cost.

DANGEROUS UPDATES

Not because of the updated files themselves but basicaly because the installer is not working...

...

Especialy Q891711...

Fredledingue,

The Q891711 problem was resolved in a 26 Sep update.

See this post.

It was only an issue if Revolutions Pack was installed.

Before this update was fixed, I resolved my crashed Windows by booting to a command prompt and replacing user.exe and user32.dll with the Revolutions Pack versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May I suggest a new section: Update(er)s to avoid at any cost.

DANGEROUS UPDATES

Not because of the updated files themselves but basicaly because the installer is not working and the author (who wants to remain anonymous) doesn't understand the risks of playing with system files (and would better not to).

U891711.EXE

Q891711.EXE :realmad:

Q891711F.EXE

EXPLOR98.EXE

KB918547.exe

Especialy Q891711 (and all the *891711 flavors)

For the second time (same problem as with the previous version 2 months ago) my computer was unable to restart and I had to reinstall windows.

It said "unable to load user.exe" then shut down in 1/10th of a second. Clack! (You know, the sound when the PC power is turned off). I didn't have the possibility to restart it! ===> Boot Floppy! :ph34r:

Q891711 IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS UPDATE: DO NOT USE IT

My dear Fredledingue:

I do respect your grief, and I do respect you. You have my sympathy. But some things must be said!

1)I have installed the updates you mention in more than 10 systems, including my own machine, since they were released, with no problem at all. What you are experiencing must be due to some quirk peculiar to your installation.

2)The files user.exe/user32.dll 4.10.0.2233 (in Q981711); and gdi.exe/gdi32.dll 4.10.0.2227 (in Q918547) are mods by anonymous, while explorer.exe 4.72.3612.1710 is a mod by erpdude8, AFAIK. All these files work flawlessy and don't cause any problem whatsoever, in my experience. And you seem to confirm it yourself as you do blame the installers! Furthermore the mods by anonymous work as advertised and resolve problems MS didn't care to solve for us. Hence, if the installers do have a problem, we have, in this forum, lots of expertise to improve them. This is a case in which we can light a candle instead of cursing the darkness... :whistle: But we cannot afford to alienate the few code modders and coders we have among ourselves, especially over an installer issue! It's too bad we've lost LLXX already! Let the coders code. We all can help debug installers, once we know there is a problem, no matter how rarely it manifests itself. And in the meanwhile, if the installer doesn't work, it's just a case of installing the files by hand, in DOS mode, until a better installer is released.

3)Don't be overly dramatic. :) If you did backup before applying new patches, it was a matter of no more than 20 min, probably less, for you to get back to your previous working system state. If you didn't, and really had to reinstall from scratch as you seem to imply, blame it on yourself alone! There are plenty of disclaimers everywhere telling you to backup first, and, ultimately, that whatever you do to your system you do solely at your own risk, and that YMMV. And do not tell me backuping takes lots of times more than 20 min. If it does, you should try an alternative backup strategy: there are many, and I'm sure I can help you find one that will provide you with a backup in 20 min or less, every time you need one. But if you want to discuss backup strategies, I suggest we start another thread, so as to not drift off-topic here.

All the same, thanks for the heads up! All best wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dencorso,

First I must say that backing up your entire system every time you apply a patch is silly: Just see how many there are.

I have counted 26 only after uSP3-alpha was released or that were not included in it!

Maybe my system is special, maybe I did something wrong, maybe the moon wasn't in the right phase, I don't know and I don't want to know because installer for essential system files like these should be 100% safe whatever is the case.

I think it's the installer because when I checked after the crash, user.exe had disapeared. Extracting in DOS user.exe from the original cab files didn't solve the problem maybe because I didn't know I had to extract user.dll too.

see also my reply here on the MDGx thread

About EXPLOR98.EXE and KB918547.exe, I didn't have problem with them but MDGx comments make clear they are dangerous in some cases.

What I intended to do was not bashing the anonymous guy, but to list patches which have caused problems or could potentialy cause some, and list those who are wellknown to be safe.

Edited by Fredledingue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are certainly speaking about TI891711 and not about U891711 as the latter does not replace user.exe and user32.dll.

You should find your original user.exe and user32.dll in your your sysbckup folder if I am not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dencorso,

First I must say that backing up your entire system every time you apply a patch is silly: Just see how many there are.

I have counted 26 only after uSP3-alpha was released or that were not included in it![...]

Sorry, Fredledingue, but I disagree. I'm responsible for 6 Win 98SE machines and also service on an irregular basis 4 more Win 98SE machines, besides one Win ME machine that was recently upgraded to XP and 3 other XP machines...

All 10 Win 98SE machines I've set up originally in 2001, and never ever had to reinstall from scratch, up to the present day! I gladly accept being called overly paranoid, but to backup often, and certainly before adding system critical updates, for me is far from silly: it makes sense! Now, I don't say one should backup before and after every single update one applies, but nothing prevents one from collecting some updates, say 3 to 6, backing up, applying them, letting users use the system for one or two weeks, and if nothing goes wrong, repeating this procedure all over again. If something does go wrong, one can reinstall the back up and then hunt down which update was responsible for what went wrong. BTW, this has allowed me to have up and running again, in less than 2h, machines which hard disks went dead because of hardware problems. It happened twice already. And all I needed to do was to get a new hard disk from my spare parts collection, physically install it and put the backup back in. DVD-R's are cheap and don't occupy too much space. And happy customers are priceless. ;)

[...]What I intended to do was not bashing the anonymous guy, but to list patches which have caused problems or could potentialy cause some, and list those who are wellknown to be safe.

I now understand your original intention clearly and find it highly commendable. But, since your original post might be understood as a tottaly unwarranted bashing, I felt bound to reply as I did. If I overreacted, my apologies. All best wishes.

Edited by dencorso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely LLXX could come back with a new User ID (and a masked IP if necessary).

We need her expertise badly.

:blushing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are certainly speaking about TI891711 and not about U891711 as the latter does not replace user.exe and user32.dll.

So how many variants of 891711 exist ?

The official MS one. U891711 which appears to be a hack of the MS one by anonymous. Both of those are only adding files.

And Tihy's one and the one finally posted by Fredledingue in the other thread, both of which replacing user32.dll and user.exe.

So it seems there are 4 different ones.

You should find your original user.exe and user32.dll in your your sysbckup folder if I am not mistaken.

No you should not find them there in fact as I wrongly believed that 98SE's wininit.exe was automatically backing up files it deletes or replace as it does on Win ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way AFAIK, to automaticaly back up your system files in W98 (without external application) is to set a command in scanreg.ini so that scanreg back up some system files. But I'v never heard of anyone using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×