W98 right-click induced crash.

On 04/17/2011 06:01 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
wrote in :

It was not clear to me that you were using the Win95 shell


First post this thread, 4th paragraph.


I kind of skimmed over that

Heck why bother with Win98 at all...as long as you already know you had
no problems in win95osr2c then why not use that?


Fair point, but I'm after the best W9X I can put together.

If you want the best possible Win9x then you are really going to
have to use an unmodified Win98se without the win95 shell.




For one thing,
with latest sysfiles from a set that Sjouke Burry pointed me to (Thread: List
of latest version DLL's?), this can be more compatible with the Maxim Decim
USB driver subsystem, so I have revised my opinions of that thing sharply
upwards, at least as a viable prospect for a good base install of W98. (It
would likely break an existing full W98 install if it wasn't first fixed with
a selected bunch of core files from "sesp21a-en.exe" because there are
several version-specific interdependencies there).

In short, going back to W95 would be throwing babies out with bathwater.


Why would that be? You've already stated that:

1) Win95osr2c works without a problem

2) You will only use the win95 shell and not the win98 shell


Rather than force an issue why not simply go with what you know works?

philo wrote in :

Rather than force an issue why not simply go with what you know works?


Did you also skim over the point about USB? If W95 was the right thing to do,
do you think Shane Brooks would ever have bothered with 98-Lite? You're not
thinking this through at all, or reading what is posted, so you're not in a
good position to second-guess my needs and intentions.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
philo wrote in :

Rather than force an issue why not simply go with what you know works?


Did you also skim over the point about USB? If W95 was the right thing to
do,
do you think Shane Brooks would ever have bothered with 98-Lite? You're
not
thinking this through at all, or reading what is posted, so you're not in
a
good position to second-guess my needs and intentions.

Nope

I saw that but win95 osr2 does have USB support.

I've used it and it works. The only real issue I've had was that the mobo
had to be USB capable...
I've never gotten it to work with an add on PCI card.

I have a machine in my workshop with Win95 osr2 and have confirmed the USB
works...
it's not speculation or second hand info

"philo" wrote in :


"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
philo wrote in :

Rather than force an issue why not simply go with what you know works?


Did you also skim over the point about USB? If W95 was the right thing to
do,
do you think Shane Brooks would ever have bothered with 98-Lite? You're
not
thinking this through at all, or reading what is posted, so you're not in
a
good position to second-guess my needs and intentions.

Nope

I saw that but win95 osr2 does have USB support.

I've used it and it works. The only real issue I've had was that the mobo
had to be USB capable...
I've never gotten it to work with an add on PCI card.

I have a machine in my workshop with Win95 osr2 and have confirmed the USB
works...
it's not speculation or second hand info




There's a whole set of files making the W98 core. A whole lot more than USB
relies on that. Many programs won't install on anything less than that, and
most insist on the second edition, too. Trying to evade that and make all
those things work on W95 might not be possible. Even if it is, to do it needs
a rigorous test of whatever core is used, and clearly trying to build W98
levels of support on a W95 core is not easier than what I'm doing. It would
be like trying to walk to London to from Bristol to buy a loaf of bread. You
tell me I'm making hard work for myself, but I'm trying to fix a shell
problem (with some success too). It might take days, but your way would take
weeks, if it ever worked at all.

I also tried USB on W95 once. That experience was what drove me to W98 in
the first place. Sure, SOME of it worked, but entirely too little. There are
all sorts of opionions about what is 'best', but even without demanding
contexts like hardware driver compatibility that I need to satisfy, there is
my basic view that a late revision of the most widely supported variant of
W9X (being W98 SE) is the best going, as it's more developed than W95, but
wasn't scuppered by MS's change of heart that inflicted ME with more troubles
than it was worth. Without repeating myself, there's no more to say. If you
don't understand why a shell quirk doesn't justify changing the entire core,
you'll need a lot more people than me to spell it out.

"Lostgallifreyan" wrote in message
. ..
"philo" wrote in
:


snip

I also tried USB on W95 once. That experience was what drove me to W98 in
the first place. Sure, SOME of it worked, but entirely too little. There
are
all sorts of opionions about what is 'best', but even without demanding
contexts like hardware driver compatibility that I need to satisfy, there
is
my basic view that a late revision of the most widely supported variant of
W9X (being W98 SE) is the best going, as it's more developed than W95, but
wasn't scuppered by MS's change of heart that inflicted ME with more
troubles
than it was worth. Without repeating myself, there's no more to say. If
you
don't understand why a shell quirk doesn't justify changing the entire
core,
you'll need a lot more people than me to spell it out.


Then you will have to do your own homework then...
if you are too lazy to do it yourself...don't expect other to do it for you

sheesh

philo wrote in :

Why would that be? You've already stated that:

1) Win95osr2c works without a problem

2) You will only use the win95 shell and not the win98 shell


Rather than force an issue why not simply go with what you know works?


Illogical.
I said: "Especially as I never saw this problem when I was
actually using pure W95osr2c anyway."

Now think it through... The problem is likely invoked by code that calls on
the common controls functions in ways that no code did in those days, because
no-one wrote for W98 in 1995! I doubt the program versions that invoke that
crash would run on W95 at all.

The point of my comment about not seeing that crash in those days is that
there is a possibility that it could be eliminated even now. In this case I
currently manage by pointing COMDLG32.DLL to W98's (renamed) SHELL32.DLL for
file access dialogs, while using the W95 shell for normal Explorer windows.
That has a few quirks too (file dialog contents fail to update, but who cares
if it's just to fetch an existing file, or save one), but nothing as severe
as those crashes. If I can avoid instant data loss or audio hardware damage
caused by one accidental right-click, then I think I did ok.

"philo" wrote in :

Then you will have to do your own homework then...
if you are too lazy to do it yourself...don't expect other to do it for you

sheesh


Now you're just being rediculous! One moment I'n doing too much, the next,
too little?! I'm done talking to you, total waste of time.

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

Use only W95 SHELL32.DLL and EXPLORER.EXE, unhacked.
Use W98 COMDLG32.DLL instead of the W95 copy that 98-Lite normally would
intend. HACK that COMDLG32.DLL file so its two references to SHELL32.DLL
point instead to SHELL32.W98, which as I mentioned is the renamed copy of
W98's SHELL32.DLL.


Last one from me on this subject, I've gone on long enough. The correct fix
is a variant of the above (which only works on a very minimal base install,
otherwise nasty shell conflicts result).

As a lot of stuff depends on the W95 shell, if used, leave it intact as
intended in 98-Lite. Instead, copy the W98 version of COMDLG32.DLL out of cab
27, and change its two internal references for SHELL32.DLL to SHELL32.W98 as
before, but DON'T overwrite the W95 version, but rename it to COMDLG32.W98,
and put it in the System directory along with SHELL32.W98 itself (renamed
copy of the W98 SHELL32.DLL).

If a program invokes the right-click crash it is because it is coded to call
on COMDLG32 functions in the W98 version. This is why this never appeared in
W95 when I used it, because obviously no-one was coding those calls then.
So satisfy that call if it happens. Edit the program itself (and its DLL's if
needed) so references for SHELL32.DLL and COMDLG32.DLL point to SHELL32.W98
and COMDLG32.W98 respectively.

This sounds tedious, but it works, avoiding conflicts between the two shell
subsystems. And if a program is worth it, do it, it only has to be done once
in the life of an install. I tested this on Xnews (which actually handles
the exception in the original condition better than most programs do), and
4Winds Mahjong, two other programs that induced the right-click crash in the
W95 shell. Both programs work perfectly after the changes, as do TextPad and
Ghost Explorer, which also needed them.

I'll let it rest now, but if anyone reading this finds they need to try this
(applies to 98-Lite with W95 shell, and any program making W98-specific shell
calls), please post what you find. I want to know if it works for anyone
else. I think it will though..



PS. If anyone knows of later W95 versions than Shell32.dll v4.00.1111
(819,200 bytes) and Comdlg32.dll v4.00.951 (92,672 bytes), and perhaps
Explorer.exe v4.00.950 (204,288 bytes), please let me know. I don't think
there are any later than those for W95, but if there are I want to try them
in case they solve this directly.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't understand why you don't just stick with the Win98 shell, though.
What is wrong with it? It seems like it's not worth all the bother,
unless you enjoy chasing this down. :-)


I do. Also, while not as bad as WXP, the W98 shell has a certain
viscosity.. W95 gave me a taste for raw speed that nothing else satisfied,
except 98-Lite. Minimal and highly responsive and versatile controls are
best
for me. Later systems started piling on lots of very specific stuff that
distracts me more than it helps me.

I do recall Win95 being more nimble, but after swapping out those two browse
DLLs with the older IE55 builds, I found explorer to still be pretty fast.

But if one were running a slow 200 MHz CPU, and/or less than 256 MB of RAM,
Win95 might be quite a bit spiffier. But with a 800 MHz CPU, and at least
256 MB of RAM, Win98SE was still pretty fast and lightweight.

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

I don't understand why you don't just stick with the Win98 shell,
though. What is wrong with it? It seems like it's not worth all the
bother, unless you enjoy chasing this down. :-)


I do. Also, while not as bad as WXP, the W98 shell has a certain
viscosity.. W95 gave me a taste for raw speed that nothing else
satisfied, except 98-Lite. Minimal and highly responsive and versatile
controls are best
for me. Later systems started piling on lots of very specific stuff
that distracts me more than it helps me.

I do recall Win95 being more nimble, but after swapping out those two
browse DLLs with the older IE55 builds, I found explorer to still be
pretty fast.


You might not need them at all. On my main system they appear to do nothing,
they're not in use, one seems to depend only on itself, the other is a high
level DLL, dependent on a lot more than the core. My test machine has a core
compiled from as few files as appear to be strictly called for, and that
works too, and has never had those two in it. I'll leave them out of my
main system and watch for signs of panic, but none so far, and I tested about
ten programs just now.

But if one were running a slow 200 MHz CPU, and/or less than 256 MB of
RAM, Win95 might be quite a bit spiffier. But with a 800 MHz CPU, and
at least 256 MB of RAM, Win98SE was still pretty fast and lightweight.



I'll look at that too, but I like the W95 shell specifically for what it is,
this wasn't just an avoidance move. My short test yesterday morning with the
swapped-back W98 shell wasn't exactly distressing though. I'll experiment
with that again in the minimal core tests. The standard W98 shell also
appears not to need those 'Browse' DLL's. I haven't yet worked out what
would..