How to install DirectX v9c on W98 SE if you hate IE...

wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 17:38:55 +1000, "Sunny"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
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 ****. 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 **** 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 ****ing 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 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/e...9-1BF9FCCE52F4

.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/e...displaylang=en

For more info :

http://www.petri.co.il/download_directx_90c.htm


Thanks to both of you guys. For a 34meg download, I'll give it a try.
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 ****, and especially for releasing
it to the public. There is no way in hell I'd ever allow that piece
of **** 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.

wrote in :

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 ****. 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..

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

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 ****. 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..

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. :-)

wrote in :

And did you know that the greatest composers of all time are now all
decomposing........ (and doing so without any computers)......


Nice

wrote in :

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.

wrote:

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 he

http://downloadcenter.intel.com/Deta...adType=Drivers

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.

wrote:

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.

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.

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.

wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 09:38:23 -0400, 98 Guy 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.

I downloaded this file and its corrupt.....

File downloads fine, and unpacks in IZARC without a problem.

wrote:

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.