problems with 32.dll when loading drivers

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.

I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it,
and when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it
worked well (including the universal USB driver).

However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
problematical.

Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some
ERDs from before I tried it, with one exception (that I know so far,
anyway): it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more
fundamental.

My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the
mobo CD.

Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're sort
of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that extent,
or I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where to look, I
get to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I get a -
old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle that says
"Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep working
anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore, nothing
happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This program has
performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons. If I close
this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger) disappear.

If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found new
hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks up (I
can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at that
point, I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar, just a
mouse pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I restart)
is to use the old ERD again.

My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually
gets "blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).

I get something similar when trying to install another piece of hardware
(a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it according
to the instructions, i. e. drivers before connecting): _something_
crashes, at the point after it's "found" the new hardware and is doing
whatever it does next at that point.

Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back
would be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)

[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one
poster who will think it did ... (-:]

[Gary S. Terhune]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.

Then you're not running Windows 98. Please go find a more appropriate
newsgroup. I presume "98Lite" has it's own well-staffed and informative
communinty forum or other support. Oh... It doesn't? In fact, unless you BUY
the professional edition, there's no support at all? Guess you're SOL.

And please note that there is no such newsgroup as
microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.

Then you're not running Windows 98. Please go find a more appropriate

I have - the '95 one. They're friendly.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
newsgroup. I presume "98Lite" has it's own well-staffed and informative
communinty forum or other support. Oh... It doesn't? In fact, unless you BUY
the professional edition, there's no support at all? Guess you're SOL.

I have found (especially on the '95 group) plenty of people to help me,
and whom I can help, with various things. I've even helped people in the
'98 one. I acknowledge your right to hold the views you do about 98lite
(and soporific's work - I'm closer to you on that, though we don't
actually converge).

Post by Gary S. Terhune
And please note that there is no such newsgroup as
microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion

I cut and pasted that from somewhere, rather than making it up.

[Gary S. Terhune]

No, I meant a group who could truly understand the nuances of your butchery,
you know, one that SPECIALIZES in 98Lite.

Or aren't there enough of you to warrant that?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.

Then you're not running Windows 98. Please go find a more appropriate

I have - the '95 one. They're friendly.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
newsgroup. I presume "98Lite" has it's own well-staffed and informative
communinty forum or other support. Oh... It doesn't? In fact, unless you BUY
the professional edition, there's no support at all? Guess you're SOL.

I have found (especially on the '95 group) plenty of people to help me,
and whom I can help, with various things. I've even helped people in the
'98 one. I acknowledge your right to hold the views you do about 98lite
(and soporific's work - I'm closer to you on that, though we don't
actually converge).

Post by Gary S. Terhune
And please note that there is no such newsgroup as
microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion

I cut and pasted that from somewhere, rather than making it up.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[Gary S. Terhune]

Wow! This Win95 room is downright drafty. When's the last time a maid was in
here to clear out the cobwebs?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by Gary S. Terhune
No, I meant a group who could truly understand the nuances of your
butchery, you know, one that SPECIALIZES in 98Lite.
Or aren't there enough of you to warrant that?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.

Then you're not running Windows 98. Please go find a more appropriate

I have - the '95 one. They're friendly.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
newsgroup. I presume "98Lite" has it's own well-staffed and informative
communinty forum or other support. Oh... It doesn't? In fact, unless you BUY
the professional edition, there's no support at all? Guess you're SOL.

I have found (especially on the '95 group) plenty of people to help me,
and whom I can help, with various things. I've even helped people in the
'98 one. I acknowledge your right to hold the views you do about 98lite
(and soporific's work - I'm closer to you on that, though we don't
actually converge).

Post by Gary S. Terhune
And please note that there is no such newsgroup as
microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion

I cut and pasted that from somewhere, rather than making it up.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[Gary S. Terhune]

Nevermind, they were just hiding.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Wow! This Win95 room is downright drafty. When's the last time a maid was
in here to clear out the cobwebs?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by Gary S. Terhune
No, I meant a group who could truly understand the nuances of your
butchery, you know, one that SPECIALIZES in 98Lite.
Or aren't there enough of you to warrant that?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.

Then you're not running Windows 98. Please go find a more appropriate

I have - the '95 one. They're friendly.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
newsgroup. I presume "98Lite" has it's own well-staffed and informative
communinty forum or other support. Oh... It doesn't? In fact, unless you BUY
the professional edition, there's no support at all? Guess you're SOL.

I have found (especially on the '95 group) plenty of people to help me,
and whom I can help, with various things. I've even helped people in the
'98 one. I acknowledge your right to hold the views you do about 98lite
(and soporific's work - I'm closer to you on that, though we don't
actually converge).

Post by Gary S. Terhune
And please note that there is no such newsgroup as
microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion

I cut and pasted that from somewhere, rather than making it up.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Wow! This Win95 room is downright drafty. When's the last time a maid was in
here to clear out the cobwebs?

Someone from another room is now standing in the doorway growling at
anyone who comes near ... (-: [Actually, I've found it a friendly and
helpful 'group.]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
No, I meant a group who could truly understand the nuances of your butchery,
you know, one that SPECIALIZES in 98Lite.
Or aren't there enough of you to warrant that?

I've been using 98lite for years, and in general have found little to
denigrate it - and frequently felt that it has saved me from things that
using the '98 shell would have subjected me to.

No, I can't give any specific examples at this very moment.

If you feel so strongly that it renders the priests of purity liable to
be tainted, then please feel free to ignore any threads in which I ever
mention it. Some of them might even dare to speak for themselves ...

Leaving aside our own personal feud, does anyone else out there have any
positive suggestions as to what might be the cure for my problem with
loading drivers?

(Incidentally, I have tried switching back to the "chubby" - I think it
is - version, the one that uses the '98 shell, which didn't make the
problem go away.)

[Jeff Richards]

Allright.

PLEASE don't post questions concerning 98Lite here. It's unlikely that
anyone here uses it. Any answers you do get are likely to be wrong and will
probably further corrupt your system. If, by chance, someone does reply
with something useful, then there is no way that anyone later reading this
thread will be able to work out whether or not the suggestion is relevant to
their system, and it is possible that it may actually be damaging. Since
most people who would know the difference are not going to engage in the
thread at all, then the potentially damaging instructions will go
uncommented.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

snip <
If you feel so strongly that it renders the priests of purity liable to be
tainted, then please feel free to ignore any threads in which I ever
mention it. Some of them might even dare to speak for themselves ...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

With apologies for the repost - one positive outcome of the first one
was that I discovered that what I thought was a valid cut-and-paste
wasn't: for some reason the two surviving newsgroups have slightly
different punctuations in their name.

(Positive suggestions only, please - the details of my problem have been
lost in the heat on the other thread, and please post to that one if
your only contribution is to say I'm in the wrong place!)

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.
I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it,
and when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it
worked well (including the universal USB driver).
However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
problematical.
Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some
ERDs from before I tried it, with one exception (that I know so far,
anyway): it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more
fundamental.
My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the
mobo CD.
Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're
sort of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that
extent, or I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where
to look, I get to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I
get a - old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle
that says "Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep
working anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore,
nothing happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This
program has performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons.
If I close this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger) disappear.
If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found
new hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks
up (I can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at
that point, I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar,
just a mouse pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I
restart) is to use the old ERD again.
My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually
gets "blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).
I get something similar when trying to install another piece of
hardware (a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it
_something_ crashes, at the point after it's "found" the new hardware
and is doing whatever it does next at that point.
Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back
would be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)
[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one
poster who will think it did ... (-:]

[MEB]

Try using Safe Mode to remove ALL old drivers [any sound or problem
devices].

Look at the installation files in the folder from which you installed the
purported driver [look at the inf{s}], make note of registry entries created
and where files were placed and names.
Run regedit, search for the RealTek entries and remove - search the INF
folder for the Realtek INF{s} and delete - remove all files that were
installed as shown by the install INFs.

LOCATE a better driver... check to ensure the card is properly seated,
install the new driver....

When using an unofficial updater its usually best to install devices
[except USB/Firewire] and applications PRIOR to installing/updating with the
compilation.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <***@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@soft255.demon.co.uk...
| With apologies for the repost - one positive outcome of the first one
| was that I discovered that what I thought was a valid cut-and-paste
| wasn't: for some reason the two surviving newsgroups have slightly
| different punctuations in their name.
|
| (Positive suggestions only, please - the details of my problem have been
| lost in the heat on the other thread, and please post to that one if
| your only contribution is to say I'm in the wrong place!)
|
| In message <mH$***@soft255.demon.co.uk>, "J. P. Gilliver
| (John)" <***@soft255.demon.co.uk> writes
| >'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.
| >
| >I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
| >anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it,
| >and when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it
| >worked well (including the universal USB driver).
| >
| >However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
| >system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
| >problematical.
| >
| >Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some
| >ERDs from before I tried it, with one exception (that I know so far,
| >anyway): it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more
| >fundamental.
| >
| >My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
| >(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the
| >mobo CD.
| >
| >Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
| >under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
| >this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
| >click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
| >usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're
| >sort of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that
| >extent, or I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where
| >to look, I get to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I
| >get a - old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle
| >that says "Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep
| >working anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore,
| >nothing happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This
| >program has performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons.
| >If I close this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger)
disappear.
| >
| >If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found
| >new hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks
| >up (I can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at
| >that point, I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar,
| >just a mouse pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I
| >restart) is to use the old ERD again.
| >
| >My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually
| >gets "blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).
| >
| >I get something similar when trying to install another piece of
| >hardware (a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it
| >according to the instructions, i. e. drivers before connecting):
| >_something_ crashes, at the point after it's "found" the new hardware
| >and is doing whatever it does next at that point.
| >
| >Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back
| >would be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)
| >
| >[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one
| >poster who will think it did ... (-:]
|
| --
| J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
| ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **
|
| "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my
| shoulders."
| Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris
harrison.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by MEB
Try using Safe Mode to remove ALL old drivers [any sound or problem
devices].
Look at the installation files in the folder from which you installed the
purported driver [look at the inf{s}], make note of registry entries created
and where files were placed and names.
Run regedit, search for the RealTek entries and remove - search the INF
folder for the Realtek INF{s} and delete - remove all files that were
installed as shown by the install INFs.

Thanks; this is the sort of help I was after, of course.

However, I don't think it is the driver as such that is faulty; the odd
behaviour seems to happen at some point during the loading process -
and, I get something not dissimilar when attempting to load something
entirely different (a microscope, which is in effect a webcam). I don't
think it is the driver(s) as such, nor the rundll32 file.

Post by MEB
LOCATE a better driver... check to ensure the card is properly seated,
install the new driver....
When using an unofficial updater its usually best to install devices
[except USB/Firewire] and applications PRIOR to installing/updating with the
compilation.

[]
I have no option in this case anyway, as the hardware is the mobo's
built-in sound hardware. (And I don't _think_ there was a link to
disable it.) If I remove (the software/driver) from Device Manager and
reboot, it does the found new hardware bit, but then crashes
irretrievably while trying to load the drivers (which I've located from
the motherboard's website). If I do it without rebooting, it still
crashes, but I can get control back (I just accept a few error boxes and
it is back as it was, just still with no sound).

[MEB]

I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?

I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this situation
and the procedure when installing an un-official compilation. Perhaps it
might be beneficial for you to outline what you have already done. You
should also note that unless you follow the procedures and updates/patch
process being used in unofficial patchings by the creator of the patch, your
results will likely NOT reflect the same success.
That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image should
the testing fail or corrupt one's system.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <***@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:2$$0NjmT6DqIFw+***@soft255.demon.co.uk...
| In message <***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
| <***@not.here.invalid> writes
| >Try using Safe Mode to remove ALL old drivers [any sound or problem
| >devices].
| >
| >Look at the installation files in the folder from which you installed the
| >purported driver [look at the inf{s}], make note of registry entries
created
| >and where files were placed and names.
| > Run regedit, search for the RealTek entries and remove - search the INF
| >folder for the Realtek INF{s} and delete - remove all files that were
| >installed as shown by the install INFs.
|
| Thanks; this is the sort of help I was after, of course.
|
| However, I don't think it is the driver as such that is faulty; the odd
| behaviour seems to happen at some point during the loading process -
| and, I get something not dissimilar when attempting to load something
| entirely different (a microscope, which is in effect a webcam). I don't
| think it is the driver(s) as such, nor the rundll32 file.
| >
| >LOCATE a better driver... check to ensure the card is properly seated,
| >install the new driver....
| >
| > When using an unofficial updater its usually best to install devices
| >[except USB/Firewire] and applications PRIOR to installing/updating with
the
| >compilation.
| []
| I have no option in this case anyway, as the hardware is the mobo's
| built-in sound hardware. (And I don't _think_ there was a link to
| disable it.) If I remove (the software/driver) from Device Manager and
| reboot, it does the found new hardware bit, but then crashes
| irretrievably while trying to load the drivers (which I've located from
| the motherboard's website). If I do it without rebooting, it still
| crashes, but I can get control back (I just accept a few error boxes and
| it is back as it was, just still with no sound).
| --
| J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
| ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
PCs. **
|
| "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my
| shoulders."
| Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris
harrison.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by MEB
I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?

It was the full UBCD, but with the option - which it offers - to install
over an existing system, keeping settings etcetera. I should have known
better - this sort of thing is always better done as a full clean
install. And I don't _really_ hold soporific responsible.

Post by MEB
I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this situation
and the procedure when installing an un-official compilation. Perhaps it
might be beneficial for you to outline what you have already done. You

The installation proceeded quite far, but did get to a point (after one
- I think - reboot) where it went into a loop, repeatedly encountering
some error message.

Post by MEB
should also note that unless you follow the procedures and updates/patch
process being used in unofficial patchings by the creator of the patch, your
results will likely NOT reflect the same success.
That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image should
the testing fail or corrupt one's system.

[]
Indeed. I managed to restore my system to how I had it by use of an ERD
saveset from before I started with UBCD; this is not a full image, but
is a Microsoft utility. Unfortunately, as I've only discovered
subsequently, it (a) didn't bring back sound - which I didn't notice
immediately - and (b) has damaged _some_thing involved with the loading
of drivers in general. (I've now found it with _three_ things - the
sound, the microscope [webcam], and a new USB stick.)

To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite; any advice
given may not be applicable to those who are not.

[Gary S. Terhune]

Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
Windows 98?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com
<SNIP OT material>

To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite; any advice given
may not be applicable to those who are not.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
Windows 98?

I do, actually.

[thanatoid]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?

I do, actually.

See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
it's a figment of our imagination.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by thanatoid

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?

I do, actually.

See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
it's a figment of our imagination.

Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:

[Gary S. Terhune]

You can tell the King of Idiots that his statement is about as stupid as any
I've seen him make. The issue isn't whether the crap is built from MS files,
it's that they aren't Windows 98 files, in their entirety, as distributed
under the name "Windows 98 Operating System". It's a butchery of Windows 98,
regardless of the goals, efficacy or failures that result.

You can chop off the top of a certain type of fruit tree (I don't remember
which, but let's say it's a pear tree) and graft all kinds of other closely
related fruit trees onto it. You no longer have a pear tree, it will never
produce pears, even though it has a "kernel" that can be called "pear". Yes,
it produces fruit, but they are not pears. It is no longer a "pear tree" and
a club devoted to the growth and care of pear trees would have nothing to do
with your grafted monstrosity and probably vote you out of the club and show
you the door with little to say other than, "Good Luck. Hope you can find
someone to help you with that one graft that's failing. But you and your
tree don't belong here."
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by thanatoid

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?

I do, actually.

See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
it's a figment of our imagination.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[thanatoid]

Post by thanatoid

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?

I do, actually.

See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to
argue in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program.
After all, it's a figment of our imagination.

Yes, but that file is NOT in the OS! It's the customizer! It's
like saying that if the BIOS is not made by MS, it's not a
Windows machine!
(I should have said "in a finished Win98SELite install".)

[Gary S. Terhune]

Just wanted to be sure. So how about you either stop this thread that isn't
going anywhere useful, or make sure you change the Subject line if you
should happen to get a response that actually does anything about your
original issue? Make yourself useful and flatten/rebuild your hosed system.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
Windows 98?

I do, actually.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Just wanted to be sure. So how about you either stop this thread that isn't
going anywhere useful, or make sure you change the Subject line if you
should happen to get a response that actually does anything about your
original issue? Make yourself useful and flatten/rebuild your hosed system.

Oh, I certainly will (though I see you've done so anyway) - _if_ anyone
does come up with an actual suggestion (of something I might try, rather
than just of what might be wrong. And I know you've suggested a complete
reinstallation). I rather fear that anyone who might, has been
frightened off.

I will answer your longer post later; despite what some may think, I
like to try to remain on speaking terms with everybody!

[MEB]

In news:an7$[e-mail] ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) contemplated and posted:

| In message <##***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
| <***@not.here.invalid> writes
|>I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?
|
| It was the full UBCD, but with the option - which it offers - to
| install over an existing system, keeping settings etcetera. I should
| have known better - this sort of thing is always better done as a
| full clean install. And I don't _really_ hold soporific responsible.

Well you shouldn't, no one knows whether these things will work perfectly
on everyone's system.

BTW: the UBCD of this discussion is soporific's *Unattended Boot &
Installation CD* ** NOT** the Universal Boot CD, for testing and diagnostic
purposes.

IF I'm reading this and your other posts correctly: Your issue stems from a
*MIXED modified system*. 98Lite removes system files AND modifies registry
settings during its modification process, so does soporific's UBCD. Many of
these MODs require some of the IE5/6 files [and depending upon the MOD, IE
updates] be installed within the system.

|>
|> I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this
|>situation and the procedure when installing an un-official
|>compilation. Perhaps it might be beneficial for you to outline what
|>you have already done. You
|
| The installation proceeded quite far, but did get to a point (after
| one - I think - reboot) where it went into a loop, repeatedly
| encountering some error message.

The problem likely arose with the massive device changes being made within
the system, During the process USB [a universal driver is installed] and
other devices [PCI, firewire, etc.] were being changed. Depending upon where
in the process it failed, the registry may not have been fully updated
[which appears to be the issue].

Potenially, you could physically remove all added adapters from the system,
which *might* allow booting to Safe Mode. From there, you may be able to
remove *all* adapters shown in Device Manager. This DID work for me once
upon a time during my testing of some of the older MODs.

As an additional FYI for potential MOD users: you will find these work
better if you uninstall/physically remove USB/Firewire devices [not the
software] *prior* to attempting the installation.

|
|>should also note that unless you follow the procedures and
|>updates/patch process being used in unofficial patchings by the
|>creator of the patch, your results will likely NOT reflect the same
|>success.
|> That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image
|>should the testing fail or corrupt one's system.
| []
| Indeed. I managed to restore my system to how I had it by use of an
| ERD saveset from before I started with UBCD; this is not a full
| image, but is a Microsoft utility. Unfortunately, as I've only
| discovered subsequently, it (a) didn't bring back sound - which I
| didn't notice immediately - and (b) has damaged _some_thing involved
| with the loading of drivers in general. (I've now found it with
| _three_ things - the sound, the microscope [webcam], and a new USB
| stick.)
|
| To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite; any advice
| given may not be applicable to those who are not.

Again, the UBCD installs the universal driver package [among other device
changes]. That universal driver package DOES require the removal of ALL USB
and Firewire devices prior to its installation.

Wish I could be more help, but since you are stuck in a loop of failed
software installation, in a *dual modified* system, much of what I would
potentially suggest will not be viable.

*IF* Safe Mode can be entered after removing the devices, run through the
file re-registration processes outlined within the Microsoft KBs PRIOR to
re-installing the removed adapters..

Looks something like this from the Run or Prompt:

regsvr32 {switches} {some DLL}

[Gary S. Terhune]

"...after installing a new, breed of 98Lite." You really need to fix that
Subject.

Here's the most positive advice I can give you. If you have problems with
that cross-bred child of Windows and Linux, you not only do yourself a
disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you
also do a great disservice to the average Joe or Jane who goes searching for
procedures for their stock Windows 98 machines and happens onto this thread
half way through, sees the subject, sees a bunch of procedures that appear
to apply to his situation, and which (with any luck) do end up working for
you, but which don't apply to his machine in the slightest and which in fact
do his system a great deal of harm.

The least you could do, if you're going to *hijack* a newsgroup like this,
would be to make it clear what you're talking about in the Subject.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

With apologies for the repost - one positive outcome of the first one was
for some reason the two surviving newsgroups have slightly different
punctuations in their name.
(Positive suggestions only, please - the details of my problem have been
lost in the heat on the other thread, and please post to that one if your
only contribution is to say I'm in the wrong place!)

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
'95 'group included as I use the '95 shell, via 98lite "Sleek" option.
I recently had a play with soporific's UBCD, a. k. a. "Windows 98, 10th
anniversary edition". I think a vast amount of work has gone into it, and
when installed from scratch as I did on a laptop for a friend, it worked
well (including the universal USB driver).
However, as with many such things, trying to install over an existing
system (even though it does include an option to do so) is more
problematical.
Anyway: I've finally got my original system back, due to use of some ERDs
it initially manifested as the sound, but I think is more fundamental.
My sound isn't working. I've obtained the drivers from the manufacturer
(A??? motherboard; "Realtek AC'97 Audio"), since I couldn't find the mobo
CD.
Device Manager shows it, with a black-on-yellow "!". Properties shows
under Device status "The NTKERN.VXD, MMDEVLDR.VXD device loader(s) for
this device could not load the device driver. (Code 2.)\\To Fix this,
click Update Driver to update the device driver." When I do, I get the
usual wizard. Whether I let this look for the right driver (they're sort
of in place, the install software having done its stuff to that extent, or
I unzipped something, I can't remember) or I tell it where to look, I get
to the "Please wait while Windows searches ...", then I get a -
old-fashioned style, no close button - window in screen middle that says
"Rundll32\\An error has occurred in your program. To keep working
anyway..." and Close and Ignore buttons. If I click Ignore, nothing
happens; Close brings up a (Windows style this time) "This program has
performed an illegal ..." with Close and Details>> buttons. If I close
this, all windows (back to and including Device Manger) disappear.
If I remove the Realtek from Device Manager and restart, I get found new
hardware, with various windows appearing as normal, then it locks up (I
can't remember with what error message): if I Ctrl-alt-Del at that point,
I can get back to a blank desktop (no icons or taskbar, just a mouse
pointer). The only way out of that (it happens again if I restart) is to
use the old ERD again.
My Rundll32 file is fine (I never suspected it anyway, as it usually gets
"blamed" when something else goes wrong, but I have checked it).
I get something similar when trying to install another piece of hardware
(a microscope - i. e. basically a camera - and I am doing it according to
the instructions, i. e. drivers before connecting): _something_ crashes,
at the point after it's "found" the new hardware and is doing whatever it
does next at that point.
Any suggestions what is wrong and how to fix it? (Getting sound back would
be a start, but I suspect that needs the problem solving anyway.)
[It may not be UBCD that screwed things up, but I know at least one poster
who will think it did ... (-:]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders."
Newton [deliberately] misquoted by Hal Ableson, then quoted by chris harrison.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
"...after installing a new, breed of 98Lite." You really need to fix that
Subject.

Well, I'm _not_ convinced that 98lite it the cause of the problem (I
have tried reverting to the full '98 shell to see, in fact); I didn't
specifically put it in the subject because of this - I feel doing so may
make people who may have a solution ignore the thread.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Here's the most positive advice I can give you. If you have problems with
that cross-bred child of Windows and Linux, you not only do yourself a

Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you

Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your
post, and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su"
means it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
also do a great disservice to the average Joe or Jane who goes searching for
procedures for their stock Windows 98 machines and happens onto this thread
half way through, sees the subject, sees a bunch of procedures that appear
to apply to his situation, and which (with any luck) do end up working for
you, but which don't apply to his machine in the slightest and which in fact
do his system a great deal of harm.

I take your point; I'll endeavour to ensure that some mention of 98lite
remains in the body of any post I put into the thread. (Though I still
maintain that it's not the cause of the problem; the problem did not
exist - on a machine that had been running 98lite for years - until I
tried something of soporific's. Now while I don't fully share your views
on _that_ either, I do agree that it was a dangerous thing to do without
more knowledge than I have, and am hoping to find out what it broke.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
The least you could do, if you're going to *hijack* a newsgroup like this,
would be to make it clear what you're talking about in the Subject.

Well, I'll try to keep some warning in the body. I'm not "hijacking the
newsgroup".

[Gary S. Terhune]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
"...after installing a new, breed of 98Lite." You really need to fix that
Subject.

Well, I'm _not_ convinced that 98lite it the cause of the problem (I have
tried reverting to the full '98 shell to see, in fact); I didn't
specifically put it in the subject because of this - I feel doing so may
make people who may have a solution ignore the thread.

If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it
is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to
your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a
couple of places. In short, you did not approach your adventure with any
kind of responsible preparation. Note your phrase, "I have tried reverting
to the '98 shell..."

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Here's the most positive advice I can give you. If you have problems with
that cross-bred child of Windows and Linux, you not only do yourself a

Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)

As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
logic on its head doesn't mean squat.

You've got two problems.
1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
infinitum.

2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --
what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
rebuilt by now.

Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you
didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but
not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more
importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
from each other and ameliorate the rest.

But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb
that restlessness since then, due to my having to actually use this machine
for real work and to store vast archives of raster and vector graphics files
so that I can pull them up at a moments notice. (They are, of course,
regularly backed up to CD or DVD.) But to learn anything in that kind of
reckless environment I was speaking of, you have to keep total track of what
is happening at every moment. Otherwise, the exercise is a total waste of
time. You, being accustomed to having access to excellent support forums
where you can try your best to rescue your bacon from the fire, seem to have
relied upon that as your last-resort rescue strategy, instead.

At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for
the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you

Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su" means
it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.

Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone
associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.
Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.

Instead, you great experimenters have *hijacked* the MS groups to deal with
98Lite issues, which is about as much a Windows 98 issue as AOL, which is to
say not at all. Difference is, most AOL users knew better than to hijack a
real Windows group for their problems, because they're essentially told from
the outset that standard Windows procedures and advice regarding
configuration and repair, etc., don't apply once AOL is installed, and AOL
properly provides many forums and volunteer assistants (Nannies, Mommies, I
forget what they call themselves -- my sister-in-law has been doing it for
years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
also do a great disservice to the average Joe or Jane who goes searching for
procedures for their stock Windows 98 machines and happens onto this thread
half way through, sees the subject, sees a bunch of procedures that appear
to apply to his situation, and which (with any luck) do end up working for
you, but which don't apply to his machine in the slightest and which in fact
do his system a great deal of harm.

I take your point; I'll endeavour to ensure that some mention of 98lite
remains in the body of any post I put into the thread. (Though I still
maintain that it's not the cause of the problem; the problem did not
exist - on a machine that had been running 98lite for years - until I
tried something of soporific's. Now while I don't fully share your views
on _that_ either, I do agree that it was a dangerous thing to do without
more knowledge than I have, and am hoping to find out what it broke.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
The least you could do, if you're going to *hijack* a newsgroup like this,
would be to make it clear what you're talking about in the Subject.

Well, I'll try to keep some warning in the body. I'm not "hijacking the
newsgroup".

I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
<none@?.?.invalid> writes
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it

This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to

I am pretty sure you are right there.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a

I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the
sound circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware",
and either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it
starts to load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)

As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
logic on its head doesn't mean squat.

I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two
terms. (Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't
learn, will I!)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
You've got two problems.
1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
infinitum.

Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
years before I tried the soporific stuff.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --

I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere
- I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out; however, I've
moved house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard
manufacturer's website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only
part that isn't working, the sound circuitry.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
rebuilt by now.

If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you

I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong?

Post by Gary S. Terhune
didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but

No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where
I just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
manually.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more

I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to
itself! But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose
some of the utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such
as hard drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these
days, but I'm sure there are some unexpected ones too.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
from each other and ameliorate the rest.
But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb

Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had
developed as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for

Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting
into DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.

Indeed.

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you

Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su" means
it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.

Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone

Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in
a language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.

What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.

Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
(IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.

Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.

I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the
"has anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause
is" sort.

[thanatoid]

<SNIP>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted
something inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or
similar. I certainly didn't intend to do that - mine was
(and still is) a genuine request of the "has anyone else
come across anything like this, and know what the cause is"
sort.

Don't waste your time with Terhune and 98SELite. He has said
more than once he does not consider it a Windows OS. Then he
loves spouting off about how he can't help you since he deals
with Windows and not (apparent) figments of imagination of
thousands of happy Lite users around the world. Then he freaks
out and gets belligerent.

[Gary S. Terhune]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it

This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)

The reversion function failed this time, which is a 98Lite problem, not a
Windows 98 problem. Please take it to a 98Lite forum.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to

I am pretty sure you are right there.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a

I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the sound
circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware", and
either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it starts to
load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.

Then I must have misread an earlier post that I thought said you couldn't
decently reinstall the system from scratch because you lacked all the
drivers. I in no way thought that the sound drivers were to blame, as I
explain farther down.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)

As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
logic on its head doesn't mean squat.

I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two terms.
(Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't learn, will
I!)

These may not be the best explanations, but they'll do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(computing)

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
You've got two problems.
1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
infinitum.

Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
years before I tried the soporific stuff.

You've had 98Lite installed for years? Regardless, I didn't say that 98Lite
doesn't work, I say that installing it shreds your Windows 98 system. And
that's exactly what it does. That's its *intent*. The rip out great gobs of
Windows 98 that the creators and users don't want in there. Fine, but it is
no longer Windows 98 and I doubt that it's even close to possible to restore
a functioning Windows 98 System once 98Lite has been installed.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --

I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere -
I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out; however, I've moved
house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard manufacturer's
website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only part that isn't
working, the sound circuitry.

Again, that was a misread on my part and I've clearly explained what I think
is wrong in another in the next paragraph.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
rebuilt by now.

If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.

If you've been running Windows 98 and/or 98Lite for "years" on that machine,
I doubt it's built to handle XP in any manner that would satisfy you. But I
don't know the machine's specs, so I'm just guessing.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you

I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong.

Absolutely nothing! You just didn't prepare for your experiment in a manner
that would have allowed you to determine what went wrong. You have no data
from your experiment except that you installed it, then tried to get out and
can't. Beyond that, you only have my *guess* that the issue is in the
hardware installation programming.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but

No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where I
just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
manually.

So I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from this. Just because you got
away with half-measure tools in the past (ERD, SCANREGW /BACKUP, Windows
ME/XP/Vista's System Restore) NOTHING takes the place of a full backup that
can be quickly restored to a reformatted or new hard drive.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more

I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to itself!
But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose some of the
utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such as hard
drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these days, but I'm
sure there are some unexpected ones too.)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
from each other and ameliorate the rest.
But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb

Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had developed
as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.

Nope. If I haven't made it plain, yet, I think your system is totally hosed.
If you can't get into it, then an Overinstall of Win98 might get it working
sufficiently well enough that you can more easily copy off your personal
files before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch..

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for

Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting into
DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

Extract your data files in DOS to where? You have a DOS CD burning utility?
Easiest way is to put the drive into another machine and use that machine to
back up the files to CD or DVD (or get an external drive if your system is
new enough that BIOS sees and recognizes them, then use a bootable CD system
like BartPE to copy the files from your system to the external HD.) Now that
I say that, I think there are bootable CD systems out there that include
burner utilities. Might check them out.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.

Indeed.

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you

Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to; I suspect the "su" means
it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.

Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone

Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in a
language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.

What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

For the most part, I think they are too dangerous for the average user. I
don't use them, I prefer to do things manually for the most part. The short
and sweet is that I don't trust them, and every one of them contains
functions that can wreck your system, either immediately or in the form of a
time bomb. Using TUI to get rid of IE4 integration into Win98 was one such.
I forget what the actual wording is of the settings involved, but once they
were involved, it turned out the functions they supposedly "turned off"
ended up completely hosed, with some secondary damage that was MUCH worse
than just not being able to view the desktop as a webpage. IOW, the
presumably simple tweaks had hidden parts that you aren't warned about and
that most people found out they wanted after all. Coincidentally, those
functions are among the same exact things 98Lite hoses.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.

Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
(IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.

Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.

I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the "has
anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause is"
sort.

There has been plenty of trollish behavior on the part of 98Lite promoters
in this group over the more recent years. Sorry, but in my eyes, you are
guilty by association. But that wasn't my primary intent, to call you a
troll, only "just as bad" as the others who *are* trolls. More accurately,
to define "hijacking a group" as a troll-like behavior, especially if it is
deliberately done and/or continues even after it's been pointed out to
someone less in the know what he's actually, even if unwittingly, doing.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <OjPLa#***@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
<none@?.?.invalid> writes
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
say above; it seems to me that you mean different things by the two terms.

[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune
These may not be the best explanations, but they'll do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(computing)

Thanks - so, basically, you (and Wikipedia) use kernel to mean the
actual engine, and shell to mean the user interface.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
rebuilt by now.

If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.

If you've been running Windows 98 and/or 98Lite for "years" on that machine,
I doubt it's built to handle XP in any manner that would satisfy you. But I
don't know the machine's specs, so I'm just guessing.

I would have had the same view. However, it is actually a reasonably
modern system - Celeron 2.4, 512+256M. It is newer than the installation
it's running, having (of necessity - something died) had a motherboard
(and thus processor and memory) transplant.

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you

I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong.

Absolutely nothing! You just didn't prepare for your experiment in a manner
that would have allowed you to determine what went wrong. You have no data
from your experiment except that you installed it, then tried to get out and
can't. Beyond that, you only have my *guess* that the issue is in the
hardware installation programming.

That would be my guess too.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had developed
as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.

Nope. If I haven't made it plain, yet, I think your system is totally hosed.
If you can't get into it, then an Overinstall of Win98 might get it working
sufficiently well enough that you can more easily copy off your personal
files before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch..

[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting into
DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

Extract your data files in DOS to where? You have a DOS CD burning utility?

Good point. But, in fact, I have a 98-like (! for you) system which
allows me access to all my files (in fact appears to be working in all
respects other than sound and new driver installation).

Post by Gary S. Terhune
Easiest way is to put the drive into another machine and use that machine to
back up the files to CD or DVD (or get an external drive if your system is

I have that option ...

Post by Gary S. Terhune
new enough that BIOS sees and recognizes them, then use a bootable CD system
like BartPE to copy the files from your system to the external HD.) Now that

... and have obtained (though not played with yet) BartPE, as it would
appear that that is NTFS-compatible, and thus might be usable with XP,
which I am thinking of getting soon (on a netbook).

Post by Gary S. Terhune
I say that, I think there are bootable CD systems out there that include
burner utilities. Might check them out.

Please share what you find here (perhaps in another thread to this one)
- probably many here would be interested.
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

For the most part, I think they are too dangerous for the average user. I
don't use them, I prefer to do things manually for the most part. The short
and sweet is that I don't trust them, and every one of them contains
functions that can wreck your system, either immediately or in the form of a

Interesting. You are probably right on all counts.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
time bomb. Using TUI to get rid of IE4 integration into Win98 was one such.

I don't think I knew that was among its functions; that was the main
reason I went for 98lite. I would have just used their IEradicator, but
more configurability seemed a good idea.

Post by Gary S. Terhune
I forget what the actual wording is of the settings involved, but once they
were involved, it turned out the functions they supposedly "turned off"
ended up completely hosed, with some secondary damage that was MUCH worse
than just not being able to view the desktop as a webpage. IOW, the
presumably simple tweaks had hidden parts that you aren't warned about and
that most people found out they wanted after all. Coincidentally, those
functions are among the same exact things 98Lite hoses.

Sounds as if the two might well use some of the same code (or at least
methods).
[]

Post by Gary S. Terhune

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing); all of these,
but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
(IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.

[]




Other than complete reinstallation, do you have any remaining
suggestions about the "rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers
installation layer" - such as what DLLs (and versions) are involved with
that? I expect not, but thought I'd ask.

[Dan]

<snipped for length concerns>

I would install a clean, full version of Windows 98 Second Edition which you
can fully update to date of July 11, 2006 as per end of support date for 98
Second Edition. There are full copies on Ebay that range from around $50-$75
for an os which is really cheap and 98 Second Edition really does have that
internal safety of dos as its maintenance operating system.
My opinion is that Microsoft chose the wrong development path when choosing
NT over 9x and I hope the new source code Microsoft develops is awesome and
combines the best of 9x and its maintenance operating system of dos with a
new advanced underlying maintenance operating system of NT, with the external
security of Vista and totally redefines computing in a complex and less
toy-like manner of recent operating systems.
You can mitigate risks such as to Internet Explorer by using the latest
version of Mozilla Firefox, tools such as SpywareBlaster which imo is awesome
and my favorite blocking tool for undesirables that try to get onto your
system, read in plain text and block external remote code including html,
have a router with the proper defensive measures for external security, etc.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Dan
<snipped for length concerns>
I would install a clean, full version of Windows 98 Second Edition which you
can fully update to date of July 11, 2006 as per end of support date for 98
Second Edition. There are full copies on Ebay that range from around $50-$75
for an os which is really cheap and 98 Second Edition really does have that
internal safety of dos as its maintenance operating system.

I have a full 98SE (which I paid for), should I need to go that route -
though I am beginning to feel that, if I was to consider going for a
full install (by "clean" I assume you mean formatting), I'd probably go
for XP anyway. I really don't want to do that (98 or XP) though, as the
system has been built up over _years_, and I don't even _know_ (at the
very least, I don't remember - in some cases I suspect I really don't
know) some of how it got to how it is, so reinstalling everything would
be not only time-consuming but frustrating.

Post by Dan
My opinion is that Microsoft chose the wrong development path when choosing
NT over 9x and I hope the new source code Microsoft develops is awesome and

Mine too, but we're not going to change them. Also, we're in a minority,
at least as far as the disc system is concerned.

Post by Dan
combines the best of 9x and its maintenance operating system of dos with a
new advanced underlying maintenance operating system of NT, with the external
security of Vista and totally redefines computing in a complex and less
toy-like manner of recent operating systems.

I think the *x people are calling you ... (-: [it certainly won't happen
in Windows )-:]

Post by Dan
You can mitigate risks such as to Internet Explorer by using the latest
version of Mozilla Firefox, tools such as SpywareBlaster which imo is awesome

I do (or will one of these days - I'm using Netscape 7.2 ATM)

Post by Dan
and my favorite blocking tool for undesirables that try to get onto your
system, read in plain text and block external remote code including html,

I read in a reader (Turnpike) that doesn't follow any scripts or
similar, I control Java and Javascript ... haven't had a virus in
decades, AFAIK ...

Post by Dan
have a router with the proper defensive measures for external security, etc.

Yup.

I think that what has broken my system is not malware as such, just
something in soporific's UBCD (or, as he would point out, one of the
constituent parts to which all he's done is provide a wrapper), which
has changed/deleted/altered some file and/or setting in a way which has
had unforeseen consequences (basically something goes wrong when it's
trying to _load_ drivers). I'm just hoping someone has seen something
similar before and knows what has been broken. (Ideally someone using
98lite, but I don't want to exclude suggestions from anyone.)

[Dan]

Well, I appreciate your feedback, however, I thought Netscape was not
supported anymore and so that would give you safety and security
vulnerabilities just with using that browser. In addition, why not just go
with Ubuntu Linux instead of Windows 98 Lite and use a real operating system
instead whether it be Microsoft Windows, Apple, and or Unix/Linux? Chris
Quirke, MVP has some great feedback about the external security of NT (2000,
XP and Vista) and internal safety of 9x (98 Second Edition at its peak, imo)
and perhaps it may help you if you read his websites.

http://cquirke.blogspot.com/

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/riskfix.htm

http://www.us-cert.gov/current/

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-au/default.htm?mkt=en-au

http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx

http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

Hopefully, these websites will help you to have a secure and safe computing
environment.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Apologies for the repost of an old problem; I've read in other threads
about certain changes here, which made me think it might be worth asking
again.

Whenever I try to load drivers (e. g. for new devices), something
crashes, part way through the process. The system seems to work fine
otherwise.

I should say that it is a 98lite system, but I am sure that that is not
the source of the problem, since I have been running 98lite for years,
both on the system in question and on the laptop on which I am typing
this; on both (and still on this), I have been able to install new
drivers without problem.

It started to happen on the affected system after an abortive play with
Soporific's UBCD, alias "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition", which
got some way through before crashing and burning; I have managed (mainly
by using ERD/ERU from just before) to get the system back how I had it,
with the exception of the drivers problem. (And sound. I only noticed
when I spotted that the sound wasn't working; I tried removing and then
reloading the drivers for the sound hardware, and that's when I first
found the problem. It was only when I later tried to load drivers for
other hardware that I decided it's in the new-drivers part of the OS
that the problem lies.)

Yes, I know I could completely reinstall, but (a) getting everything
back to how it is now would probably take years [even restoring from a
system backup, which of course I have not got anyway - silly me!, might
not fully do it], and (b) it seems to me that it is only a very small
part of the system that's corrupted; I'm hoping that someone can tell me
which files (and possibly registry settings) are involved in the loading
of new drivers, so that I may restore these. (I have '98SE install discs
etcetera.)

Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...

[thanatoid]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <***@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:2m$***@soft255.demon.co.uk:

<SNIP>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...

FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company provided
you with for free...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by thanatoid
<SNIP>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...

FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company provided
you with for free...

Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I received it
though ... (-:

[thanatoid]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by thanatoid
<SNIP>

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...

FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
provided you with for free...

Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I

Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing it, IF
you ever did.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@209.197.15.184>, thanatoid
<***@the.exit.invalid> writes:
[]

Post by thanatoid

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by thanatoid
FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
provided you with for free...

Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I

Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing it, IF
you ever did.

How would using a backup/image program help me restore the system to how
it was before I received the backup/image program? That's what I meant,
sorry if not clear.

[thanatoid]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by thanatoid

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by thanatoid
FINALLY start using an imaging program a kind company
provided you with for free...

Won't help me restore an image of a system from before I

Would have if you didn't take your sweet time installing
it, IF you ever did.

How would using a backup/image program help me restore the
system to how it was before I received the backup/image
program? That's what I meant, sorry if not clear.

OK. sorry, read too fast. Anyway, INSTALL IT ALREADY so it
doesn't happen again.

["MEB" @here>]

You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.
If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"
previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
may not remember].

You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

Here's an old diagnostic page I created for general reference:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Apologies for the repost of an old problem; I've read in other threads
about certain changes here, which made me think it might be worth asking
again.
Whenever I try to load drivers (e. g. for new devices), something
crashes, part way through the process. The system seems to work fine
otherwise.
I should say that it is a 98lite system, but I am sure that that is not
the source of the problem, since I have been running 98lite for years,
both on the system in question and on the laptop on which I am typing
this; on both (and still on this), I have been able to install new
drivers without problem.
It started to happen on the affected system after an abortive play with
Soporific's UBCD, alias "Windows 98 tenth anniversary edition", which
got some way through before crashing and burning; I have managed (mainly
by using ERD/ERU from just before) to get the system back how I had it,
with the exception of the drivers problem. (And sound. I only noticed
when I spotted that the sound wasn't working; I tried removing and then
reloading the drivers for the sound hardware, and that's when I first
found the problem. It was only when I later tried to load drivers for
other hardware that I decided it's in the new-drivers part of the OS
that the problem lies.)
Yes, I know I could completely reinstall, but (a) getting everything
back to how it is now would probably take years [even restoring from a
system backup, which of course I have not got anyway - silly me!, might
not fully do it], and (b) it seems to me that it is only a very small
part of the system that's corrupted; I'm hoping that someone can tell me
which files (and possibly registry settings) are involved in the loading
of new drivers, so that I may restore these. (I have '98SE install discs
etcetera.)
Thanks in advance for positive suggestions ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985

MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash) [via Andy Breen]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by "MEB" @here>
You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.

Thanks for thinking.

Post by "MEB" @here>
If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"

I don't think I'd done many if any updates, other than the lite,
official or otherwise; this is a non-internet machine, and besides I
don't usually like to do updates unless I am very sure what they do.
However, the system has certainly had assorted third-party utilities
installed over the years, which probably has the same effect.

Post by "MEB" @here>
previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
may not remember].

You're right there (both in that it makes it hard for you to diagnose,
and that I won't remember!).

Post by "MEB" @here>
You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

Hmm. I have a lot of work to do.

Post by "MEB" @here>
You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

I don't _think_ it's the installer, as I've had it for a variety of
drivers from a variety of sources - the sound hardware (Realtek), a
couple of cameras (a microscope and a binoculars camera), and assorted
novelties (dreamcheeky). It seems to stop at the same place during the
driver install, or in the case of the sound hardware if I "remove" it
and restart the machine, it locks up at the driver load during the
restart. I have tried unzipping the driver installers (usually
executables these days) and manually installing, pointing to where I'd
unzipped when prompted, and it's always the driver loading process
(usually blaming rundll32, but I know that's usually just a scapegoat)
that seems to fail, always at the same point.

Post by "MEB" @here>
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm

Thanks for that - I clearly have a LOT of work to do.

Why is driver installation so complicated )-:! (It seems such a simple
process when it works.)

["MEB" @here>]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by "MEB" @here>
You MAY be experiencing conflicts with an installation of one of the
'generic' driver libraries that might have been installed.
I admit I haven't used the UBCD, however, when testing some of these
compiled "upgrades/updates", I found similar issues.

Thanks for thinking.

Post by "MEB" @here>
If I remember correctly, you installed this UBCD over an already updated OS
[besides the "lite" aspect], and with other "unofficially updates"

I don't think I'd done many if any updates, other than the lite,
official or otherwise; this is a non-internet machine, and besides I
don't usually like to do updates unless I am very sure what they do.
However, the system has certainly had assorted third-party utilities
installed over the years, which probably has the same effect.

Post by "MEB" @here>
previously installed. This makes it more than slightly difficult to diagnose
as there are likely too many "unknown" [to us] modifications [and which you
may not remember].

You're right there (both in that it makes it hard for you to diagnose,
and that I won't remember!).

Post by "MEB" @here>
You can try monitoring the installs with *sysinternals' filemon* [available
on Microsoft] for the exact failure.

Hmm. I have a lot of work to do.

Post by "MEB" @here>
You can also attempt a "fake install" - unzip the driver to some folder,
use Dependency Walker to open the file, and *profile* the setup file [if
applicable] or by opening the individual files, searching for the breakdown
[usually shown in red, ignore the two normal ones {missing XP files}].

I don't _think_ it's the installer, as I've had it for a variety of
drivers from a variety of sources - the sound hardware (Realtek), a
couple of cameras (a microscope and a binoculars camera), and assorted
novelties (dreamcheeky). It seems to stop at the same place during the
driver install, or in the case of the sound hardware if I "remove" it
and restart the machine, it locks up at the driver load during the
restart. I have tried unzipping the driver installers (usually
executables these days) and manually installing, pointing to where I'd
unzipped when prompted, and it's always the driver loading process
(usually blaming rundll32, but I know that's usually just a scapegoat)
that seems to fail, always at the same point.

Post by "MEB" @here>
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm

Thanks for that - I clearly have a LOT of work to do.
Why is driver installation so complicated )-:! (It seems such a simple
process when it works.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985

MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
the issue.

The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
staring us in the face all the time.

ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
find the issues.

You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
it finds.

You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
much else as you could before attempting installation, right..

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <#EZHI$***@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
<***@not.?.invalid> writes:
[]

Post by "MEB" @here>
I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
the issue.
The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
staring us in the face all the time.

If you mean always backup, I've in general been doing an ERU before and
after installing new, and also when it's been running well for a while,
just to mop up little tweaks I may have made. This has rescued me many a
time; however, it isn't a full backup. If I ever get it sorted, I think
a full backup with Acronis will be in order.

Post by "MEB" @here>
ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
find the issues.

I clearly have to do that, though I still think it's the part of the
_system_ that _handles_ new drivers, rather than the drivers themselves,
that's fubared.

Post by "MEB" @here>
You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
it finds.

I've used the one in EasyCleaner from time to time.

Post by "MEB" @here>
You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
much else as you could before attempting installation, right..

Interesting question about scripting. I know I've in the past changed
the default file association for script files (to Notepad IIRR); I can't
remember if anything has changed that back, though. The machine on which
I have this problem is not connected to anything, so I don't have AV
running all the time on it anyway (I have it there, and scan any new
executable - or disc - with it).

Sorry, I'm dragging my feet in getting round to dealing with the
problem, but I have definitely marked your posts as keep for when I do.

["MEB" @here>]

Well, you can waltz around the issue, or you "can get to it".

Download Dependency Walker and try the "profiling" aspect. I have
repeatedly used it to show issues for various programs, files, and
installation routines, sending these REPORTS back to the original
programmers so they could correct their programming problems.. It was such a
good program, that Microsoft suggested its use on many of its old support
pages to help diagnose issues, and for sending reports back to Microsoft
[during the actual 98 support cycle, not at the end when IE was the only
concern].
I have also used it to locate the exact areas/issues within my own systems,
during testing of unofficial updates, and other.
Of course its just part of the tool set I use, but it is invaluable.
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by "MEB" @here>
I realize that was more of a rant than a question, however, you answered
the issue.
The key is ALWAYS: when it works, when it doesn't the world turns on edge
and time flashes by... hours wasted, generally to find it was something
staring us in the face all the time.

If you mean always backup, I've in general been doing an ERU before and
after installing new, and also when it's been running well for a while,
just to mop up little tweaks I may have made. This has rescued me many a
time; however, it isn't a full backup. If I ever get it sorted, I think
a full backup with Acronis will be in order.

Post by "MEB" @here>
ANYWAY, Dependency Walker can generally be used effectively to find the
issue [its basically a generic 32bit Windows debugger]. TRY just expanding
the installer{s} and running it on the individual files *if* PROFILING can't
find the issues.

I clearly have to do that, though I still think it's the part of the
_system_ that _handles_ new drivers, rather than the drivers themselves,
that's fubared.

Post by "MEB" @here>
You might want to go into Safe Mode and make sure everything that should be
gone is actually gone [like old programs and drivers]. If it were me, I
would also run my trusty registry reviewing program {RegSeeker] and see what
it finds.

I've used the one in EasyCleaner from time to time.

Post by "MEB" @here>
You aren't running something like WinPatrol or some other registry or
scripting protection program are you? And you did disable anti-virus and as
much else as you could before attempting installation, right..

Interesting question about scripting. I know I've in the past changed
the default file association for script files (to Notepad IIRR); I can't
remember if anything has changed that back, though. The machine on which
I have this problem is not connected to anything, so I don't have AV
running all the time on it anyway (I have it there, and scan any new
executable - or disc - with it).
Sorry, I'm dragging my feet in getting round to dealing with the
problem, but I have definitely marked your posts as keep for when I do.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985

MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...