How to install DirectX v9c on W98 SE if you hate IE...
Lostgallifreyan
want Internet Explorer. I got an error message:
"A cabinet file necessary for installation cannot be trusted"
That word 'trusted' bothered me, it smacked of policing, of M$ telling me
that if I didn't accept their will to integrate the browser with the OS,
I could not have DirectX at all. I don't think there was any other reason
because I already knew I could have it, IF I already had IE v5 installed.
But I didn't want IE on my next clean install, so.....
First, there are several revisions of DirectX v9c, the restrictions I
encountered might not apply to all releases, but if they do, here's a way
round them. Old notes follow (other preliminaries might work, but this WILL work).
For reasons that become clear, this might be no good on an existing install
without first isolating a small subset of 98-Lite's Windows Setup stuff
for a standalone install that also includes the bits I figured out.
A second post immediately follows this, a batch file to automate the whole
doings once you have five named files extracted into one location. This first
post is just to keep a complete record explaining what to get, and why.
The important thing to remember is that all this is undoable, it SHOULD be removed
once DX9 is installed, unless you know specific reasons I don't about why it might be kept.
The second post takes care of the whole process.
===================================================================================
Base OS is W98 SE installed with 98-Lite, sleek install, no optional extras except command line tools and scandisk.
Network interface is installed next, and 98-lite setup to install TCP/IP tools.
To get DirectX v9c to install without the "A cabinet file necessary for installation cannot be trusted" error
in the absense of an existing Internet Explorer v5 install, use 98-lite setup to install 'MS Cryptographic Providers'.
Open the Windows System directory and find or scroll to the file REGSVR32.EXE.
Then get a copy of the file INITPKI.DLL and put it in the System directory, beside REGSVR32.EXE, and then drag
INITPKI.DLL onto REGSVR32.EXE and let go. Close the popup message box that tells you the registering is done.
You can now install the DirectX v9c. :)
You can also delete INITPKI.DLL beforehand if you don't want it, it's the registry entries made by using REGSVR32
that matter, the file isn't needed for this at all for the DirectX install. You can also use W98-lite setup to
remove the 'MS Cryptographic Providers' after the DirectX install is done.
Refinement:
Copy these files to System:
INITPKI.DLL
MSSIP32.DLL
RSABASE.DLL
RSASIG.DLL
SOFTPUB.DLL
Then register all but RSASIG.DLL with REGSVR32.EXE.
After registration, INITPKI.DLL and RSASIG.DLL can be deleted, but the other three must remain during the install.
===================================================================================
Lostgallifreyan
Save it with the 5 files, run it immediately before installing DX9.
it will put the files in the System directory, register them, and wait.
After installing DX9, DO NOT let it reboot yet!
Click in the DOS box and press a key, so the batch script completes,
cleaning up by unregistering those files and deleting them. Then reboot to complete
the DirectX v9c install as usual.
===================================================================================
@echo off
cls
echo.
echo.
echo WARNING!! DO NOT INSTALL THIS ON A STANDARD W98 OS!
echo --------------------------------------------------------------
echo.
choice /n "Is this a clean install of 98-lite without Internet Explorer installed? (Y/N) "
echo.
echo.
if errorlevel 2 echo Aborting, no changes made.
if errorlevel 2 goto end
echo Installing temporary cryptography support to validate the DirectX v9c installer.
xcopy INITPKI.DLL c:\windows\system
xcopy MSSIP32.DLL c:\windows\system
xcopy RSABASE.DLL c:\windows\system
xcopy RSASIG.DLL c:\windows\system
xcopy SOFTPUB.DLL c:\windows\system
set x=c:\windows\system\regsvr32 /c /s
%x% c:\windows\system\INITPKI.DLL
%x% c:\windows\system\MSSIP32.DLL
%x% c:\windows\system\RSABASE.DLL
%x% c:\windows\system\SOFTPUB.DLL
echo.
echo Install DirectX v9c before continuing. DO NOT let it reboot until this is done!
echo.
choice /n "Remove temporary cryptography support? (Y/N) "
echo.
echo.
if errorlevel 2 echo The cryptography support files remain registered and in place.
if errorlevel 2 goto end
echo Unregistering the temporary cryptography support and deleting unwanted files...
set x=c:\windows\system\regsvr32 /c /s /u
%x% c:\windows\system\INITPKI.DLL
%x% c:\windows\system\MSSIP32.DLL
%x% c:\windows\system\RSABASE.DLL
%x% c:\windows\system\SOFTPUB.DLL
deltree /y c:\windows\system\INITPKI.DLL
deltree /y c:\windows\system\MSSIP32.DLL
deltree /y c:\windows\system\RSABASE.DLL
deltree /y c:\windows\system\RSASIG.DLL
deltree /y c:\windows\system\SOFTPUB.DLL
:end
echo.
echo Script ended.
echo.
===================================================================================
Lostgallifreyan
Obviously it's been a while since I did this DX9-fooling exercise...
That batch file and those five files ARE the fully isolated standalone method
to fool DX9 on a base W98 SE install. I think four of them were part of the
98-Lite install, I just figured out which four, and which extra file I had to
find to go with them, and which one(s) provided essential registry entries
when registered with REGSVR32.
So although I just posted two stonking great posts, the business is extremely
simple. Get those five files. Save that script as a batch file beside them,
run it as I described, and it works. Maybe in some contexts it isn't needed
but it won't break anything if you haven't got IE there already. And if you
have you don't need this, obviously.
Ok, done.
Bill in Co
> I wanted DirectX v9c, and found that I couldn't have it because I didn't
> want Internet Explorer. I got an error message:
> "A cabinet file necessary for installation cannot be trusted"
> That word 'trusted' bothered me, it smacked of policing, of M$ telling me
> that if I didn't accept their will to integrate the browser with the OS,
> I could not have DirectX at all. I don't think there was any other reason
> because I already knew I could have it, IF I already had IE v5 installed.
> But I didn't want IE on my next clean install, so.....
I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE? If
its installed and you don't want it, just use some other browser. I'm sure
Big Brother isn't lurking over here, at least, and this ain't "1984". :-)
If I'm reading between the lines, however, this (for you) goes beyond that,
in which case, I can't add anything. :-) For you I guess it's worth
going through all these hoops. I don't like so many hoops. Life is
difficult enough already. :-)
thanatoid
news:A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com:
> Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>> I wanted DirectX v9c, and found that I couldn't have it
>> because I didn't want Internet Explorer. I got an error
>> message: "A cabinet file necessary for installation cannot
>> be trusted" That word 'trusted' bothered me, it smacked of
>> policing, of M$ telling me that if I didn't accept their
>> will to integrate the browser with the OS, I could not
>> have DirectX at all. I don't think there was any other
>> reason because I already knew I could have it, IF I
>> already had IE v5 installed. But I didn't want IE on my
>> next clean install, so.....
>
> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal
> about IE? If its installed and you don't want it, just
> use some other browser. I'm sure Big Brother isn't
> lurking over here, at least, and this ain't "1984". :-)
Maybe not on 98, but starting with XP, IE and some other system
components regularly started keeping in touch with MS. What they
tell them, I don't know, but I do know it's none of their
business.
> If I'm reading between the lines, however, this (for you)
> goes beyond that, in which case, I can't add anything.
> :-) For you I guess it's worth going through all these
> hoops. I don't like so many hoops. Life is difficult
> enough already. :-)
I have 98SE Lite - I REALLY hate the regular 98 interface with
the stupid "show everything as web page, active desktop, etc."
so Lite was essential for me. It looks just like 95 and that's
how I like it.
But even though I installed one of the lighter of the 4 choices,
I kept IE for chm files. I know some claim you can read them
without IE, but I could never manage that. But I have IE blocked
from connecting to the net in my firewall.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
I suspect anyone following this will already know about such things, but
just in case not - the following lines in Lg's post wrapped onto two,
and should be rejoined into single lines in the batch file before use:
[]
>=======================================================================
>============
[]
>choice /n "Is this a clean install of 98-lite without Internet Explorer
>installed? (Y/N) "
[]
>echo Installing temporary cryptography support to validate the DirectX
>v9c installer.
[]
>echo Install DirectX v9c before continuing. DO NOT let it reboot until
>this is done!
[]
>if errorlevel 2 echo The cryptography support files remain
>registered and in place.
[]
>echo Unregistering the temporary cryptography support and deleting
>unwanted files...
[]
>=======================================================================
>============
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I had lunch today in a restaurant where the food was abdominal. - G4PKP's
bienapropism list
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>> I wanted DirectX v9c, and found that I couldn't have it because I didn't
>> want Internet Explorer. I got an error message:
>I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE? If
>its installed and you don't want it, just use some other browser. I'm sure
>Big Brother isn't lurking over here, at least, and this ain't "1984". :-)
>
>If I'm reading between the lines, however, this (for you) goes beyond that,
>in which case, I can't add anything. :-) For you I guess it's worth
>going through all these hoops. I don't like so many hoops. Life is
>difficult enough already. :-)
>
>
at the time it came out; it was comparable to the main competitors at
the time (mainly Netscape [Firefox predecessor, more or less], though
Opera and one or two others were around then), even having some features
they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing to
do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>>> I wanted DirectX v9c, and found that I couldn't have it
>>> because I didn't want Internet Explorer. I got an error
>>> message: "A cabinet file necessary for installation cannot
>>> be trusted" That word 'trusted' bothered me, it smacked of
>>> policing, of M$ telling me that if I didn't accept their
>>> will to integrate the browser with the OS, I could not
>>> have DirectX at all. I don't think there was any other
>>> reason because I already knew I could have it, IF I
>>> already had IE v5 installed. But I didn't want IE on my
>>> next clean install, so.....
>>
>> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal
>> about IE? If its installed and you don't want it, just
>> use some other browser. I'm sure Big Brother isn't
>> lurking over here, at least, and this ain't "1984". :-)
>
> Maybe not on 98, but starting with XP, IE and some other system
> components regularly started keeping in touch with MS. What they
> tell them, I don't know, but I do know it's none of their
> business.
Not on my system they don't.
>> If I'm reading between the lines, however, this (for you)
>> goes beyond that, in which case, I can't add anything.
>> :-) For you I guess it's worth going through all these
>> hoops. I don't like so many hoops. Life is difficult
>> enough already. :-)
>
> I have 98SE Lite - I REALLY hate the regular 98 interface with
> the stupid "show everything as web page, active desktop, etc."
I don't have that crap turned on. It's an option, not a requirement.
Bill in Co
> In message <A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Lostgallifreyan wrote:
>>> I wanted DirectX v9c, and found that I couldn't have it because I didn't
>>> want Internet Explorer. I got an error message:
> []
>> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE? If
>> its installed and you don't want it, just use some other browser. I'm
>> sure
>> Big Brother isn't lurking over here, at least, and this ain't "1984".
>> :-)
>>
>> If I'm reading between the lines, however, this (for you) goes beyond
>> that,
>> in which case, I can't add anything. :-) For you I guess it's worth
>> going through all these hoops. I don't like so many hoops. Life is
>> difficult enough already. :-)
>>
>>
> It's not _just_ it as a browser: actually, as a browser, it wasn't bad
> at the time it came out; it was comparable to the main competitors at
> the time (mainly Netscape [Firefox predecessor, more or less], though
> Opera and one or two others were around then), even having some features
> they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
> OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
> unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing to
> do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
Like what? What untoward aspects are "popping up"???
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
>> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
[]
>>> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE? If
>> they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
>> OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
>> unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing to
>> do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
>
>Like what? What untoward aspects are "popping up"???
>
>
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>thanatoid wrote:
[]
>> But even though I installed one of the lighter of the 4 choices,
>> I kept IE for chm files. I know some claim you can read them
>> without IE, but I could never manage that. But I have IE blocked
From what I remember, it's just a matter of having a couple of .dll
files present. (I can't remember which ones, nor how you register them
or whatever it is you have to do. But AFAICR I don't have iexplore.exe
present.)
>> from connecting to the net in my firewall.
>
>
Is that like answering the door in your pyjamas?
Lostgallifreyan
news:Zxj5pSh2...@soft255.demon.co.uk:
> I suspect anyone following this will already know about such things, but
> just in case not - the following lines in Lg's post wrapped onto two,
> and should be rejoined into single lines in the batch file before use:
>
I sent them non-wrapped deliberately, but I only know that Xnews showed the
results right. No idea what other systems do to it, maybe mangled... Does
this group allow binaries? Could be useful for small files like formatted
text, or missing sysfiles...
Lostgallifreyan
> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE?
> If its installed and you don't want it, just use some other browser.
> I'm sure Big Brother isn't lurking over here, at least, and this ain't
> "1984". :-)
>
Not the point. Question is: what do you do if you want DX9, and IE is NOT
installed? I looked at the latest W98-installer for DX9 last night, and while
the error message says more than it did when I saw it (it now explicitly asks
for the 'Cryptographic Provideres' instead of making us guess why the hell
it's 'not trusted'), we still need that support or DX9 won't install. The 98-
Lite install for that subsystem is incomplete, hence my patch.
This patch can still be useful to anyone who does a clean W98 install with no
IE, and wants to install DirectX v9c. I noticed recently that someone out
there must have solved this too, because they spoke of IE being absent while
using DX9 on W98, but I don't know if anyone ever released a method to solve
this for anyone to use generally. I solved this about 5 years ago, I think..
Lostgallifreyan
news:Xns9EEC16D68...@88.198.244.100:
> I kept IE for chm files. I know some claim you can read them
> without IE, but I could never manage that.
Interesting. Standard 'Sleek' install of 98-Lite worked for me. If you try it
fresh it ought to work, maybe something else breaks it later..
Lostgallifreyan
> From what I remember, it's just a matter of having a couple of .dll
> files present. (I can't remember which ones, nor how you register them
> or whatever it is you have to do.
REGSVR32 most likely, but context is everything... I looked at adding CHM
support in a help module to add to my W98 core build. It turns out quite a
bit of complexity is there if you don't start with much of that as base
install first. I didn't finish that exploration yet, I want to suss out the
graphics base requirements first. And the network stuff too.
Lostgallifreyan
> In message <mrSdnbNWVOMC6krQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in
>>> Co <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> []
>>>> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE?
>>>> If
> []
>>> they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
>>> OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
>>> unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing
>>> to do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
>>
>>Like what? What untoward aspects are "popping up"???
>>
>>
> I can't remember: over to the others...
Ok, I shouldn't have said 'hate IE'.. The emphasis should be on 'install
DirectX v9c on W98 SE' especially where W98 is a small base install. M$
always assumed and intended that we'd use IE, but it's a poor assumption!
This isn't about IE, it's about what we do if we don't want to go their way.
About the stuff 'popping up' basically a lot of IE related controls are added
as Explorer shell extensions, I think. Disabling that lot sould be hard
labour, far easier to just not install. Hence the DX9-install patch.....
Bill in Co
> In message <mrSdnbNWVOMC6krQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
>>> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> []
>>>> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE?
>>>> If
> []
>>> they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
>>> OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
>>> unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing to
>>> do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
>>
>> Like what? What untoward aspects are "popping up"???
>>
>>
> I can't remember: over to the others...
It doesn't look like anyone else can, either. This is just coming down to
principle, methinks.
Lostgallifreyan
Well I tried... (earlier post here) Also, remember those two Browse??.dll's?
one of those is full of Explorer shell extension stuff. The whole Active
Desktop thing is based on it too.
It's a complex issue so I don't blame people who'd prefer not to install any
of it. That's the easiest way not to have to think about it.
Bill in Co
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:2q2dnT_evu6tjUXQ...@earthlink.com:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <mrSdnbNWVOMC6krQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
>>> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>> In message <A9KdnSJ8toGxq0rQ...@earthlink.com>, Bill in
>>>>> Co <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> []
>>>>>> I know this might be a revelation, but what's the big deal about IE?
>>>>>> If
>>> []
>>>>> they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into
>>>>> the OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop
>>>>> up unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were
>>>>> nothing to do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
>>>>
>>>> Like what? What untoward aspects are "popping up"???
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I can't remember: over to the others...
>>
>> It doesn't look like anyone else can, either. This is just coming down
>> to principle, methinks.
>>
>>
>
> Well I tried... (earlier post here) Also, remember those two
> Browse??.dll's?
> one of those is full of Explorer shell extension stuff. The whole Active
> Desktop thing is based on it too.
I remember that I replaced the two browse DLLs with the IE55 versions and
that fixed the explorer hanging problem.
I think you said it didn't apply in your case, since you didn't have those
browse DLLs (since you don't have IE), and that you still had that bug, but
my memory may be off. Senioritis?
As for "Active Desktop" (ugh):
Active Desktop is completely "inactive" over here. :-)
Lostgallifreyan
> I think you said it didn't apply in your case, since you didn't have
> those browse DLLs (since you don't have IE), and that you still had that
> bug, but my memory may be off.
That's correct, but in all my testing on a minimal core, I don't see it
anymore, so it's not a bug inherent to W98SE by default anyway. I just
deleted a whole drive full of tiny files while using my test install, and the
windows remain fully responsive at all times, except for tiny moments when
copying large data because in a minimal install you can't be using mainboard
specific bussmaster drivers so drives are operating in 'MS-DOS Compatibility'
mode. The hardware install module fixes all that, and the bug never appears
there either.
Whatever that halted window bug is, it may have more than one causal
mechanism, and if I don't see it in a new, carefully built core, I won't
agonise over it. I just fix every obvious flaw I get to see.
I won't be doing this for WXP though. It's not so much the complexity,
(though that might be beyond me anyway) it's to do with familiarity. To know
when W98 is doing subtle weird stuff it shouldn't, depends on years of
familiarity and all that those years have thrown up as possible errors too.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
writes:
>On Sat, 21 May 2011 09:09:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>>It's not _just_ it as a browser: actually, as a browser, it wasn't bad
>>they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
>>OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
>>unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing to
>>do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
>
>another browser set as default (like FF). But my #1 reason for getting
>rid of it, is because since I removed it, I rarely ever have Win98
>crash now. When IE was installed, it crashed fairly often.
I, too, rarely have either of my '98 machines crash - in fact I can't
remember when the laptop last crashed, and the desktop neither unless
you count not closing down properly.
>
>The next time someone tells you that XP or a newer MS OS is more
>stable, tell them their full of crap. It's NOT Win98 that's unstable,
But, equally, I've not had problems with this XP system for months
(mainly since I started ignoring Samsung Update's lunatic suggestions
that I upgrade to the video driver I know causes freezes).
>it's IE that makes it unstable. In the last month, I have had XP
>crash 3 times, and I only use XP less than 5% of the time (on my
>laptop), while I use Win98 85% of the time and Win2000 10% of the
Some of that could be due to your relative unfamiliarity with XP
compared to the others ...
[]
>I did not include Vista or Win7. I have never used either, except to
>briefly use them on other people's computers). In my opinion, they're
>bloated power hungry garbage that serve no real purpose. In fact they
>dont even qualify as "computers". They're just toys.
>Computers were never intended to control people, people developed
>computers to assist them with data processing, communication, and
>other tasks. Then Microsoft developed these machines, beginning with
>XP and they began to control people's lives and can now spy on anyone
>who owns a modern computer which is connected to the internet.
Well, I too have only used them when helping others. I think Vista is
generally recognised as being a dog. 7 is sufficiently _unfamiliar_ that
I find it a pain to use, but given that I've heard very little about it
at all, I guess it must have done something right, given people's
propensity to moan; the silence is deafening.
>
>Yes, I also have all the "view as webpage" crap turned off in 98.
>That's not hard to do.
>
Nor is installing Lite.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
... of the two little boxes in the corner of your room, the one without the
pictures is the one that opens the mind. - Stuart Maconie in Radio Times,
2008/10/11-17
Bill in Co
> writes:
>> On Sat, 21 May 2011 09:09:32 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> []
>>> It's not _just_ it as a browser: actually, as a browser, it wasn't bad
>>> []
>>> they didn't (and lacking some they did). But MS integrated IE into the
>>> OS in a way that lots of us find unacceptable - aspects of it pop up
>>> unexpectedly when you're doing things you'd have thought were nothing to
>>> do with HTTP (and aren't), if you have it installed.
>>
>> Which is exactly why I removed it. It would load even when I had
>> another browser set as default (like FF). But my #1 reason for getting
>> rid of it, is because since I removed it, I rarely ever have Win98
>> crash now. When IE was installed, it crashed fairly often.
>
> I, too, rarely have either of my '98 machines crash - in fact I can't
> remember when the laptop last crashed, and the desktop neither unless
> you count not closing down properly.
Bring it over the ocean to me, and I'll show you how. :-)
Of course, I'll need to install some apps.
>> The next time someone tells you that XP or a newer MS OS is more
>> stable, tell them their full of crap. It's NOT Win98 that's unstable,
>
> But, equally, I've not had problems with this XP system for months
> (mainly since I started ignoring Samsung Update's lunatic suggestions
> that I upgrade to the video driver I know causes freezes).
>
>> it's IE that makes it unstable. In the last month, I have had XP
>> crash 3 times, and I only use XP less than 5% of the time (on my
>> laptop), while I use Win98 85% of the time and Win2000 10% of the
>
> Some of that could be due to your relative unfamiliarity with XP
> compared to the others ...
I'd say so, too. I haven't had a blue screen in ages (on XP), even with
all the screwing around I do.
> []
>> I did not include Vista or Win7. I have never used either, except to
>> briefly use them on other people's computers). In my opinion, they're
>> bloated power hungry garbage that serve no real purpose. In fact they
>> dont even qualify as "computers". They're just toys.
>> Computers were never intended to control people, people developed
>> computers to assist them with data processing, communication, and
>> other tasks. Then Microsoft developed these machines, beginning with
>> XP and they began to control people's lives and can now spy on anyone
>> who owns a modern computer which is connected to the internet.
>
> Well, I too have only used them when helping others. I think Vista is
> generally recognised as being a dog. 7 is sufficiently _unfamiliar_ that
> I find it a pain to use, but given that I've heard very little about it
> at all, I guess it must have done something right, given people's
> propensity to moan; the silence is deafening.
Indeed, I'm guessing Win7 is doing a bit better. Maybe MS learned
something. (but not enough to just stick with XP. Oh wait a minute, that
would be a money loosing proposition for MS, wouldn't it? My bad :-)
>> Yes, I also have all the "view as webpage" crap turned off in 98.
>> That's not hard to do.
>>
> Nor is installing Lite.
BUT if you install Lite, you will be foregoing at least some things. Little
nagging things that show up when you least want them to (like not getting
some apps to install or work right, or perhaps more difficulties with some
device drivers, or A/V support, or USB2, or whatever). Win98SE is limited
enough as it is. And I still want IE, but that's just me. :-)
Lostgallifreyan
news:vbBUDSNz...@soft255.demon.co.uk:
> (mainly since I started ignoring Samsung Update's lunatic suggestions
> that I upgrade to the video driver I know causes freezes).
>
Wise. 'upgrade' is always to be questioned. I just discovered (after a long
and exhaustive test that lasted over two days) that one of the files in that
latest system files I grabbed recently for W98 is flawed, it fails to show
the Browse dialog (tree view type) when adding new hardware drivers. I
thrashed through all my registry files, all my files lists, chucked whole
piles of original stuff back onto the core tryint to catch what I'd missed,
and it turns out I missed nothing. While most of those later files do good
things, that one didn;t so I restored the old one.
Getting real stability out of ANY of these OS's is hard work. The only real
difference between WXP and W98 that matter now, is than now, WE have to do it
for W98... We have to trust our own judgement more. If I had I might have
saved at least a day of this.
Lostgallifreyan
> BUT if you install Lite, you will be foregoing at least some things.
> Little nagging things that show up when you least want them to (like not
> getting some apps to install or work right, or perhaps more difficulties
> with some device drivers, or A/V support, or USB2, or whatever).
USB2 needs support from the mainboard maker for W98 anyway. Most other
general onboard subsystems are supported VERY well even though the pre-
existing support is as minimal as it in in the hardware module I'm building
to add to that core I made earlier. All you need is the files that do the
hardware detection, the enumerator and other stuff that allocates resources
to drivers, and the INF files. My test install is tiny, about half the size
of 98-lite, and it still solves this ok. W98 is a smart OS, it really is, it
just got so much smoke when M$ added stuff to try to please everyone, same
reason the later ones grew. Even the default INF files supplied with W98 SE
can support much of the system devices on boards a lot newer than they are.
It's mainly newer types of peripheral interface that either need maker's
drivers, or have no support for W98 at all.
AV support will grow a system too, but DirectX v9c is first base for that.
Once you have that, just add the codecs you need. Same applies to runtime
libraries, Once you have a decent core, most stuff that wants more asks
politely for it and doesn't just break leaving you wondering why. Not that
all apps are coded equal...
Lostgallifreyan
> I think you said it didn't apply in your case, since you didn't have
> those browse DLLs (since you don't have IE), and that you still had that
> bug, but my memory may be off.
Bit of news... I just fired up Xoanon, my main backup machine, not used since
before the clocks changed an hour for BST. I am currently deleting the
contents of a 1GB backup disk on this machine and repopulating with the one
from my current test machine. Means SAME operations carried out, exactly, as
those I made on the test machine's own local disks earlier tonight.
Test machine's Explorer window does not lock up when deleting all the 6000+
files but the old install that's been dormant for months does do that.
I might never get a definitive cause as answer but if I do I'll post it. For
now, all I know is that those two Browse files are there, but not doing
anything, as I mentioned in earlier posts. For a while all three machines
used close variants of the same Ghost image file, this appeared on all, it's
not likely to be hardware dependent.. I suspect my shell-fix, combined with
some new core sysfiles, is fixing it, but I don't know how.
Lostgallifreyan
> I've heard that Lite is missing some needed things. I dont know what?
>
Complete 'Cryptographic Providers' support for one thing. Hence my patch. I
mentioned that less than two days ago..
It's not missing much. If anything it's including too much, even in its
'Micro' form. Its registry is especially overweight so even if it is missing
a file or two, you'll usually be told what it is, and getting it is easy.
It's very rare that something is missing enough to make it necessary to go to
the trouble of playing Sherlock Holmes and writing patches to make up the
loss. Right now I can think of only one case that I couldn't fix by a bit of
care in correct install procedure. (Well, two, but my current noodlebaker is
a device driver that refuses manual install on ANY install on any hardware
even though it's more effusive standalone executable setup works ok, so it's
clearly specific to that driver install, not 98-Lite or my own weird
experiments).
Lostgallifreyan
standard W98 SE as well as IE, so 98-Lite broke it if it wasn't broken
already.
To fix it, add the Windows component 'MS Cryptographic Providers' with 98-
Lite's windows setup tool, then dig INITPKI.DLL out of Win98_30.cab, put it
in the System directory and register it with REGSVR32.EXE.
Bill in Co
> Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd try to install this thing. I
> took the copy that came with the Win2000 upgrade package, (so I did
> not have to download 96 megs again...... which on dialup would be 5 to
> 6 hours). It's the same size as the download I found, so it should be
> the same. It is version 9c. (confirmed from Win2000).
>
> I re-enabled IEXPLORE.EXE (the real one), and to confirm it worked, I
> loaded IE and it worked. (This is IE 5.5).
>
> Then (after doing a complete backup of the Windows folder, I began the
> SETUP file in the DirectX package. I got to the "do you accept these
> terms" YES or NO shit. I hit the accept (YES) button, and before it
> got anywhere, I got the following error message "DirectX could not
> find a file necessary for installation".
>
> This is the actual Win98se FULL installation, (not the Lite package).
> The only modification besides settings, is that I have Kernal Ex
> installed.
>
> So, that's where it stands. I have no intention to fuck with this any
> further, I just thought I'd give it a try, because it only took a few
> seconds to disable IE again. I see no purpose to upgrade to it, since
> I notice no difference in my graphics on Win2000, WITH the ver 9c
> installed. But I thought I'd give it a try and see if it would
> install. I'm finished fucking with it, but just wanted to let
> everyone know the results. Maybe if I saw a useful advantage to
> having it, I'd be more willing to waste more time on it, but I dont.
>
> Anyhow, this clears up any doubts that DirectX 9c was *NOT* intended
> to be installed in Win98. Maybe it can be done using a long
> complicated process, but I'll leave that for someone else to do.
I only have DirectX 9b on my Win98SE system (either I never bothered going
to version 9c, or it was the last recommended version for Win98SE, and I
can't recall which, now).
You might be able to install that version (9b), but either way, I think
you'd need the version designed for Win98SE, and not Win2000, but I haven't
checked. It seems hard to believe that the DX version for Win2000 would
also work for Win9x, unless it's in a multiple installer pack that includes
all OS versions - but that just seems unlikely to me, if for no other
reason, an excessively large file size).
I'm also guessing that just having IE5.5 (due to its age) might also be an
possible issue, since IE6 added some newer core files, but I'm not sure.
Sunny
<j...@myplace.com> wrote in message
news:mf5mu6to39eqg1bl4...@4ax.com...
I have DirectX Ver 9.0C installed on my Win98SE Box (With IE6 installed -
may be a factor))
Did not have to "jump through hoops"
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=402111C4-6478-46C1-BBD9-1BF9FCCE52F4
.Supported Operating Systems:Windows 2000;Windows 2000 Advanced
Server;Windows 2000 Professional Edition;Windows 2000 Server;Windows 2000
Service Pack 2;Windows 2000 Service Pack 3;Windows 2000 Service Pack
4;Windows 98;Windows 98 Second Edition;Windows ME;Windows Server
2003;Windows XP;Windows XP Home Edition;Windows XP Media Center
Edition;Windows XP Professional Edition;Windows XP Service Pack 1;Windows
XP Service Pack 2;Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
1.Click the Download button on this page to start the download,
or select a different language from the Change language drop-down list
and click Go.
2.Do one of the following:
?To start the installation immediately, click Run.
?To save the download to your computer for installation at a later time,
click Save.
?To cancel the installation, click Cancel.
This update is recommended for those user that do not have internet
connection during installation
If IE6 is required :
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&displaylang=en
For more info :
http://www.petri.co.il/download_directx_90c.htm
98 Guy
> I only have DirectX 9b on my Win98SE system (either I never bothered
> going to version 9c, or it was the last recommended version for
> Win98SE, and I can't recall which, now).
The answer would be that you didn't bother.
Win-98 compatibility did not not stop at version 9b.
There should be a DirectX installation log file that will tell JC why it
failed:
c:\windows\logs\DXError.log
I bet most people have this file. It's not just for errors relating to
DirectX installation.
I've got about a dozen entries my mine - most of them seem to relate to
dotnet / dxsetup.cpp.
Bill in Co
> Maybe that other one is only for Win2000. You'd think that DirectX 9c
> would be the same thing for any OS.
I wouldn't, since the OSs are so vastly different, and this is a low level
software package. It has to tie directly in to the operating system and
it's unique function calls, unique in its coding, depending on the platform.
> Otherwise it would have a
> different name or number, but who knows, and why one is 96megs and the
> other 33 megs is beyond me. I do know that the 96 megger had all
> sorts of files whose dates go back years. The file itself is from
> March 2009 (says so in the filename). Leave it up to MS to make
> everything complicated......
>
> I'll try it as it is. However if it requires IE6, I wont be
> installing it. I'll be honest. My opinion of IE6, is that it ranks
> in the top 10 worst pieces of software ever written, and could easily
> be #1 on that list. In fact someone should have decapitated Bill
> Gates for ever making that piece of shit, and especially for releasing
> it to the public. There is no way in hell I'd ever allow that piece
> of shit on any computer I own. The one and only time I installed it,
> I may as well should have just deleted half the core files in Windows
> from my harddrive or just tossed the computer in the garbage. It
> became so unstable it was worthless.
But judging from the number of folks who successfully installed IE6, I'd say
your experience was unique. Something else was going on there. Sure, it
*can* happen , but that's true with most any significant software
installation,, given all the variations in one's software and hardware and
operating system installations.
> Fortunately I had a FULL COPY
> backup on a spare harddrive to restore, which I was able to do from
> Dos.
>
> I'll go on to say that I never tried or used IE7, but IE8 seems to
> work ok on an XP computer I was working on for someone. So maybe MS
> finally fixed it the right way. Of course neither 7 or 8 will work on
> Win98. Actually installing any version of IE is a complete waste of
> time. I'll never use any of them. I'd much rather use Firefox.
And that's a key, as you don't have to use any of them anyways, so it's
really no big deal..
> Maybe I'll do some more searching the web to see if IE6 is required
> before I waste 2 hours downloading.
Be sure to make a complete backup clone or image of your system first, and
give it a try. (Just copying the windows and system files is not enough).
So to do this right, you need to use either a clone or image backup of your
C: partition (I'm assuming you're using C: as your system drive, and it
includes all windows files and the \program files subdirectory.
> Thanks for the help.
Lostgallifreyan
>>> Then (after doing a complete backup of the Windows folder, I began the
>>> SETUP file in the DirectX package. I got to the "do you accept these
>>> terms" YES or NO shit. I hit the accept (YES) button, and before it
>>> got anywhere, I got the following error message "DirectX could not
>>> find a file necessary for installation".
Check for these files in the System directory:
INITPKI.DLL
MSSIP32.DLL
RSABASE.DLL
RSASIG.DLL
SOFTPUB.DLL
If any are missing, dig them out of W98 cab files or IE5 (which you
installed, so they ought to be there, but check anyway. Then register (with
REGSVR32.EXE, already in System dir) any that you had to replace (except
RSASIG.DLL).
If those are there, try running FileMon (Sysinternals thing) or Dependency
Walker, with 'profile' because these tools can identify very reliably what is
missing. You'll see more info than you'll ever want to know, but you WILL see
what you need in there, likely flagged in red text in Dependency Walker which
is a lot more fun than FileMon..
Your 33 MB download ought to be ok, I think it is designed to work on W9X or
WNT based systems, having in it the means to tell the difference and act
appropriately.
98-guy linked to a larger, newer version but it's just short of 60 MB! Worth
getting as the lastest and greates known for W98 (with internak stuff
updated to Oct 2006, so fairly reeecent, as DX goes, they don't update it
that often), but not right now, perhaps, wait till you get something going
first so you know it's worth it..
Bill in Co
But if you really want to have the latest, newest, and most complete
revisions avialable for Win98, you really should have both Win98SE and
IE6(SP1) installed, whether you run the browser, or not. (but with the
browseDLLs "swaperoo", of course).
A true minimalist would go back to Win95 (or DOS). :-) But at least in
Win95, you got to use decent filenames for a change, LOL. Can't say the
same about Win3.1 or earlier.
But I'm not going to belabor the point too much here, unless I get a bit
more bored. :-)
Lostgallifreyan
> And did you know that the greatest composers of all time are now all
> decomposing........ (and doing so without any computers)......
>
Nice
Lostgallifreyan
> While I know no one can
> answer this, I can only ask WHY THE HELL can't MS change the version
> numbers when they upgrade stuff, and make it incompatible with an
> OS.???
Answering the unanswerable makes life interesting, so...
They wanted to abandon their own self-limiting past. Remember this: "No-one
can possibly need more than 640KB of base memory!" So if they can slide out
of the hole they dug for themselves with less people noticing, then that's
what they'll do. A BBC article of recent days states that no-one is pushing
harder for IE6 to be banished from this Earth faster than Microsoft
themselves! They try too many times to force the world to accept their view,
then get hoist by their own petard. And spend a great deal of time and effort
trying to get out of the mess. If they can make a working version of
something under the same description rather than openly admit a major defeat,
then that's what they'll do.
On the other hand, there's the donkey-designed-by-comittee school of coding
that makes tiny incremental version number changes every 3 hours and expects
everyone to manage a nightmare CVS system on their behalf, while
disingenuosly claiming some kind of purity by using version numbers that
never reach 1.0, as if pseudo-maths based on the notion that all numbers can
be encoded as a floating point value between 0 and 1 will somehow save them
them from having to commit a stable version that anyone can actually hold
them responsible for!
You pays your money (or not, as the case may be) and you takes your choice.
>:)
I hate to say this, but I'm proud enough of that bit of verbiage to wish I'd
typed it up with your Smith and Wesson.
98 Guy
> I downloaded the 34meg file, and installed it in seconds.
> No problems at all. It shows I now have version 9c...
>
> I see no difference on my computer.
You claimed previously to have an Intel 82810E Graphics Controller for
your video output.
According to this:
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-003951.htm
---------------
The Intel® 82810 and 82815 graphics controllers are compatible with
versions of Microsoft* DirectX* up to 9.0 with version 6.7 of the
graphics drivers. Not all of the new features of DirectX 9.0 are
supported, however. They are also compatible with previous version of
DirectX (8.x, 7.x, 6.x and 5.x).
---------------
You should experience *some* advantages in now having directx 9 on your
box, with one extra consideration: Your video drivers.
The most recent drivers for that chiset can be found here:
That should show 2 download options. They are the same, except one is
English, the other is multi-language.
This is a direct link to the english-language version:
http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4666/eng/win9xe67.exe (4.7 mb)
Those driver files and dll's seem to date to july 2008.
Go to your device manager and look under your video controller and see
what file it's using for the driver. I'm thinking it might be
i81xdw9x.drv. If you have that file on your system, and if it's version
is 4.13.01.3196 (July 23, 2002) then you probably have the most recent
file.
98 Guy
> I have i81xdw9x.drv and is dated 2002, so I guess I have the latest.
There were many versions of that driver released in a short span of
time. You should simply right-click on that file and select the
properties tab to verify that the version is 4.13.01.3196.
98 Guy
> > This is a direct link to the english-language version:
> >
> > http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4666/eng/win9xe67.exe (4.7 mb)
> >
> > Those driver files and dll's seem to date to july 2008.
>
> I downloaded this file and its corrupt.....
There is nothing wrong with that file. It is not corrupt.
I am able to run it up to the point where I have to agree to the license
agreement (I stop it at that point because I don't want to install those
drivers on my system).
Go and get a program called "winrar". It will allow you to unpack most
compressed exe files. I can unpack it and see all the internal files.
If it was corrupt, winrar would tell me.
If you're on dial-up, then maybe there was a transmission error during
the download. Download it again.
Sjouke Burry
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:38:23 -0400, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a direct link to the english-language version:
>>
>> http://downloadmirror.intel.com/4666/eng/win9xe67.exe (4.7 mb)
>>
>> Those driver files and dll's seem to date to july 2008.
>
>
98 Guy
> It refuses to download the complete file on my computer.
> I downloaded it again, this time I only got a 2 meg file.
What browser or download manager are you using to download it?
Why don't you get broadband? Dialup is incredibly lame.
webster72n
"98 Guy" wrote in message news:4DF36F1B...@Guy.com...
j...@myplace.com wrote:
Not everyone can afford broadband or higher.
Is there another solution?
Harry.
98 Guy
> Not everyone can afford broadband or higher.
> Is there another solution?
Comcast to Offer $10 Broadband to Low Income Homes
One of the few conditions faced by Comcast when they acquired NBC
Universal was that the company had to offer $10 broadband to any
household making less than $20,000 a year. It was actually a condition
Comcast volunteered, and this week the company was in Chicago to
announce that their "Internet Essentials" program will go live this
fall.
According to Comcast, every household in Comcast's footprint with
children who receive free lunches under the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) will qualify. Qualified homes get Comcast XFINITY Economy
broadband service (1.5 Mbps down, 384 kbps up and usually offered for
$25 if we're not mistaken) for $10 a month, the opportunity to buy a PC
for $150, and access to digital literacy training.
Comcast says the program will run for "at least three school years,"
though any household that qualifies during this period will remain
eligible for the discounts as long as a child in the household still
qualifies for the NSLP (you can find NSLP qualifications here, pdf).