Replacing shell32.dll?

This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific" is the
shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll, with the
windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work? (My gut
instincts say, "no way, Jose").

But there were many things similar between ME and 98SE, so I was just hoping
it MIGHT be possible.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

(And yeah, I have a reason for this in mind).

No way, José! Besides, even it it would work, which it won't, it would violate your
EULA.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific" is the
shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll, with the
windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work? (My gut
instincts say, "no way, Jose").

But there were many things similar between ME and 98SE, so I was just hoping
it MIGHT be possible.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

(And yeah, I have a reason for this in mind).

Hey, I just wanted to be able to read and copy LARGE file sizes properly!

Don't tell anyone, but I'm using the WinME Defragger in place of the Win98SE
one. Should I be drawn and quartered?

glee wrote:
No way, José! Besides, even it it would work, which it won't, it would
violate your EULA.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific" is
the
shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll, with
the
windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work? (My gut
instincts say, "no way, Jose").

But there were many things similar between ME and 98SE, so I was just
hoping
it MIGHT be possible.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get
its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

(And yeah, I have a reason for this in mind).

....and why can't you do that with Win98's shell32.dll?

(I don't think they draw and quarter in Colorado.....will you settle for tar and
feathers?)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Hey, I just wanted to be able to read and copy LARGE file sizes properly!

Don't tell anyone, but I'm using the WinME Defragger in place of the Win98SE
one. Should I be drawn and quartered?

glee wrote:
No way, José! Besides, even it it would work, which it won't, it would
violate your EULA.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific" is
the
shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll, with
the
windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work? (My gut
instincts say, "no way, Jose").

But there were many things similar between ME and 98SE, so I was just
hoping
it MIGHT be possible.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get
its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

(And yeah, I have a reason for this in mind).

Win98's shell has a bug (it's mentioned in one of the KB articles there)
that precludes copying files larger than 2.147 GB using Windows Explorer
(due to a stupid, signed arithmetic condition code error), so you have to
use the COPY command in DOS to do it. I gather if they had done it
correctly, using unsigned arithmetic, we could have gone up to 4.3 GB, which
makes sense when you think of the registers (using one more bit position for
the calculation, instead of a sign bit).

According to the KB article, it was corrected in WinME's Shell32.dll (and
later versions).

glee wrote:
...and why can't you do that with Win98's shell32.dll?

(I don't think they draw and quarter in Colorado.....will you settle for
tar
and feathers?)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Hey, I just wanted to be able to read and copy LARGE file sizes properly!

Don't tell anyone, but I'm using the WinME Defragger in place of the
Win98SE
one. Should I be drawn and quartered?

glee wrote:
No way, José! Besides, even it it would work, which it won't, it would
violate your EULA.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific" is
the
shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll, with
the
windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work? (My gut
instincts say, "no way, Jose").

But there were many things similar between ME and 98SE, so I was just
hoping it MIGHT be possible.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get
its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

(And yeah, I have a reason for this in mind).

Bill in Co. wrote:

Here is the URL:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;318293

Win98's shell has a bug (it's mentioned in one of the KB articles there)
that precludes copying files larger than 2.147 GB using Windows Explorer
(due to a stupid, signed arithmetic condition code error), so you have to
use the COPY command in DOS to do it. I gather if they had done it
correctly, using unsigned arithmetic, we could have gone up to 4.3 GB,
which
makes sense when you think of the registers (using one more bit position
for
the calculation, instead of a sign bit).

According to the KB article, it was corrected in WinME's Shell32.dll (and
later versions).

glee wrote:
...and why can't you do that with Win98's shell32.dll?

(I don't think they draw and quarter in Colorado.....will you settle for
tar
and feathers?)
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Hey, I just wanted to be able to read and copy LARGE file sizes
properly!

Don't tell anyone, but I'm using the WinME Defragger in place of the
Win98SE
one. Should I be drawn and quartered?

glee wrote:
No way, José! Besides, even it it would work, which it won't, it would
violate your EULA.
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific"
is
the shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll,
with the windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work?
(My gut instincts say, "no way, Jose").

But there were many things similar between ME and 98SE, so I was just
hoping it MIGHT be possible.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to
get
its properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it
says
WindowsNT!!

(And yeah, I have a reason for this in mind).

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:44:08 -0700, "Bill in Co."

This is a really long shot, but just how "operating system specific" is the
shell32.dll file? Like if one replaced the win98se shell32.dll, with the
windowsME shell32.dll, is there a chance it could still work? (My gut
instincts say, "no way, Jose").

I'm with your gut feeling, but your SOP should mitigate that:

Never delete what you can rename or ;comment out

So, from DOS mode, I'd rename away the old bad one to SHELL32.DL!,
copy the new one in, and copy that again as SHELL32.DL1

Now I'd apply "template discipline", always keeping a template copy of
whatever serves as the "live" .DLL and never copying over these
inviolate templates. By convention, I use the following names:

! = original ?broken form
_ = fresh version-appropriate form
1, 2, 3... = other attempts

To get a fresh ?version-appropriate SHELL32.DLL, do this...
- know CDPATH i.e. path to your CD-ROM (e.g. D:\WIN98)
- know WINPATH i.e. path where Windows installed
....then do this, replacing all CAPS with your values:

c:
cd \WINPATH\system
copy shell32.dll shell32.dl!
extract /a CDPATH\precopy1.cab shell32.dll
extract /a CDPATH\base4.cab shell32.dll
copy shell32.dll shell32.dl_

You'd have to overwrite the existing shell32.dll if shell.dl_ is to be
the one off the CD; I'd do this stuff from DOS mode too, though that
does mean you have to have working CD drivers there.

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

Shell32.dll soup is a common side-effect of IE upgrades, attempted
uninstalls, or installing the OS's older IE over a newer one already
present. So sure, this is a well-trodden road; generically, see...

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



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:06:11 -0700, "Bill in Co."

Win98's shell has a bug (it's mentioned in one of the KB articles there)
that precludes copying files larger than 2.147 GB using Windows Explorer
(due to a stupid, signed arithmetic condition code error), so you have to
use the COPY command in DOS to do it.

Do you mean a collection of files over 2G or so in total, or single
files larger than 2G each? If the latter, then it's unlikely to be
relevant to any file system that Win98 can understand.

OTOH, if this is the elusive and never-fixed issue where Windows
Explorer dwaaals for minutes after bulk file operations... URL me!



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 22:06:11 -0700, "Bill in Co."

Win98's shell has a bug (it's mentioned in one of the KB articles there)
that precludes copying files larger than 2.147 GB using Windows Explorer
(due to a stupid, signed arithmetic condition code error), so you have to
use the COPY command in DOS to do it.

Do you mean a collection of files over 2G or so in total, or single
files larger than 2G each?

Single file. But I haven't tried it with a collection exceeding 2G, so who
knows.

If the latter, then it's unlikely to be
relevant to any file system that Win98 can understand.

OTOH, if this is the elusive and never-fixed issue where Windows
Explorer dwaaals for minutes after bulk file operations... URL me!



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...

Interestingly, if you right mouse click on that shell32.dll file to get its
properties, then version, and look at the product name there, it says
WindowsNT!!

The reason for that is hidden in plain view in the KB article you linked to
elsewhere in this thread:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=318293

"The problem was eliminated as part of many changes to the newer shell that comes
from Microsoft Internet Explorer 5 used by Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft
Windows Millennium Edition (Me)."

"....later versions of Internet Explorer don't update Shell32.dll on any platform
except Windows 2000 and Windows Me."

Win2K (which is in the NT family) and WinME both get the same shell32.dll which
comes from IE5x...an NT-versioned shell32.dll
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP W95/98 Systems
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm