Error loading TcpMib.dll

[MEB]

Soporific, if I remember correctly, has been a poster on MSFN [for years]..
perhaps you knew or were just posting the link for the contents..

Using that link, take due notice of the number of unofficial patches that
are included, many of which are NOT, apparently, able to be chosen or
refused, but are installed once the *module* is added.... don't choose the
module and that area remains un-updated, which potential could bring its own
issues for not installing it.

BTW, I applaud them for the attempts at continuing 98, but one must
understand that many/most of the *fixes* are still in testing phase...

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:8sc234h1sui1gnv51me281hmso8j24s3nu@4ax.com...
| On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:31:08 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> put
| finger to keyboard and composed:
|
| >MEB just pointed out the obvious to me in another thread. Your problem is
| >Auto-Patcher, or rather, one of its components. The program is supposedly
| >very easy to deal with, choosing which patches or tweaks to install.
Perhaps
| >the people who built and support it can more quickly tell you what went
| >wrong.
| >Auto-Patcher for Windows 98 SE (English)
|
>http://www.msfn.org/board/Auto-Patcher-For-Windows-98se-English-t80800.html
|
| Auto-Patcher Module Contents
| December 2007 Final
| http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/modules.htm
|
| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

I find no reference to TCPMIB.DLL in that file. I find only one totally
unrelated mention of the file on all of MSFN. A Google search on
"TCPMIB.DLL" + "Auto-Patcher" returned zero hits.

OP needs to determine which module includes that DLL, what the module is
for, is it really necessary, and can it be individually uninstalled? Can it
be fixed? So OP needs to post a new post to the MSFN forum link and see if
anyone knows.

I can't stop believing that this app is another hand-grenade. Potentially
deadly, with the risk rising as experience declines.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:8sc234h1sui1gnv51me281hmso8j24s3nu@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:31:08 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> put
> finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>MEB just pointed out the obvious to me in another thread. Your problem is
>>Auto-Patcher, or rather, one of its components. The program is supposedly
>>very easy to deal with, choosing which patches or tweaks to install.
>>Perhaps
>>the people who built and support it can more quickly tell you what went
>>wrong.
>>Auto-Patcher for Windows 98 SE (English)
>>http://www.msfn.org/board/Auto-Patcher-For-Windows-98se-English-t80800.html
>
> Auto-Patcher Module Contents
> December 2007 Final
> http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/modules.htm
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[MEB]

Oh, okay, don't look for me to make dozens of web pages on the installation
orders I have used... the issue there would be, that the finder would think
they had the scope of what needed done, skipping the prior activities/pages
[thank the search engines for that nifty *decrease* in knowledge] or failing
to understand WHY the order may need modified due to the OTHER INSTALLS they
intended to do.

The obvious answer to "what to do if it won't install with IE6" would be,
either you skip installation or start from scratch, or buy something that
works WITH it installed [which is what most people did]...

As for solutions: No, Microsoft and other developers produced no solutions
or modified updates to work in updated systems [or might have, or may have
gone out of business, or followed the world business model of forcing
updating by non-support and no updates]
Office 97 DID get two version of SR1, but only one SR2, by that time it was
basically unsupported and really only received the WORD
{Office97-KB830354-ENU.exe - 2003} [and EXCEL, maybe some others, I forget
and they are *filed away somewhere*] update due to MAJOR flaws..
Hence you find numerous complaints archived on the NET concerning programs
which couldn't be installed or couldn't be updated... many wouldn't go the
routine of fresh install and following an installation order anyway... its
easier to PAB/complain than to work through the issues OR buy something that
DOES work, you know that from experience I'm sure....

So, though you apparently think I didn't supply the answer, essentially I
did two post up by using the created program date and its updates date as
indicators of WHEN to install. Compare that to the date of your OS and the
dates of its updates.... if its a 1998 or 1999 program then when do you
think it should be installed, likely early, once the OS is installed.. if
its a 2002 or 2005 program, then what might need done PRIOR to installing it
[like installing the older programs, checking the CDROM or installer to see
if it requires something OR may update key system files {mdac, DirectX,
DCOM, VBS, etc} incompatible with older installers/programs..], etc...
Of course, even this is incomplete, as many programs MUST be run at least
once after installation AND configured to complete the installation, wait,
and you may have file or registry issues..

It doesn't take an encyclopedia of knowledge, but it does take time, a
little thought, effort, and a bit of patience. Not exactly what you find in
today's world is it...
But really, if that individual has been running 98 for years and
re-installed more than twice, they should have at least figured out some of
this for themselves... the Security CD came out, in what, 2004, and was
intended to be used upon WELL ESTABLISHED systems [so let's think of it like
XP, we have 98 - - SE is {literally} Service Pack{Edition} 1, and the SecCD
is Service Pack 2 {though the SecCD also contains XPSR1 and 98 and SE {and
ME} updates}]...

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:uqhcRnguIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| That was a non-response. I didn't ask for and don't need examples, and I
| acknowledged the possibility of your scenario making sense, in limited
| cases, and presuming one is in possession of an encyclopedic knowledge of
| the problematic apps you cite.
|
| I really am interested in your responses to my second paragraph. It is,
for
| me, the core of the issue. Whatever does one do when an install of Word97
| update/patch whatever fails on a fully updated 98 system? Were no
solutions
| to this presumably common problem developed? Presuming one did NOT know
| about this and installed IE6 first during a fresh installation, then
didn't
| get around to installing Word97 and its updates until a week later. Would
| you have to flatten the system in order to successfully install the app
and
| all its updates. Given all this, what you're suggesting is that all Win98
| Gold installations pass through an IE5.1 installation (and then maybe an
IE
| 5.5 installation and/or intermediate versions???) Are there similar
| procedures suggested for Win98SE? If I were an average user, where would I
| find the information I need to know -- whether or not any of my apps
present
| the problem, just which steps I need to take in each case? As you've
stated,
| they're all pretty old apps. Not supported, etc. Would not simple
experience
| be the only way for the user to know if the problem is present or not, and
| if it requires a flattening to prove and fix it, well perhaps some notes
| will be appended to the installation media.
|
| I simply can't see going through the intermediate step(s) of extra IE
| installations on GP.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:uQOwUSfuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > Well as examples:
| >
| > Take the old Word97 from Office or Home Essentials [or some other
| > installation]. You can attempt to run the base install in an updated
| > system,
| > but to install all the updates {SR1, SR2, some of the addins, and the
| > final
| > WORD8 to 9} the updaters balk if IE6 is installed. ALWIO
| > Another is the old WinFax Pro 7, it will not install [easily anyway] nor
| > will its updates, if the system gets much beyond the base SE {FE updated
| > may
| > cause issues} install.
| >
| > So, yeah, these are majorly outdated programs, but if the client [or me]
| > doesn't want to update, whacha gonna do...
| >
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:%23R92pmduIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | OK, I see the point, and yes, I do recall hearing of apps installers
| > that
| > | did that and I've probably even dealt with a lot of their problems
| > (vaguely
| > | recall, memory issues.) Presented with the need to install such apps,
| > the
| > | extra steps would seem worth it. But I would think you'd need a
massive
| > | catalog, mental or otherwise, to remember between which versions of IE
| > or
| > | before or after which Updates you want to install which apps.
| > |
| > | What do you do when you already have a nice, well adjusted system and
| > decide
| > | to install such an app? Surely there are well-developed solutions that
| > don't
| > | involve regressing entire versions of IE. Are they so much more
| > difficult
| > to
| > | deploy after IE6 has been installed that they actually make the
| > trade-off
| > of
| > | installing entire versions of IE a good deal?
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | www.grystmill.com
| > |
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:euYYgVduIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | > Oh no, you missed the point. Some applications or their updates were
| > | > designed around a limited system update status, example: certain DLL
| > | > versions were needed and checked for during the install or were
| > | > written/modified/added specifically during the install.
| > | >
| > | > You find this in some programs written during the early 9X era, such
| > as
| > | > transitional 95 to 98 programs or 98 to 98SE [or even some written
| > before
| > | > IE
| > | > 6 changes], where even the minimally updated files may cause issue.
So
| > | > installing them early in the process [as the system would have
existed
| > | > when
| > | > they were created], allows their installation or their updates
which
| > | > after
| > | > installation and application upgrade, generally causes no further
| > | > problems.
| > | > The installer is no longer attempting to determine SYSTEM STATUS and
| > what
| > | > needs installed, so the system updates done afterwards [hopefully
| > | > backwards
| > | > compatible with earlier versions] cause no errors in the programs.
| > | >
| > | > IF a program needs an older version of some DLL and the updated
| > version
| > is
| > | > NOT fully backwards compatible or even recognized by the installer,,
| > it
| > is
| > | > much easier to then go to SYSBKUP or Options\CABS\ or VCM [depending
| > upon
| > | > whether they were involved] OR the update INF file to determine the
| > exact
| > | > issue involved [or run something like Process Explorer, FileMon or
| > RegMon,
| > | > or the like, to locate/diagnose], so you can place the older
required
| > DLL
| > | > {whatever} into the problem application's folder or temporarily
| > re-install
| > | > [degrade] the DLL {or whatever} to the needed version..EXAMPLE: You
| > can
| > | > find
| > | > indications of this when a program REQUIRES IE6SP1 be installed.
| > | >
| > | > This is the way I have found produces THE MOST stable installation.
If
| > you
| > | > think about it, it makes sense.
| > | >
| > | > The sub-version change referred to the A to B change.
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:ev9DDTYuIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | Uh. Never seen that myself. What is a "subversion change"? Anyway,
I
| > | > | understand your logic, and I'm guessing that you have specific
cases
| > in
| > | > | mind. But if Windows has to be left outdated because it can't get
| > along
| > | > with
| > | > | the updated state of the system, if it has to be left in IE 5.x
| > land,
| > | > then
| > | > | it's a machine I would respectfully suggest stay offline.
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | www.grystmill.com
| > | > |
| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:ulzLAGVuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > Agreed, the SecCD does make it considerable easier.
| > | > | > It seems to start with IE6 as well, but of course, it also
| > controls
| > | > the
| > | > | > system and the exact order of installations and shut downs.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Second startup [order]:
| > | > | > 238453USA8.EXE
| > | > | > 245729us8.exe
| > | > | > 256015usa8.exe
| > | > | > 259728usa8.exe
| > | > | > 273727usa8.exe
| > | > | > 314147usa8.exe
| > | > | > 329048usa8.exe
| > | > | > 249973usa8.exe
| > | > | > 274548usa8.exe
| > | > | > 323172usa8.exe
| > | > | > 329115usa8.exe
| > | > | > 811630usa8.exe
| > | > | > 823559usa8.exe
| > | > | > 273991USA8.EXE
| > | > | > 314941USA8.exe
| > | > | > 323255USA8.exe
| > | > | > telnetup.exe
| > | > | > q240308.exe
| > | > | > q313829.exe
| > | > | > q330994.exe
| > | > | > q828750.exe
| > | > | > js56men.exe
| > | > | > KB819639.exe
| > | > | > dx9_98.exe
| > | > | > mdac_typ.exe
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Then finishes, including the subversion change.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > However, I also [when using any of the OSs or update routines]
| > attempt
| > | > to
| > | > | > install as many of the oldest programs, applications, and games
| > [yes
| > I
| > | > | > still
| > | > | > play some old ones occasionally] prior to running the SecCD or
any
| > | > | > updating,
| > | > | > as I have had difficulties not doing so, due to file changes
| > [either
| > | > from
| > | > | > the installed or due to SecCD] such as wrong mdac type, some
DLL,
| > or
| > | > | > otherwise [then unable to update the program].
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Anyway, IE5.1 is used as an intermediate installation and then
| > update
| > | > | > process, when an application balks at its updates [needs a newer
| > | > version
| > | > | > of
| > | > | > something], yet also refuses to update at all when IE6 is
| > installed
| > | > first.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > _________
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:eroN6zSuIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | OK, my memory sucks. And yesterday was just FULL of
distractions
| > so
| > | > I'm
| > | > | > | surprised I didn't screw up worse.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Though of course I always recommend IE6SP1. I see where you
| > suggest
| > | > some
| > | > | > | more intricate form of updating, but since I've yet to run
into
| > any
| > | > | > | problems, I'll stick with what I got. Besides, most of the
time,
| > I
| > | > run
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | SecUp Feb 2004 CD before anything else, and that includes
| > IE6SP1.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:e0xD0GJuIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > Last test I did of IE versions produced minimum of
| > 5.02314.1003.
| > | > Found
| > | > | > as
| > | > | > | > IE5.1 on several CDROMs from that era.
| > | > | > | > Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 5.01 and Internet Tools
| > | > | > | > November 1999
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Though that was a few months ago, when re-testing
| > windowsupdate
| > | > with
| > | > | > fresh
| > | > | > | > installs of Win98[FE/Gold/SE].
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:Okp0vbHuIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | That's not IE5.5 minimum? Seems to me I tested that a
while
| > | > back.
| > | > | > Don't
| > | > | > | > | recall the answer, though.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | news:eLkBeLGuIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | > Likely can't get to windowsupdate due to the wrong
browser
| > | > | > version...
| > | > | > | > need
| > | > | > | > | > at least IE5.1
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > As for the autoupdater, it does install numerous XP
| > files/mods
| > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > unofficial fixes/files, so each individual system may
have
| > | > | > differing
| > | > | > | > | > errors
| > | > | > | > | > depending upon the configuration, software, adapters,
| > etc...
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | > news:%23o$fLjEuIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | > | Suggest you start over, and this time, after
installing
| > | > Windows
| > | > | > go
| > | > | > | > | > directly
| > | > | > | > | > | to Windows Updates and download EVERYTHING, then
| > restart,
| > | > then
| > | > | > go
| > | > | > | > back
| > | > | > | > | > to
| > | > | > | > | > WU
| > | > | > | > | > | and do it again until no more updates are offered. Do
| > this
| > | > | > BEFORE
| > | > | > | > you
| > | > | > | > | > | install anything else. Once you've done this, you'll
| > never
| > | > have
| > | > | > to
| > | > | > | > go
| > | > | > | > to
| > | > | > | > | > | Windows Updates again. I've followed some of your
trail
| > and
| > | > I
| > | > | > think
| > | > | > | > you
| > | > | > | > | > | installed something that screwed up your ability to
get
| > to
| > | > WU.
| > | > | > What
| > | > | > | > do
| > | > | > | > | > you
| > | > | > | > | > | use for Security. Norton products? Because WU still
| > works
| > | > just
| > | > | > fine,
| > | > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > my
| > | > | > | > | > | guess from what you've written before and elsewhere is
| > that
| > | > | > | > something
| > | > | > | > | > like
| > | > | > | > | > | that is what screwed up WU for you.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | All that stuff you cite below is worthless. It applies
| > to
| > | > | > Windows
| > | > | > | > XP,
| > | > | > | > | > not
| > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x. AFAICT, TcpMib.dll is not and has never
been
| > any
| > | > | > part
| > | > | > of
| > | > | > | > a
| > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x system. Suggests to me that the AutoUpdater
| > is
| > a
| > | > POS.
| > | > | > And
| > | > | > | > | > I'll
| > | > | > | > | > | bet there's no way to uninstall it.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | Or, you can write to me at updates_at_grystmill.com
and
| > I'll
| > | > | > explain
| > | > | > | > how
| > | > | > | > | > you
| > | > | > | > | > | can get my set of CDs that include all Updates for
| > Win98,
| > | > 98SE
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > ME.
| > | > | > | > | > No,
| > | > | > | > | > | there's no tweaks, no HotFixes, just Windows Updates
on
| > CD.
| > | > $3
| > | > | > | > covers
| > | > | > | > | > costs.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | "dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote
| > in
| > | > | > message
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > news:48B016EA-CB38-4B44-BBB8-3F6E1C341FD7@microsoft.com...
| > | > | > | > | > | > Have been working on my GW Essential 667 with 98SE.
| > Some
| > | > | > problems
| > | > | > | > so
| > | > | > | > | > did
| > | > | > | > | > | > a
| > | > | > | > | > | > clean reinstall and was adding/updating programs
when
| > | > found
| > | > | > out
| > | > | > I
| > | > | > | > | > could
| > | > | > | > | > | > no
| > | > | > | > | > | > longer get Windows Update service. @#$%^&*(.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Found and used Autopatcher98.Dec_Full_Final.exe. It
| > has
| > | > | > updates
| > | > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > | > tweaks.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > Now when my computer starts I get the message "Error
| > | > loading
| > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll".
| > | > | > | > | > | > click ok, message goes away and computer still seems
| > to
| > | > work
| > | > | > ok,
| > | > | > | > but
| > | > | > | > I
| > | > | > | > | > am
| > | > | > | > | > | > getting a little tired of checking ok whenever I
turn
| > the
| > | > | > computer
| > | > | > | > on.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > Searched MSKb for message.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > "Error Loading the TCP MIB Library" error when you
add
| > a
| > | > | > standard
| > | > | > | > | > TCP/IP
| > | > | > | > | > | > printer port in Windows XP and in Windows 2000
| > | > | > | > | > | > View products that this article applies to.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Article ID : 261302
| > | > | > | > | > | > Last Review : October 30, 2006
| > | > | > | > | > | > Revision : 5.1
| > | > | > | > | > | > This article was previously published under Q261302
| > | > | > | > | > | > SYMPTOMS
| > | > | > | > | > | > When you use the Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port
| > Wizard
| > | > in
| > | > | > | > Microsoft
| > | > | > | > | > | > Windows XP or Microsoft Windows 2000, you may
receive
| > the
| > | > | > | > following
| > | > | > | > | > error
| > | > | > | > | > | > message:
| > | > | > | > | > | > Error loading the TCP MIB library.
| > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, you receive the following
| > additional
| > | > error
| > | > | > | > message:
| > | > | > | > | > | > Specified port cannot be added. Operations could not
| > be
| > | > | > completed.
| > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, the Add Standard TCP/IP Printer
| > Port
| > | > Wizard
| > | > | > | > quits,
| > | > | > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > | > no
| > | > | > | > | > | > port is added.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > CAUSE
| > | > | > | > | > | > This behavior may occur if a third-party version of
| > the
| > | > | > | > Wsnmp32.dll,
| > | > | > | > | > | > Ntprint.dll, Tcpmib.dll, Mgmtapi.dll, or Snmpapi.dll
| > file
| > | > has
| > | > | > been
| > | > | > | > | > copied
| > | > | > | > | > | > to
| > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot% folder.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > RESOLUTION
| > | > | > | > | > | > To resolve this behavior, rename or delete these
files
| > in
| > | > the
| > | > | > | > | > %SystemRoot%
| > | > | > | > | > | > folder. These files are taking precedence over the
| > | > | > | > Microsoft-supplied
| > | > | > | > | > file
| > | > | > | > | > | > in
| > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot%\System32 folder.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > STATUS
| > | > | > | > | > | > Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in
the
| > | > | > Microsoft
| > | > | > | > | > products
| > | > | > | > | > | > that are listed in the "Applies to" section.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > MORE INFORMATION
| > | > | > | > | > | > The Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port Wizard checks
the
| > | > root
| > | > | > system
| > | > | > | > | > folder
| > | > | > | > | > | > for some dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) before it
| > checks
| > | > the
| > | > | > | > System32
| > | > | > | > | > | > folder.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > Searched for above files. Found snmpapi.dll(3),
| > | > wsmp32.dll,
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > | > mgmtapi.dll
| > | > | > | > | > | > renamed them with.old sufix.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Also found HPtcpMib.dll, HPTcpMUI.dll, and
| > HPTcpMON.ddid
| > | > not
| > | > | > | > touch
| > | > | > | > | > these
| > | > | > | > | > | > as
| > | > | > | > | > | > I assume they are for my HP all-in one.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > After reboot still get the "Error loading
TcpMib.dll"
| > | > message.
| > | > | > | > | > | > Search for tcpm*.dll shows no files on my computer.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > Any ideas as to what is calling for this file?
| > | > | > | > | > | > If I do need it where do I get it. Searched my
system
| > | > restore
| > | > | > | > disks
| > | > | > | > | > and
| > | > | > | > | > | > could not find it.
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > thanks for any help. D.L. Sayre
| > | > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

I shouldn't think anyone who'd successfully reinstalled the system a couple
of times already, including problem apps, would be asking for assistance.

Anyway, I can't see appending your recommendation, including sufficient
detail to be useful, to my standard response when asked about Windows Update
not working, or even to basic installation instructions. Gonna have to
shoulder that one on your own, or have PCR add it to a Master Post.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23Jb3P7huIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Oh, okay, don't look for me to make dozens of web pages on the
> installation
> orders I have used... the issue there would be, that the finder would
> think
> they had the scope of what needed done, skipping the prior
> activities/pages
> [thank the search engines for that nifty *decrease* in knowledge] or
> failing
> to understand WHY the order may need modified due to the OTHER INSTALLS
> they
> intended to do.
>
> The obvious answer to "what to do if it won't install with IE6" would be,
> either you skip installation or start from scratch, or buy something that
> works WITH it installed [which is what most people did]...
>
> As for solutions: No, Microsoft and other developers produced no solutions
> or modified updates to work in updated systems [or might have, or may have
> gone out of business, or followed the world business model of forcing
> updating by non-support and no updates]
> Office 97 DID get two version of SR1, but only one SR2, by that time it
> was
> basically unsupported and really only received the WORD
> {Office97-KB830354-ENU.exe - 2003} [and EXCEL, maybe some others, I forget
> and they are *filed away somewhere*] update due to MAJOR flaws..
> Hence you find numerous complaints archived on the NET concerning programs
> which couldn't be installed or couldn't be updated... many wouldn't go the
> routine of fresh install and following an installation order anyway... its
> easier to PAB/complain than to work through the issues OR buy something
> that
> DOES work, you know that from experience I'm sure....
>
> So, though you apparently think I didn't supply the answer, essentially I
> did two post up by using the created program date and its updates date as
> indicators of WHEN to install. Compare that to the date of your OS and the
> dates of its updates.... if its a 1998 or 1999 program then when do you
> think it should be installed, likely early, once the OS is installed.. if
> its a 2002 or 2005 program, then what might need done PRIOR to installing
> it
> [like installing the older programs, checking the CDROM or installer to
> see
> if it requires something OR may update key system files {mdac, DirectX,
> DCOM, VBS, etc} incompatible with older installers/programs..], etc...
> Of course, even this is incomplete, as many programs MUST be run at least
> once after installation AND configured to complete the installation, wait,
> and you may have file or registry issues..
>
> It doesn't take an encyclopedia of knowledge, but it does take time, a
> little thought, effort, and a bit of patience. Not exactly what you find
> in
> today's world is it...
> But really, if that individual has been running 98 for years and
> re-installed more than twice, they should have at least figured out some
> of
> this for themselves... the Security CD came out, in what, 2004, and was
> intended to be used upon WELL ESTABLISHED systems [so let's think of it
> like
> XP, we have 98 - - SE is {literally} Service Pack{Edition} 1, and the
> SecCD
> is Service Pack 2 {though the SecCD also contains XPSR1 and 98 and SE {and
> ME} updates}]...
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:uqhcRnguIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | That was a non-response. I didn't ask for and don't need examples, and I
> | acknowledged the possibility of your scenario making sense, in limited
> | cases, and presuming one is in possession of an encyclopedic knowledge
> of
> | the problematic apps you cite.
> |
> | I really am interested in your responses to my second paragraph. It is,
> for
> | me, the core of the issue. Whatever does one do when an install of
> Word97
> | update/patch whatever fails on a fully updated 98 system? Were no
> solutions
> | to this presumably common problem developed? Presuming one did NOT know
> | about this and installed IE6 first during a fresh installation, then
> didn't
> | get around to installing Word97 and its updates until a week later.
> Would
> | you have to flatten the system in order to successfully install the app
> and
> | all its updates. Given all this, what you're suggesting is that all
> Win98
> | Gold installations pass through an IE5.1 installation (and then maybe an
> IE
> | 5.5 installation and/or intermediate versions???) Are there similar
> | procedures suggested for Win98SE? If I were an average user, where would
> I
> | find the information I need to know -- whether or not any of my apps
> present
> | the problem, just which steps I need to take in each case? As you've
> stated,
> | they're all pretty old apps. Not supported, etc. Would not simple
> experience
> | be the only way for the user to know if the problem is present or not,
> and
> | if it requires a flattening to prove and fix it, well perhaps some notes
> | will be appended to the installation media.
> |
> | I simply can't see going through the intermediate step(s) of extra IE
> | installations on GP.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | www.grystmill.com
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:uQOwUSfuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > Well as examples:
> | >
> | > Take the old Word97 from Office or Home Essentials [or some other
> | > installation]. You can attempt to run the base install in an updated
> | > system,
> | > but to install all the updates {SR1, SR2, some of the addins, and the
> | > final
> | > WORD8 to 9} the updaters balk if IE6 is installed. ALWIO
> | > Another is the old WinFax Pro 7, it will not install [easily anyway]
> nor
> | > will its updates, if the system gets much beyond the base SE {FE
> updated
> | > may
> | > cause issues} install.
> | >
> | > So, yeah, these are majorly outdated programs, but if the client [or
> me]
> | > doesn't want to update, whacha gonna do...
> | >
> | > --
> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:%23R92pmduIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | OK, I see the point, and yes, I do recall hearing of apps installers
> | > that
> | > | did that and I've probably even dealt with a lot of their problems
> | > (vaguely
> | > | recall, memory issues.) Presented with the need to install such
> apps,
> | > the
> | > | extra steps would seem worth it. But I would think you'd need a
> massive
> | > | catalog, mental or otherwise, to remember between which versions of
> IE
> | > or
> | > | before or after which Updates you want to install which apps.
> | > |
> | > | What do you do when you already have a nice, well adjusted system
> and
> | > decide
> | > | to install such an app? Surely there are well-developed solutions
> that
> | > don't
> | > | involve regressing entire versions of IE. Are they so much more
> | > difficult
> | > to
> | > | deploy after IE6 has been installed that they actually make the
> | > trade-off
> | > of
> | > | installing entire versions of IE a good deal?
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > |
> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:euYYgVduIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | > | > Oh no, you missed the point. Some applications or their updates
> were
> | > | > designed around a limited system update status, example: certain
> DLL
> | > | > versions were needed and checked for during the install or were
> | > | > written/modified/added specifically during the install.
> | > | >
> | > | > You find this in some programs written during the early 9X era,
> such
> | > as
> | > | > transitional 95 to 98 programs or 98 to 98SE [or even some written
> | > before
> | > | > IE
> | > | > 6 changes], where even the minimally updated files may cause
> issue.
> So
> | > | > installing them early in the process [as the system would have
> existed
> | > | > when
> | > | > they were created], allows their installation or their updates
> which
> | > | > after
> | > | > installation and application upgrade, generally causes no further
> | > | > problems.
> | > | > The installer is no longer attempting to determine SYSTEM STATUS
> and
> | > what
> | > | > needs installed, so the system updates done afterwards [hopefully
> | > | > backwards
> | > | > compatible with earlier versions] cause no errors in the programs.
> | > | >
> | > | > IF a program needs an older version of some DLL and the updated
> | > version
> | > is
> | > | > NOT fully backwards compatible or even recognized by the
> installer,,
> | > it
> | > is
> | > | > much easier to then go to SYSBKUP or Options\CABS\ or VCM
> [depending
> | > upon
> | > | > whether they were involved] OR the update INF file to determine
> the
> | > exact
> | > | > issue involved [or run something like Process Explorer, FileMon or
> | > RegMon,
> | > | > or the like, to locate/diagnose], so you can place the older
> required
> | > DLL
> | > | > {whatever} into the problem application's folder or temporarily
> | > re-install
> | > | > [degrade] the DLL {or whatever} to the needed version..EXAMPLE:
> You
> | > can
> | > | > find
> | > | > indications of this when a program REQUIRES IE6SP1 be installed.
> | > | >
> | > | > This is the way I have found produces THE MOST stable
> installation.
> If
> | > you
> | > | > think about it, it makes sense.
> | > | >
> | > | > The sub-version change referred to the A to B change.
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > --
> | > | > _________
> | > | >
> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > news:ev9DDTYuIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | Uh. Never seen that myself. What is a "subversion change"?
> Anyway,
> I
> | > | > | understand your logic, and I'm guessing that you have specific
> cases
> | > in
> | > | > | mind. But if Windows has to be left outdated because it can't
> get
> | > along
> | > | > with
> | > | > | the updated state of the system, if it has to be left in IE 5.x
> | > land,
> | > | > then
> | > | > | it's a machine I would respectfully suggest stay offline.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | --
> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:ulzLAGVuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > Agreed, the SecCD does make it considerable easier.
> | > | > | > It seems to start with IE6 as well, but of course, it also
> | > controls
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > system and the exact order of installations and shut downs.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Second startup [order]:
> | > | > | > 238453USA8.EXE
> | > | > | > 245729us8.exe
> | > | > | > 256015usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 259728usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 273727usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 314147usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 329048usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 249973usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 274548usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 323172usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 329115usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 811630usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 823559usa8.exe
> | > | > | > 273991USA8.EXE
> | > | > | > 314941USA8.exe
> | > | > | > 323255USA8.exe
> | > | > | > telnetup.exe
> | > | > | > q240308.exe
> | > | > | > q313829.exe
> | > | > | > q330994.exe
> | > | > | > q828750.exe
> | > | > | > js56men.exe
> | > | > | > KB819639.exe
> | > | > | > dx9_98.exe
> | > | > | > mdac_typ.exe
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Then finishes, including the subversion change.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > However, I also [when using any of the OSs or update routines]
> | > attempt
> | > | > to
> | > | > | > install as many of the oldest programs, applications, and
> games
> | > [yes
> | > I
> | > | > | > still
> | > | > | > play some old ones occasionally] prior to running the SecCD or
> any
> | > | > | > updating,
> | > | > | > as I have had difficulties not doing so, due to file changes
> | > [either
> | > | > from
> | > | > | > the installed or due to SecCD] such as wrong mdac type, some
> DLL,
> | > or
> | > | > | > otherwise [then unable to update the program].
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Anyway, IE5.1 is used as an intermediate installation and then
> | > update
> | > | > | > process, when an application balks at its updates [needs a
> newer
> | > | > version
> | > | > | > of
> | > | > | > something], yet also refuses to update at all when IE6 is
> | > installed
> | > | > first.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:eroN6zSuIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | OK, my memory sucks. And yesterday was just FULL of
> distractions
> | > so
> | > | > I'm
> | > | > | > | surprised I didn't screw up worse.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Though of course I always recommend IE6SP1. I see where you
> | > suggest
> | > | > some
> | > | > | > | more intricate form of updating, but since I've yet to run
> into
> | > any
> | > | > | > | problems, I'll stick with what I got. Besides, most of the
> time,
> | > I
> | > | > run
> | > | > | > the
> | > | > | > | SecUp Feb 2004 CD before anything else, and that includes
> | > IE6SP1.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | news:e0xD0GJuIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > Last test I did of IE versions produced minimum of
> | > 5.02314.1003.
> | > | > Found
> | > | > | > as
> | > | > | > | > IE5.1 on several CDROMs from that era.
> | > | > | > | > Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 5.01 and Internet
> Tools
> | > | > | > | > November 1999
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Though that was a few months ago, when re-testing
> | > windowsupdate
> | > | > with
> | > | > | > fresh
> | > | > | > | > installs of Win98[FE/Gold/SE].
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > news:Okp0vbHuIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > | That's not IE5.5 minimum? Seems to me I tested that a
> while
> | > | > back.
> | > | > | > Don't
> | > | > | > | > | recall the answer, though.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > | news:eLkBeLGuIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > | > Likely can't get to windowsupdate due to the wrong
> browser
> | > | > | > version...
> | > | > | > | > need
> | > | > | > | > | > at least IE5.1
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > As for the autoupdater, it does install numerous XP
> | > files/mods
> | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > unofficial fixes/files, so each individual system may
> have
> | > | > | > differing
> | > | > | > | > | > errors
> | > | > | > | > | > depending upon the configuration, software, adapters,
> | > etc...
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > | > news:%23o$fLjEuIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > | > | Suggest you start over, and this time, after
> installing
> | > | > Windows
> | > | > | > go
> | > | > | > | > | > directly
> | > | > | > | > | > | to Windows Updates and download EVERYTHING, then
> | > restart,
> | > | > then
> | > | > | > go
> | > | > | > | > back
> | > | > | > | > | > to
> | > | > | > | > | > WU
> | > | > | > | > | > | and do it again until no more updates are offered.
> Do
> | > this
> | > | > | > BEFORE
> | > | > | > | > you
> | > | > | > | > | > | install anything else. Once you've done this, you'll
> | > never
> | > | > have
> | > | > | > to
> | > | > | > | > go
> | > | > | > | > to
> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows Updates again. I've followed some of your
> trail
> | > and
> | > | > I
> | > | > | > think
> | > | > | > | > you
> | > | > | > | > | > | installed something that screwed up your ability to
> get
> | > to
> | > | > WU.
> | > | > | > What
> | > | > | > | > do
> | > | > | > | > | > you
> | > | > | > | > | > | use for Security. Norton products? Because WU still
> | > works
> | > | > just
> | > | > | > fine,
> | > | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > my
> | > | > | > | > | > | guess from what you've written before and elsewhere
> is
> | > that
> | > | > | > | > something
> | > | > | > | > | > like
> | > | > | > | > | > | that is what screwed up WU for you.
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | All that stuff you cite below is worthless. It
> applies
> | > to
> | > | > | > Windows
> | > | > | > | > XP,
> | > | > | > | > | > not
> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x. AFAICT, TcpMib.dll is not and has never
> been
> | > any
> | > | > | > part
> | > | > | > of
> | > | > | > | > a
> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x system. Suggests to me that the
> AutoUpdater
> | > is
> | > a
> | > | > POS.
> | > | > | > And
> | > | > | > | > | > I'll
> | > | > | > | > | > | bet there's no way to uninstall it.
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | Or, you can write to me at updates_at_grystmill.com
> and
> | > I'll
> | > | > | > explain
> | > | > | > | > how
> | > | > | > | > | > you
> | > | > | > | > | > | can get my set of CDs that include all Updates for
> | > Win98,
> | > | > 98SE
> | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > ME.
> | > | > | > | > | > No,
> | > | > | > | > | > | there's no tweaks, no HotFixes, just Windows Updates
> on
> | > CD.
> | > | > $3
> | > | > | > | > covers
> | > | > | > | > | > costs.
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | "dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote
> | > in
> | > | > | > message
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > news:48B016EA-CB38-4B44-BBB8-3F6E1C341FD7@microsoft.com...
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Have been working on my GW Essential 667 with
> 98SE.
> | > Some
> | > | > | > problems
> | > | > | > | > so
> | > | > | > | > | > did
> | > | > | > | > | > | > a
> | > | > | > | > | > | > clean reinstall and was adding/updating programs
> when
> | > | > found
> | > | > | > out
> | > | > | > I
> | > | > | > | > | > could
> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
> | > | > | > | > | > | > longer get Windows Update service. @#$%^&*(.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Found and used Autopatcher98.Dec_Full_Final.exe.
> It
> | > has
> | > | > | > updates
> | > | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > | > tweaks.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Now when my computer starts I get the message
> "Error
> | > | > loading
> | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll".
> | > | > | > | > | > | > click ok, message goes away and computer still
> seems
> | > to
> | > | > work
> | > | > | > ok,
> | > | > | > | > but
> | > | > | > | > I
> | > | > | > | > | > am
> | > | > | > | > | > | > getting a little tired of checking ok whenever I
> turn
> | > the
> | > | > | > computer
> | > | > | > | > on.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched MSKb for message.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > "Error Loading the TCP MIB Library" error when you
> add
> | > a
> | > | > | > standard
> | > | > | > | > | > TCP/IP
> | > | > | > | > | > | > printer port in Windows XP and in Windows 2000
> | > | > | > | > | > | > View products that this article applies to.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Article ID : 261302
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Last Review : October 30, 2006
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Revision : 5.1
> | > | > | > | > | > | > This article was previously published under
> Q261302
> | > | > | > | > | > | > SYMPTOMS
> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you use the Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port
> | > Wizard
> | > | > in
> | > | > | > | > Microsoft
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Windows XP or Microsoft Windows 2000, you may
> receive
> | > the
> | > | > | > | > following
> | > | > | > | > | > error
> | > | > | > | > | > | > message:
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Error loading the TCP MIB library.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, you receive the following
> | > additional
> | > | > error
> | > | > | > | > message:
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Specified port cannot be added. Operations could
> not
> | > be
> | > | > | > completed.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, the Add Standard TCP/IP Printer
> | > Port
> | > | > Wizard
> | > | > | > | > quits,
> | > | > | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
> | > | > | > | > | > | > port is added.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > CAUSE
> | > | > | > | > | > | > This behavior may occur if a third-party version
> of
> | > the
> | > | > | > | > Wsnmp32.dll,
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Ntprint.dll, Tcpmib.dll, Mgmtapi.dll, or
> Snmpapi.dll
> | > file
> | > | > has
> | > | > | > been
> | > | > | > | > | > copied
> | > | > | > | > | > | > to
> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot% folder.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > RESOLUTION
> | > | > | > | > | > | > To resolve this behavior, rename or delete these
> files
> | > in
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > | > | > %SystemRoot%
> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder. These files are taking precedence over the
> | > | > | > | > Microsoft-supplied
> | > | > | > | > | > file
> | > | > | > | > | > | > in
> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot%\System32 folder.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > STATUS
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in
> the
> | > | > | > Microsoft
> | > | > | > | > | > products
> | > | > | > | > | > | > that are listed in the "Applies to" section.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > MORE INFORMATION
> | > | > | > | > | > | > The Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port Wizard checks
> the
> | > | > root
> | > | > | > system
> | > | > | > | > | > folder
> | > | > | > | > | > | > for some dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) before it
> | > checks
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > | > System32
> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched for above files. Found snmpapi.dll(3),
> | > | > wsmp32.dll,
> | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > | > mgmtapi.dll
> | > | > | > | > | > | > renamed them with.old sufix.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Also found HPtcpMib.dll, HPTcpMUI.dll, and
> | > HPTcpMON.ddid
> | > | > not
> | > | > | > | > touch
> | > | > | > | > | > these
> | > | > | > | > | > | > as
> | > | > | > | > | > | > I assume they are for my HP all-in one.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > After reboot still get the "Error loading
> TcpMib.dll"
> | > | > message.
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Search for tcpm*.dll shows no files on my
> computer.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > Any ideas as to what is calling for this file?
> | > | > | > | > | > | > If I do need it where do I get it. Searched my
> system
> | > | > restore
> | > | > | > | > disks
> | > | > | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | > | > | > could not find it.
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | > thanks for any help. D.L. Sayre
> | > | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
>
>
>

 

[MEB]

And to finish the thought process on 9X updates:

Actually, if you remember that long ago, when we upgraded from 95 to 98
[after MSDOS to Win3,3.1,3.11}, there was generally a question of WHY, it
didn't really provide many differences, some *eye candy*, less system
crashes [yep that was the claim], better {supposedly} memory management, a
bit more PlugnPray, a supposedly better *gaming environment*, and really,
what else {that was earth shaking???} not much. It was the same basic
system. Supposedly it divorced itself from DOS, but we all knew better. It
wasn't until it was updated several times that it actually ALMOST functioned
well, and that was the same for 95, SE, and we see it with the present
supported OSs. About the time they start to function as they really should
have from the beginning, its end of support, best move on and start the
process all over again.{yep, I hear that train acomin, its comin round the
bend ****}..

So 95 should probably be considered the actual BASE OS, with 98 as Service
Pak1, SE as Service Pak2, and the SecCD as a poor replacement [as it didn't
do all the updates necessary] for Service Pak3. Now we're more in-line with
XP and its 3 Service Releases. I left out ME {2000} because that was such a
failure and screw-up... though we probably should add it as the true Service
Pak3 and the SecCD as a partial roll-up CD or just what it says, a Security
Updates CD designed to get more IE6 usage [handy to have though]. What was
ME's push? PC Health, Digital Media, Home Networking, and Online
Experiance...

Just a bit of brain fudge for those who didn't go through the process or
just jumped on the train.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

 

[dlsayremn]

Frank, thanks for suggestions.


Didn't see anything in Startup or 32 modules that looked out of place, but
then I am not familiar with what is supposed to be in the 32 modules.

Did the find in files for TcpMib.dll.
System. dat C:\Windows
User.dat C:\Windows
HPTcpMUI.dll C:\Windows\System
HPTcpMon.dll C:\Windows\System
HPTcpMib.dll C:\Windows\System

The last three are for my printer. I unstalled the printer and moved
HPTcpMib.dll to MY Documents. For some reason I cannot move, rename or delete
the other two files.

Ran msconfig and unchecked Config.sys, Autoexec.bat, System.ini, Win.ini and
Startup Group. Restarted the computer and still got the TcpMib.dll error at
the log on screen.

 

[dlsayremn]

Gary, MEB, Frank thanks for suggestions, again.

Went to MFSN board and dropped the problem there. Included the Autopatch
install log. A search of all boards gave no results for TcpMib.dll.

Again thanks for the help, DLSayre

 

[MEB]

Well, Franc had the best suggestion for finding it [did you search the
registry for an entry?], I got side tracked, and MSFN might be able to help.
The only other thing I could think of is that something you have installed
now THINKS your system is XP or VISTA and may have tried to install as if it
was [a cross platform program or one which checks for certain files during
its installation] OR as you have HP's version it is in conflict with one
from the autopatcher [got tspmib on the system somewhere, it goes in
system32 in the OSs in which it is supposed to be installed
[2000/XP/VISTA]]..

Let us know what you find out, we always can use more information. Good
luck.

All Versions
File Version Description
Publisher
tcpmib.dll 5.1.2600.0 Standard TCP/IP Port Monitor Helper DLL Microsoft
tcpmib.dll 5.1.2600.2180 Standard TCP/IP Port Monitor Helper DLL Microsoft
tcpmib.dll 6.0.6000.16386 Standard TCP/IP Port Monitor Helper DLL Microsoft

WAIT A MINUTE, that's another part of the thread isn't it... yours is the
windowsupdate part,, [hhm, so where should I have put this????] no, no this
is the correct thread...

Hears an idea, try renaming the HPTCPMIB to TCPMIB.
BTW, Franc had suggested looking for the TERM/CALL tcpmib *within* your
files to see what called it, NOT for the VISUAL filename(s).

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:41C5DEB6-2D36-48B1-9008-D696B8345EAE@microsoft.com...
| Gary, MEB, Frank thanks for suggestions, again.
|
| Went to MFSN board and dropped the problem there. Included the Autopatch
| install log. A search of all boards gave no results for TcpMib.dll.
|
| Again thanks for the help, DLSayre

 

[PCR]

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| I shouldn't think anyone who'd successfully reinstalled the system a
| couple of times already, including problem apps, would be asking for
| assistance.
|
| Anyway, I can't see appending your recommendation, including
| sufficient detail to be useful, to my standard response when asked
| about Windows Update not working, or even to basic installation
| instructions. Gonna have to shoulder that one on your own, or have
| PCR add it to a Master Post.

I cannot fit even half of MEB's verbiage into even a Master Post!
Several have already exploded from the attempts! I've lost an ear & six
toes!

| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:%23Jb3P7huIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> Oh, okay, don't look for me to make dozens of web pages on the
|> installation
|> orders I have used... the issue there would be, that the finder would
|> think
|> they had the scope of what needed done, skipping the prior
|> activities/pages
|> [thank the search engines for that nifty *decrease* in knowledge] or
|> failing
|> to understand WHY the order may need modified due to the OTHER
|> INSTALLS they
|> intended to do.
|>
|> The obvious answer to "what to do if it won't install with IE6"
|> would be, either you skip installation or start from scratch, or buy
|> something that works WITH it installed [which is what most people
|> did]...
|>
|> As for solutions: No, Microsoft and other developers produced no
|> solutions or modified updates to work in updated systems [or might
|> have, or may have gone out of business, or followed the world
|> business model of forcing updating by non-support and no updates]
|> Office 97 DID get two version of SR1, but only one SR2, by that time
|> it was
|> basically unsupported and really only received the WORD
|> {Office97-KB830354-ENU.exe - 2003} [and EXCEL, maybe some others, I
|> forget and they are *filed away somewhere*] update due to MAJOR
|> flaws..
|> Hence you find numerous complaints archived on the NET concerning
|> programs which couldn't be installed or couldn't be updated... many
|> wouldn't go the routine of fresh install and following an
|> installation order anyway... its easier to PAB/complain than to work
|> through the issues OR buy something that
|> DOES work, you know that from experience I'm sure....
|>
|> So, though you apparently think I didn't supply the answer,
|> essentially I did two post up by using the created program date and
|> its updates date as indicators of WHEN to install. Compare that to
|> the date of your OS and the dates of its updates.... if its a 1998
|> or 1999 program then when do you think it should be installed,
|> likely early, once the OS is installed.. if its a 2002 or 2005
|> program, then what might need done PRIOR to installing it
|> [like installing the older programs, checking the CDROM or installer
|> to see
|> if it requires something OR may update key system files {mdac,
|> DirectX, DCOM, VBS, etc} incompatible with older
|> installers/programs..], etc...
|> Of course, even this is incomplete, as many programs MUST be run at
|> least once after installation AND configured to complete the
|> installation, wait, and you may have file or registry issues..
|>
|> It doesn't take an encyclopedia of knowledge, but it does take time,
|> a little thought, effort, and a bit of patience. Not exactly what
|> you find in
|> today's world is it...
|> But really, if that individual has been running 98 for years and
|> re-installed more than twice, they should have at least figured out
|> some of
|> this for themselves... the Security CD came out, in what, 2004, and
|> was intended to be used upon WELL ESTABLISHED systems [so let's
|> think of it like
|> XP, we have 98 - - SE is {literally} Service Pack{Edition} 1, and the
|> SecCD
|> is Service Pack 2 {though the SecCD also contains XPSR1 and 98 and
|> SE {and ME} updates}]...
|>
|> --
|> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|> --
|> _________
|>
|> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> news:uqhcRnguIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> | That was a non-response. I didn't ask for and don't need examples,
|> | and I acknowledged the possibility of your scenario making sense,
|> | in limited cases, and presuming one is in possession of an
|> | encyclopedic knowledge of the problematic apps you cite.
|> |
|> | I really am interested in your responses to my second paragraph.
|> | It is, for me, the core of the issue. Whatever does one do when an
|> | install of Word97 update/patch whatever fails on a fully updated
|> | 98 system? Were no solutions to this presumably common problem
|> | developed? Presuming one did NOT know about this and installed IE6
|> | first during a fresh installation, then didn't get around to
|> | installing Word97 and its updates until a week later. Would you
|> | have to flatten the system in order to successfully install the
|> | app and all its updates. Given all this, what you're suggesting is
|> | that all Win98 Gold installations pass through an IE5.1
|> | installation (and then maybe an IE
|> | 5.5 installation and/or intermediate versions???) Are there similar
|> | procedures suggested for Win98SE? If I were an average user, where
|> | would I find the information I need to know -- whether or not any
|> | of my apps present the problem, just which steps I need to take in
|> | each case? As you've stated, they're all pretty old apps. Not
|> | supported, etc. Would not simple experience be the only way for
|> | the user to know if the problem is present or not, and if it
|> | requires a flattening to prove and fix it, well perhaps some notes
|> | will be appended to the installation media.
|> |
|> | I simply can't see going through the intermediate step(s) of extra
|> | IE installations on GP.
|> |
|> | --
|> | Gary S. Terhune
|> | MS-MVP Shell/User
|> | www.grystmill.com
|> |
|> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|> | news:uQOwUSfuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> | > Well as examples:
|> | >
|> | > Take the old Word97 from Office or Home Essentials [or some other
|> | > installation]. You can attempt to run the base install in an
|> | > updated system,
|> | > but to install all the updates {SR1, SR2, some of the addins,
|> | > and the final
|> | > WORD8 to 9} the updaters balk if IE6 is installed. ALWIO
|> | > Another is the old WinFax Pro 7, it will not install [easily
|> | > anyway] nor will its updates, if the system gets much beyond the
|> | > base SE {FE updated may
|> | > cause issues} install.
|> | >
|> | > So, yeah, these are majorly outdated programs, but if the client
|> | > [or me] doesn't want to update, whacha gonna do...
|> | >
|> | > --
|> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|> | > --
|> | > _________
|> | >
|> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> | > news:%23R92pmduIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|> | > | OK, I see the point, and yes, I do recall hearing of apps
|> | > | installers that did that and I've probably even dealt with a
|> | > | lot of their problems (vaguely recall, memory issues.)
|> | > | Presented with the need to install such apps, the extra steps
|> | > | would seem worth it. But I would think you'd need a massive
|> | > | catalog, mental or otherwise, to remember between which
|> | > | versions of IE or before or after which Updates you want to
|> | > | install which apps.
|> | > |
|> | > | What do you do when you already have a nice, well adjusted
|> | > | system and decide to install such an app? Surely there are
|> | > | well-developed solutions that don't involve regressing entire
|> | > | versions of IE. Are they so much more
|> | > difficult
|> | > to
|> | > | deploy after IE6 has been installed that they actually make the
|> | > trade-off
|> | > of
|> | > | installing entire versions of IE a good deal?
|> | > |
|> | > | --
|> | > | Gary S. Terhune
|> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|> | > | www.grystmill.com
|> | > |
|> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|> | > | news:euYYgVduIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > Oh no, you missed the point. Some applications or their
|> | > | > updates were designed around a limited system update status,
|> | > | > example: certain DLL versions were needed and checked for
|> | > | > during the install or were written/modified/added
|> | > | > specifically during the install.
|> | > | >
|> | > | > You find this in some programs written during the early 9X
|> | > | > era, such as transitional 95 to 98 programs or 98 to 98SE
|> | > | > [or even some written before IE
|> | > | > 6 changes], where even the minimally updated files may cause
|> issue.
|> So
|> | > | > installing them early in the process [as the system would
|> | > | > have existed when
|> | > | > they were created], allows their installation or their
|> | > | > updates which after
|> | > | > installation and application upgrade, generally causes no
|> | > | > further problems.
|> | > | > The installer is no longer attempting to determine SYSTEM
|> | > | > STATUS and what needs installed, so the system updates done
|> | > | > afterwards [hopefully backwards
|> | > | > compatible with earlier versions] cause no errors in the
|> | > | > programs.
|> | > | >
|> | > | > IF a program needs an older version of some DLL and the
|> | > | > updated
|> | > version
|> | > is
|> | > | > NOT fully backwards compatible or even recognized by the
|> installer,,
|> | > it
|> | > is
|> | > | > much easier to then go to SYSBKUP or Options\CABS\ or VCM
|> | > | > [depending upon whether they were involved] OR the update
|> | > | > INF file to determine the exact issue involved [or run
|> | > | > something like Process Explorer, FileMon or RegMon, or the
|> | > | > like, to locate/diagnose], so you can place the older
|> | > | > required DLL {whatever} into the problem application's
|> | > | > folder or temporarily re-install [degrade] the DLL {or
|> | > | > whatever} to the needed version..EXAMPLE: You can find
|> | > | > indications of this when a program REQUIRES IE6SP1 be
|> | > | > installed.
|> | > | >
|> | > | > This is the way I have found produces THE MOST stable
|> installation.
|> If
|> | > you
|> | > | > think about it, it makes sense.
|> | > | >
|> | > | > The sub-version change referred to the A to B change.
|> | > | >
|> | > | > --
|> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|> | > | > --
|> | > | > _________
|> | > | >
|> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> | > | > news:ev9DDTYuIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | Uh. Never seen that myself. What is a "subversion change"?
|> Anyway,
|> I
|> | > | > | understand your logic, and I'm guessing that you have
|> | > | > | specific cases in mind. But if Windows has to be left
|> | > | > | outdated because it can't
|> get
|> | > along
|> | > | > with
|> | > | > | the updated state of the system, if it has to be left in
|> | > | > | IE 5.x land, then it's a machine I would respectfully
|> | > | > | suggest stay offline.
|> | > | > |
|> | > | > | --
|> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|> | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|> | > | > |
|> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|> | > | > | news:ulzLAGVuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | > Agreed, the SecCD does make it considerable easier.
|> | > | > | > It seems to start with IE6 as well, but of course, it
|> | > | > | > also controls the system and the exact order of
|> | > | > | > installations and shut downs.
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > Second startup [order]:
|> | > | > | > 238453USA8.EXE
|> | > | > | > 245729us8.exe
|> | > | > | > 256015usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 259728usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 273727usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 314147usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 329048usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 249973usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 274548usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 323172usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 329115usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 811630usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 823559usa8.exe
|> | > | > | > 273991USA8.EXE
|> | > | > | > 314941USA8.exe
|> | > | > | > 323255USA8.exe
|> | > | > | > telnetup.exe
|> | > | > | > q240308.exe
|> | > | > | > q313829.exe
|> | > | > | > q330994.exe
|> | > | > | > q828750.exe
|> | > | > | > js56men.exe
|> | > | > | > KB819639.exe
|> | > | > | > dx9_98.exe
|> | > | > | > mdac_typ.exe
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > Then finishes, including the subversion change.
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > However, I also [when using any of the OSs or update
|> | > | > | > routines] attempt to install as many of the oldest
|> | > | > | > programs, applications, and
|> games
|> | > [yes
|> | > I
|> | > | > | > still
|> | > | > | > play some old ones occasionally] prior to running the
|> | > | > | > SecCD or any updating,
|> | > | > | > as I have had difficulties not doing so, due to file
|> | > | > | > changes [either from the installed or due to SecCD] such
|> | > | > | > as wrong mdac type, some DLL, or otherwise [then unable
|> | > | > | > to update the program].
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > Anyway, IE5.1 is used as an intermediate installation
|> | > | > | > and then update process, when an application balks at
|> | > | > | > its updates [needs a newer version of
|> | > | > | > something], yet also refuses to update at all when IE6
|> | > | > | > is installed first.
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > --
|> | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|> | > | > | > --
|> | > | > | > _________
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> | > | > | > news:eroN6zSuIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | > | OK, my memory sucks. And yesterday was just FULL of
|> distractions
|> | > so
|> | > | > I'm
|> | > | > | > | surprised I didn't screw up worse.
|> | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | Though of course I always recommend IE6SP1. I see
|> | > | > | > | where you suggest some more intricate form of
|> | > | > | > | updating, but since I've yet to run into any problems,
|> | > | > | > | I'll stick with what I got. Besides, most of the
|> time,
|> | > I
|> | > | > run
|> | > | > | > the
|> | > | > | > | SecUp Feb 2004 CD before anything else, and that
|> | > | > | > | includes IE6SP1.
|> | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | --
|> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|> | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|> | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|> | > | > | > | news:e0xD0GJuIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | > | > Last test I did of IE versions produced minimum of
|> | > 5.02314.1003.
|> | > | > Found
|> | > | > | > as
|> | > | > | > | > IE5.1 on several CDROMs from that era.
|> | > | > | > | > Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 5.01 and
|> | > | > | > | > Internet Tools November
|> | > | > | > | > 1999
|> | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > Though that was a few months ago, when re-testing
|> | > windowsupdate
|> | > | > with
|> | > | > | > fresh
|> | > | > | > | > installs of Win98[FE/Gold/SE].
|> | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > --
|> | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|> | > | > | > | > --
|> | > | > | > | > _________
|> | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> | > | > | > | > news:Okp0vbHuIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | > | > | That's not IE5.5 minimum? Seems to me I tested
|> | > | > | > | > | that a
|> while
|> | > | > back.
|> | > | > | > Don't
|> | > | > | > | > | recall the answer, though.
|> | > | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | > | --
|> | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|> | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|> | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|> | > | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|> | > | > | > | > | news:eLkBeLGuIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | > | > | > Likely can't get to windowsupdate due to the
|> | > | > | > | > | > wrong
|> browser
|> | > | > | > version...
|> | > | > | > | > need
|> | > | > | > | > | > at least IE5.1
|> | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > As for the autoupdater, it does install numerous
|> | > | > | > | > | > XP files/mods and unofficial fixes/files, so
|> | > | > | > | > | > each individual system may have differing errors
|> | > | > | > | > | > depending upon the configuration, software,
|> | > | > | > | > | > adapters, etc...
|> | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > --
|> | > | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|> | > | > | > | > | > --
|> | > | > | > | > | > _________
|> | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|> | > | > | > | > | > news:%23o$fLjEuIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Suggest you start over, and this time, after
|> installing
|> | > | > Windows
|> | > | > | > go
|> | > | > | > | > | > directly
|> | > | > | > | > | > | to Windows Updates and download EVERYTHING,
|> | > | > | > | > | > | then
|> | > restart,
|> | > | > then
|> | > | > | > go
|> | > | > | > | > back
|> | > | > | > | > | > to
|> | > | > | > | > | > WU
|> | > | > | > | > | > | and do it again until no more updates are
|> | > | > | > | > | > | offered.
|> Do
|> | > this
|> | > | > | > BEFORE
|> | > | > | > | > you
|> | > | > | > | > | > | install anything else. Once you've done this,
|> | > | > | > | > | > | you'll
|> | > never
|> | > | > have
|> | > | > | > to
|> | > | > | > | > go
|> | > | > | > | > to
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows Updates again. I've followed some of
|> | > | > | > | > | > | your
|> trail
|> | > and
|> | > | > I
|> | > | > | > think
|> | > | > | > | > you
|> | > | > | > | > | > | installed something that screwed up your
|> | > | > | > | > | > | ability to
|> get
|> | > to
|> | > | > WU.
|> | > | > | > What
|> | > | > | > | > do
|> | > | > | > | > | > you
|> | > | > | > | > | > | use for Security. Norton products? Because WU
|> | > | > | > | > | > | still
|> | > works
|> | > | > just
|> | > | > | > fine,
|> | > | > | > | > and
|> | > | > | > | > | > my
|> | > | > | > | > | > | guess from what you've written before and
|> | > | > | > | > | > | elsewhere
|> is
|> | > that
|> | > | > | > | > something
|> | > | > | > | > | > like
|> | > | > | > | > | > | that is what screwed up WU for you.
|> | > | > | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | > | > | All that stuff you cite below is worthless. It
|> applies
|> | > to
|> | > | > | > Windows
|> | > | > | > | > XP,
|> | > | > | > | > | > not
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x. AFAICT, TcpMib.dll is not and has
|> | > | > | > | > | > | never
|> been
|> | > any
|> | > | > | > part
|> | > | > | > of
|> | > | > | > | > a
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x system. Suggests to me that the
|> AutoUpdater
|> | > is
|> | > a
|> | > | > POS.
|> | > | > | > And
|> | > | > | > | > | > I'll
|> | > | > | > | > | > | bet there's no way to uninstall it.
|> | > | > | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Or, you can write to me at
|> | > | > | > | > | > | updates_at_grystmill.com
|> and
|> | > I'll
|> | > | > | > explain
|> | > | > | > | > how
|> | > | > | > | > | > you
|> | > | > | > | > | > | can get my set of CDs that include all Updates
|> | > | > | > | > | > | for
|> | > Win98,
|> | > | > 98SE
|> | > | > | > and
|> | > | > | > | > ME.
|> | > | > | > | > | > No,
|> | > | > | > | > | > | there's no tweaks, no HotFixes, just Windows
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Updates
|> on
|> | > CD.
|> | > | > $3
|> | > | > | > | > covers
|> | > | > | > | > | > costs.
|> | > | > | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | > | > | --
|> | > | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|> | > | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|> | > | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|> | > | > | > | > | > |
|> | > | > | > | > | > | "dlsayremn"
|> | > | > | > | > | > | <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com>
|> wrote
|> | > in
|> | > | > | > message
|> | > | > | > | > | > |
|> | > news:48B016EA-CB38-4B44-BBB8-3F6E1C341FD7@microsoft.com...
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Have been working on my GW Essential 667
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > with
|> 98SE.
|> | > Some
|> | > | > | > problems
|> | > | > | > | > so
|> | > | > | > | > | > did
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > a
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > clean reinstall and was adding/updating
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > programs
|> when
|> | > | > found
|> | > | > | > out
|> | > | > | > I
|> | > | > | > | > | > could
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > longer get Windows Update service. @#$%^&*(.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Found and used
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Autopatcher98.Dec_Full_Final.exe.
|> It
|> | > has
|> | > | > | > updates
|> | > | > | > | > and
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > tweaks.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Now when my computer starts I get the message
|> "Error
|> | > | > loading
|> | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll".
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > click ok, message goes away and computer
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > still
|> seems
|> | > to
|> | > | > work
|> | > | > | > ok,
|> | > | > | > | > but
|> | > | > | > | > I
|> | > | > | > | > | > am
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > getting a little tired of checking ok
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > whenever I
|> turn
|> | > the
|> | > | > | > computer
|> | > | > | > | > on.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched MSKb for message.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > "Error Loading the TCP MIB Library" error
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > when you
|> add
|> | > a
|> | > | > | > standard
|> | > | > | > | > | > TCP/IP
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > printer port in Windows XP and in Windows
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > 2000 View products that this article applies
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > to. Article ID : 261302
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Last Review : October 30, 2006
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Revision : 5.1
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > This article was previously published under
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Q261302 SYMPTOMS
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you use the Add Standard TCP/IP Printer
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Port
|> | > Wizard
|> | > | > in
|> | > | > | > | > Microsoft
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Windows XP or Microsoft Windows 2000, you may
|> receive
|> | > the
|> | > | > | > | > following
|> | > | > | > | > | > error
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > message:
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Error loading the TCP MIB library.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, you receive the following
|> | > additional
|> | > | > error
|> | > | > | > | > message:
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Specified port cannot be added. Operations
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > could
|> not
|> | > be
|> | > | > | > completed.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, the Add Standard TCP/IP
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Printer
|> | > Port
|> | > | > Wizard
|> | > | > | > | > quits,
|> | > | > | > | > | > and
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > port is added.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > CAUSE
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > This behavior may occur if a third-party
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > version
|> of
|> | > the
|> | > | > | > | > Wsnmp32.dll,
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Ntprint.dll, Tcpmib.dll, Mgmtapi.dll, or
|> Snmpapi.dll
|> | > file
|> | > | > has
|> | > | > | > been
|> | > | > | > | > | > copied
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > to
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot% folder.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > RESOLUTION
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > To resolve this behavior, rename or delete
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > these
|> files
|> | > in
|> | > | > the
|> | > | > | > | > | > %SystemRoot%
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder. These files are taking precedence
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > over the Microsoft-supplied file in
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot%\System32 folder.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > STATUS
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Microsoft has confirmed that this is a
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > problem in
|> the
|> | > | > | > Microsoft
|> | > | > | > | > | > products
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > that are listed in the "Applies to" section.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > MORE INFORMATION
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > The Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port Wizard
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > checks
|> the
|> | > | > root
|> | > | > | > system
|> | > | > | > | > | > folder
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > for some dynamic-link libraries (DLLs)
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > before it
|> | > checks
|> | > | > the
|> | > | > | > | > System32
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched for above files. Found
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > snmpapi.dll(3), wsmp32.dll, and mgmtapi.dll
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > renamed them with.old sufix.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Also found HPtcpMib.dll, HPTcpMUI.dll, and
|> | > HPTcpMON.ddid
|> | > | > not
|> | > | > | > | > touch
|> | > | > | > | > | > these
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > as
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > I assume they are for my HP all-in one.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > After reboot still get the "Error loading
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll" message. Search for tcpm*.dll
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > shows no files on my computer.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > Any ideas as to what is calling for this
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > file?
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > If I do need it where do I get it. Searched
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > my
|> system
|> | > | > restore
|> | > | > | > | > disks
|> | > | > | > | > | > and
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > could not find it.
|> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|> | > | > | > | > | > | > thanks for any help. D.L. Sayre

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[PCR]

dlsayremn wrote:
| Frank, thanks for suggestions.
|
|
| Didn't see anything in Startup or 32 modules that looked out of
| place, but then I am not familiar with what is supposed to be in the
| 32 modules.
|
| Did the find in files for TcpMib.dll.
| System. dat C:\Windows
| User.dat C:\Windows

Those two files together are the Registry. The error message you get is:
"Error loading TcpMib.dll". I think there are at least two mentionings
of "TcpMib.dll" in your Registry. Try...

(a) "START button, Run, RegEdit".
(b) Use the Edit menu to find "TcpMib.dll".
(c) Use the Registry menu to "Export Registry File".
This will not delete the lines, but just copy them to a file.
(d) Repeat from step (b), until you get the message that
the end of the Registry has been reached.
(e) Post the file(s) that you exported-- if not seriously HUGE!

| HPTcpMUI.dll C:\Windows\System
| HPTcpMon.dll C:\Windows\System
| HPTcpMib.dll C:\Windows\System

Those files appear to be files relating to your printer, as you say.
Again, each one of them has at least one mentioning of "TcpMib.dll"
inside. HOWEVER-- it could be what really is being found is...
"HPTcpMib.dll". FIND isn't making the distinction. Try it at a DOS
Prompt...

(a) "START button, Programs, MS-DOS Prompt"
(b) FIND /i "TcpMib.dll" C:\Windows\System\HPTcpMUI.dll
(c) FIND /i "TcpMib.dll" C:\Windows\System\HPTcpMon.dll
(d) FIND /i "TcpMib.dll" C:\Windows\System\HPTcpMib.dll

NOW... you may see on the screen what is found. If indeed JUST
"TcpMib.dll" is shown-- more must be done. Maybe reinstall the printer
to get the file back.

| The last three are for my printer. I unstalled the printer and moved
| HPTcpMib.dll to MY Documents. For some reason I cannot move, rename
| or delete the other two files.

One would think they already would be gone, if you uninstalled the
printer. HOWEVER, it is possible the system considered those files to be
"in use" at the time you did the uninstall. In that case, they might
well be left behind. How did you do the uninstall? Did you ensure the
printer was off? Do you have an HP Readme file explaining how to
uninstall their printer?

| Ran msconfig and unchecked Config.sys, Autoexec.bat, System.ini,
| Win.ini and Startup Group. Restarted the computer and still got the
| TcpMib.dll error at the log on screen.

None of that could disable lines in the Registry. Also, it may not
disable the loading of the two .dll's you could not move, & one/both of
those may be trying to call the missing TcpMib.dll. May as well turn all
of that back on now. Did you note what may have already been unchecked
in the Startup tab of MSConfig before you disabled the whole group? When
you re-enable it, ALL of the items will be checked-- & now you'll have
to remember which weren't!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[MEB]

Well, not to worry, the web has already done that for us... the search
engines WILL pick up this thread when questions on updates occur, and forums
HAVE mirrored it... and whatever its value is will be determined by the
readers, and likely the thought/process WILL make it to some web page(s)...
those without it will lose ranking and become lost... why??? because it
makes sense and works.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:eERKbesuIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| Gary S. Terhune wrote:
| | I shouldn't think anyone who'd successfully reinstalled the system a
| | couple of times already, including problem apps, would be asking for
| | assistance.
| |
| | Anyway, I can't see appending your recommendation, including
| | sufficient detail to be useful, to my standard response when asked
| | about Windows Update not working, or even to basic installation
| | instructions. Gonna have to shoulder that one on your own, or have
| | PCR add it to a Master Post.
|
| I cannot fit even half of MEB's verbiage into even a Master Post!
| Several have already exploded from the attempts! I've lost an ear & six
| toes!
|
| | --
| | Gary S. Terhune
| | MS-MVP Shell/User
| | www.grystmill.com
| |
| | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| | news:%23Jb3P7huIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| |> Oh, okay, don't look for me to make dozens of web pages on the
| |> installation
| |> orders I have used... the issue there would be, that the finder would
| |> think
| |> they had the scope of what needed done, skipping the prior
| |> activities/pages
| |> [thank the search engines for that nifty *decrease* in knowledge] or
| |> failing
| |> to understand WHY the order may need modified due to the OTHER
| |> INSTALLS they
| |> intended to do.
| |>
| |> The obvious answer to "what to do if it won't install with IE6"
| |> would be, either you skip installation or start from scratch, or buy
| |> something that works WITH it installed [which is what most people
| |> did]...
| |>
| |> As for solutions: No, Microsoft and other developers produced no
| |> solutions or modified updates to work in updated systems [or might
| |> have, or may have gone out of business, or followed the world
| |> business model of forcing updating by non-support and no updates]
| |> Office 97 DID get two version of SR1, but only one SR2, by that time
| |> it was
| |> basically unsupported and really only received the WORD
| |> {Office97-KB830354-ENU.exe - 2003} [and EXCEL, maybe some others, I
| |> forget and they are *filed away somewhere*] update due to MAJOR
| |> flaws..
| |> Hence you find numerous complaints archived on the NET concerning
| |> programs which couldn't be installed or couldn't be updated... many
| |> wouldn't go the routine of fresh install and following an
| |> installation order anyway... its easier to PAB/complain than to work
| |> through the issues OR buy something that
| |> DOES work, you know that from experience I'm sure....
| |>
| |> So, though you apparently think I didn't supply the answer,
| |> essentially I did two post up by using the created program date and
| |> its updates date as indicators of WHEN to install. Compare that to
| |> the date of your OS and the dates of its updates.... if its a 1998
| |> or 1999 program then when do you think it should be installed,
| |> likely early, once the OS is installed.. if its a 2002 or 2005
| |> program, then what might need done PRIOR to installing it
| |> [like installing the older programs, checking the CDROM or installer
| |> to see
| |> if it requires something OR may update key system files {mdac,
| |> DirectX, DCOM, VBS, etc} incompatible with older
| |> installers/programs..], etc...
| |> Of course, even this is incomplete, as many programs MUST be run at
| |> least once after installation AND configured to complete the
| |> installation, wait, and you may have file or registry issues..
| |>
| |> It doesn't take an encyclopedia of knowledge, but it does take time,
| |> a little thought, effort, and a bit of patience. Not exactly what
| |> you find in
| |> today's world is it...
| |> But really, if that individual has been running 98 for years and
| |> re-installed more than twice, they should have at least figured out
| |> some of
| |> this for themselves... the Security CD came out, in what, 2004, and
| |> was intended to be used upon WELL ESTABLISHED systems [so let's
| |> think of it like
| |> XP, we have 98 - - SE is {literally} Service Pack{Edition} 1, and the
| |> SecCD
| |> is Service Pack 2 {though the SecCD also contains XPSR1 and 98 and
| |> SE {and ME} updates}]...
| |>
| |> --
| |> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| |> --
| |> _________
| |>
| |> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| |> news:uqhcRnguIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| |> | That was a non-response. I didn't ask for and don't need examples,
| |> | and I acknowledged the possibility of your scenario making sense,
| |> | in limited cases, and presuming one is in possession of an
| |> | encyclopedic knowledge of the problematic apps you cite.
| |> |
| |> | I really am interested in your responses to my second paragraph.
| |> | It is, for me, the core of the issue. Whatever does one do when an
| |> | install of Word97 update/patch whatever fails on a fully updated
| |> | 98 system? Were no solutions to this presumably common problem
| |> | developed? Presuming one did NOT know about this and installed IE6
| |> | first during a fresh installation, then didn't get around to
| |> | installing Word97 and its updates until a week later. Would you
| |> | have to flatten the system in order to successfully install the
| |> | app and all its updates. Given all this, what you're suggesting is
| |> | that all Win98 Gold installations pass through an IE5.1
| |> | installation (and then maybe an IE
| |> | 5.5 installation and/or intermediate versions???) Are there similar
| |> | procedures suggested for Win98SE? If I were an average user, where
| |> | would I find the information I need to know -- whether or not any
| |> | of my apps present the problem, just which steps I need to take in
| |> | each case? As you've stated, they're all pretty old apps. Not
| |> | supported, etc. Would not simple experience be the only way for
| |> | the user to know if the problem is present or not, and if it
| |> | requires a flattening to prove and fix it, well perhaps some notes
| |> | will be appended to the installation media.
| |> |
| |> | I simply can't see going through the intermediate step(s) of extra
| |> | IE installations on GP.
| |> |
| |> | --
| |> | Gary S. Terhune
| |> | MS-MVP Shell/User
| |> | www.grystmill.com
| |> |
| |> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| |> | news:uQOwUSfuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| |> | > Well as examples:
| |> | >
| |> | > Take the old Word97 from Office or Home Essentials [or some other
| |> | > installation]. You can attempt to run the base install in an
| |> | > updated system,
| |> | > but to install all the updates {SR1, SR2, some of the addins,
| |> | > and the final
| |> | > WORD8 to 9} the updaters balk if IE6 is installed. ALWIO
| |> | > Another is the old WinFax Pro 7, it will not install [easily
| |> | > anyway] nor will its updates, if the system gets much beyond the
| |> | > base SE {FE updated may
| |> | > cause issues} install.
| |> | >
| |> | > So, yeah, these are majorly outdated programs, but if the client
| |> | > [or me] doesn't want to update, whacha gonna do...
| |> | >
| |> | > --
| |> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| |> | > --
| |> | > _________
| |> | >
| |> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| |> | > news:%23R92pmduIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | OK, I see the point, and yes, I do recall hearing of apps
| |> | > | installers that did that and I've probably even dealt with a
| |> | > | lot of their problems (vaguely recall, memory issues.)
| |> | > | Presented with the need to install such apps, the extra steps
| |> | > | would seem worth it. But I would think you'd need a massive
| |> | > | catalog, mental or otherwise, to remember between which
| |> | > | versions of IE or before or after which Updates you want to
| |> | > | install which apps.
| |> | > |
| |> | > | What do you do when you already have a nice, well adjusted
| |> | > | system and decide to install such an app? Surely there are
| |> | > | well-developed solutions that don't involve regressing entire
| |> | > | versions of IE. Are they so much more
| |> | > difficult
| |> | > to
| |> | > | deploy after IE6 has been installed that they actually make the
| |> | > trade-off
| |> | > of
| |> | > | installing entire versions of IE a good deal?
| |> | > |
| |> | > | --
| |> | > | Gary S. Terhune
| |> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| |> | > | www.grystmill.com
| |> | > |
| |> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| |> | > | news:euYYgVduIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > Oh no, you missed the point. Some applications or their
| |> | > | > updates were designed around a limited system update status,
| |> | > | > example: certain DLL versions were needed and checked for
| |> | > | > during the install or were written/modified/added
| |> | > | > specifically during the install.
| |> | > | >
| |> | > | > You find this in some programs written during the early 9X
| |> | > | > era, such as transitional 95 to 98 programs or 98 to 98SE
| |> | > | > [or even some written before IE
| |> | > | > 6 changes], where even the minimally updated files may cause
| |> issue.
| |> So
| |> | > | > installing them early in the process [as the system would
| |> | > | > have existed when
| |> | > | > they were created], allows their installation or their
| |> | > | > updates which after
| |> | > | > installation and application upgrade, generally causes no
| |> | > | > further problems.
| |> | > | > The installer is no longer attempting to determine SYSTEM
| |> | > | > STATUS and what needs installed, so the system updates done
| |> | > | > afterwards [hopefully backwards
| |> | > | > compatible with earlier versions] cause no errors in the
| |> | > | > programs.
| |> | > | >
| |> | > | > IF a program needs an older version of some DLL and the
| |> | > | > updated
| |> | > version
| |> | > is
| |> | > | > NOT fully backwards compatible or even recognized by the
| |> installer,,
| |> | > it
| |> | > is
| |> | > | > much easier to then go to SYSBKUP or Options\CABS\ or VCM
| |> | > | > [depending upon whether they were involved] OR the update
| |> | > | > INF file to determine the exact issue involved [or run
| |> | > | > something like Process Explorer, FileMon or RegMon, or the
| |> | > | > like, to locate/diagnose], so you can place the older
| |> | > | > required DLL {whatever} into the problem application's
| |> | > | > folder or temporarily re-install [degrade] the DLL {or
| |> | > | > whatever} to the needed version..EXAMPLE: You can find
| |> | > | > indications of this when a program REQUIRES IE6SP1 be
| |> | > | > installed.
| |> | > | >
| |> | > | > This is the way I have found produces THE MOST stable
| |> installation.
| |> If
| |> | > you
| |> | > | > think about it, it makes sense.
| |> | > | >
| |> | > | > The sub-version change referred to the A to B change.
| |> | > | >
| |> | > | > --
| |> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| |> | > | > --
| |> | > | > _________
| |> | > | >
| |> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| |> | > | > news:ev9DDTYuIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | Uh. Never seen that myself. What is a "subversion change"?
| |> Anyway,
| |> I
| |> | > | > | understand your logic, and I'm guessing that you have
| |> | > | > | specific cases in mind. But if Windows has to be left
| |> | > | > | outdated because it can't
| |> get
| |> | > along
| |> | > | > with
| |> | > | > | the updated state of the system, if it has to be left in
| |> | > | > | IE 5.x land, then it's a machine I would respectfully
| |> | > | > | suggest stay offline.
| |> | > | > |
| |> | > | > | --
| |> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| |> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| |> | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| |> | > | > |
| |> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| |> | > | > | news:ulzLAGVuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | > Agreed, the SecCD does make it considerable easier.
| |> | > | > | > It seems to start with IE6 as well, but of course, it
| |> | > | > | > also controls the system and the exact order of
| |> | > | > | > installations and shut downs.
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > Second startup [order]:
| |> | > | > | > 238453USA8.EXE
| |> | > | > | > 245729us8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 256015usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 259728usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 273727usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 314147usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 329048usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 249973usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 274548usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 323172usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 329115usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 811630usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 823559usa8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 273991USA8.EXE
| |> | > | > | > 314941USA8.exe
| |> | > | > | > 323255USA8.exe
| |> | > | > | > telnetup.exe
| |> | > | > | > q240308.exe
| |> | > | > | > q313829.exe
| |> | > | > | > q330994.exe
| |> | > | > | > q828750.exe
| |> | > | > | > js56men.exe
| |> | > | > | > KB819639.exe
| |> | > | > | > dx9_98.exe
| |> | > | > | > mdac_typ.exe
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > Then finishes, including the subversion change.
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > However, I also [when using any of the OSs or update
| |> | > | > | > routines] attempt to install as many of the oldest
| |> | > | > | > programs, applications, and
| |> games
| |> | > [yes
| |> | > I
| |> | > | > | > still
| |> | > | > | > play some old ones occasionally] prior to running the
| |> | > | > | > SecCD or any updating,
| |> | > | > | > as I have had difficulties not doing so, due to file
| |> | > | > | > changes [either from the installed or due to SecCD] such
| |> | > | > | > as wrong mdac type, some DLL, or otherwise [then unable
| |> | > | > | > to update the program].
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > Anyway, IE5.1 is used as an intermediate installation
| |> | > | > | > and then update process, when an application balks at
| |> | > | > | > its updates [needs a newer version of
| |> | > | > | > something], yet also refuses to update at all when IE6
| |> | > | > | > is installed first.
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > --
| |> | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| |> | > | > | > --
| |> | > | > | > _________
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| |> | > | > | > news:eroN6zSuIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | > | OK, my memory sucks. And yesterday was just FULL of
| |> distractions
| |> | > so
| |> | > | > I'm
| |> | > | > | > | surprised I didn't screw up worse.
| |> | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | Though of course I always recommend IE6SP1. I see
| |> | > | > | > | where you suggest some more intricate form of
| |> | > | > | > | updating, but since I've yet to run into any problems,
| |> | > | > | > | I'll stick with what I got. Besides, most of the
| |> time,
| |> | > I
| |> | > | > run
| |> | > | > | > the
| |> | > | > | > | SecUp Feb 2004 CD before anything else, and that
| |> | > | > | > | includes IE6SP1.
| |> | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | --
| |> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| |> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| |> | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| |> | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| |> | > | > | > | news:e0xD0GJuIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | > | > Last test I did of IE versions produced minimum of
| |> | > 5.02314.1003.
| |> | > | > Found
| |> | > | > | > as
| |> | > | > | > | > IE5.1 on several CDROMs from that era.
| |> | > | > | > | > Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 5.01 and
| |> | > | > | > | > Internet Tools November
| |> | > | > | > | > 1999
| |> | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > Though that was a few months ago, when re-testing
| |> | > windowsupdate
| |> | > | > with
| |> | > | > | > fresh
| |> | > | > | > | > installs of Win98[FE/Gold/SE].
| |> | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > --
| |> | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| |> | > | > | > | > --
| |> | > | > | > | > _________
| |> | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| |> | > | > | > | > news:Okp0vbHuIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | > | > | That's not IE5.5 minimum? Seems to me I tested
| |> | > | > | > | > | that a
| |> while
| |> | > | > back.
| |> | > | > | > Don't
| |> | > | > | > | > | recall the answer, though.
| |> | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | > | --
| |> | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| |> | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| |> | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| |> | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| |> | > | > | > | > | news:eLkBeLGuIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | > | > | > Likely can't get to windowsupdate due to the
| |> | > | > | > | > | > wrong
| |> browser
| |> | > | > | > version...
| |> | > | > | > | > need
| |> | > | > | > | > | > at least IE5.1
| |> | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > As for the autoupdater, it does install numerous
| |> | > | > | > | > | > XP files/mods and unofficial fixes/files, so
| |> | > | > | > | > | > each individual system may have differing errors
| |> | > | > | > | > | > depending upon the configuration, software,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > adapters, etc...
| |> | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > --
| |> | > | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| |> | > | > | > | > | > --
| |> | > | > | > | > | > _________
| |> | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| |> | > | > | > | > | > news:%23o$fLjEuIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Suggest you start over, and this time, after
| |> installing
| |> | > | > Windows
| |> | > | > | > go
| |> | > | > | > | > | > directly
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | to Windows Updates and download EVERYTHING,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | then
| |> | > restart,
| |> | > | > then
| |> | > | > | > go
| |> | > | > | > | > back
| |> | > | > | > | > | > to
| |> | > | > | > | > | > WU
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | and do it again until no more updates are
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | offered.
| |> Do
| |> | > this
| |> | > | > | > BEFORE
| |> | > | > | > | > you
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | install anything else. Once you've done this,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | you'll
| |> | > never
| |> | > | > have
| |> | > | > | > to
| |> | > | > | > | > go
| |> | > | > | > | > to
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows Updates again. I've followed some of
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | your
| |> trail
| |> | > and
| |> | > | > I
| |> | > | > | > think
| |> | > | > | > | > you
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | installed something that screwed up your
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | ability to
| |> get
| |> | > to
| |> | > | > WU.
| |> | > | > | > What
| |> | > | > | > | > do
| |> | > | > | > | > | > you
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | use for Security. Norton products? Because WU
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | still
| |> | > works
| |> | > | > just
| |> | > | > | > fine,
| |> | > | > | > | > and
| |> | > | > | > | > | > my
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | guess from what you've written before and
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | elsewhere
| |> is
| |> | > that
| |> | > | > | > | > something
| |> | > | > | > | > | > like
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | that is what screwed up WU for you.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | All that stuff you cite below is worthless. It
| |> applies
| |> | > to
| |> | > | > | > Windows
| |> | > | > | > | > XP,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > not
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x. AFAICT, TcpMib.dll is not and has
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | never
| |> been
| |> | > any
| |> | > | > | > part
| |> | > | > | > of
| |> | > | > | > | > a
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x system. Suggests to me that the
| |> AutoUpdater
| |> | > is
| |> | > a
| |> | > | > POS.
| |> | > | > | > And
| |> | > | > | > | > | > I'll
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | bet there's no way to uninstall it.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Or, you can write to me at
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | updates_at_grystmill.com
| |> and
| |> | > I'll
| |> | > | > | > explain
| |> | > | > | > | > how
| |> | > | > | > | > | > you
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | can get my set of CDs that include all Updates
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | for
| |> | > Win98,
| |> | > | > 98SE
| |> | > | > | > and
| |> | > | > | > | > ME.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > No,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | there's no tweaks, no HotFixes, just Windows
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Updates
| |> on
| |> | > CD.
| |> | > | > $3
| |> | > | > | > | > covers
| |> | > | > | > | > | > costs.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | --
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | "dlsayremn"
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com>
| |> wrote
| |> | > in
| |> | > | > | > message
| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
| |> | > news:48B016EA-CB38-4B44-BBB8-3F6E1C341FD7@microsoft.com...
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Have been working on my GW Essential 667
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > with
| |> 98SE.
| |> | > Some
| |> | > | > | > problems
| |> | > | > | > | > so
| |> | > | > | > | > | > did
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > a
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > clean reinstall and was adding/updating
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > programs
| |> when
| |> | > | > found
| |> | > | > | > out
| |> | > | > | > I
| |> | > | > | > | > | > could
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > longer get Windows Update service. @#$%^&*(.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Found and used
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Autopatcher98.Dec_Full_Final.exe.
| |> It
| |> | > has
| |> | > | > | > updates
| |> | > | > | > | > and
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > tweaks.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Now when my computer starts I get the message
| |> "Error
| |> | > | > loading
| |> | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll".
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > click ok, message goes away and computer
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > still
| |> seems
| |> | > to
| |> | > | > work
| |> | > | > | > ok,
| |> | > | > | > | > but
| |> | > | > | > | > I
| |> | > | > | > | > | > am
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > getting a little tired of checking ok
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > whenever I
| |> turn
| |> | > the
| |> | > | > | > computer
| |> | > | > | > | > on.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched MSKb for message.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > "Error Loading the TCP MIB Library" error
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > when you
| |> add
| |> | > a
| |> | > | > | > standard
| |> | > | > | > | > | > TCP/IP
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > printer port in Windows XP and in Windows
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > 2000 View products that this article applies
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > to. Article ID : 261302
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Last Review : October 30, 2006
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Revision : 5.1
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > This article was previously published under
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Q261302 SYMPTOMS
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you use the Add Standard TCP/IP Printer
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Port
| |> | > Wizard
| |> | > | > in
| |> | > | > | > | > Microsoft
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Windows XP or Microsoft Windows 2000, you may
| |> receive
| |> | > the
| |> | > | > | > | > following
| |> | > | > | > | > | > error
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > message:
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Error loading the TCP MIB library.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, you receive the following
| |> | > additional
| |> | > | > error
| |> | > | > | > | > message:
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Specified port cannot be added. Operations
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > could
| |> not
| |> | > be
| |> | > | > | > completed.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, the Add Standard TCP/IP
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Printer
| |> | > Port
| |> | > | > Wizard
| |> | > | > | > | > quits,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > and
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > port is added.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > CAUSE
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > This behavior may occur if a third-party
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > version
| |> of
| |> | > the
| |> | > | > | > | > Wsnmp32.dll,
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Ntprint.dll, Tcpmib.dll, Mgmtapi.dll, or
| |> Snmpapi.dll
| |> | > file
| |> | > | > has
| |> | > | > | > been
| |> | > | > | > | > | > copied
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > to
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot% folder.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > RESOLUTION
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > To resolve this behavior, rename or delete
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > these
| |> files
| |> | > in
| |> | > | > the
| |> | > | > | > | > | > %SystemRoot%
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder. These files are taking precedence
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > over the Microsoft-supplied file in
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot%\System32 folder.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > STATUS
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Microsoft has confirmed that this is a
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > problem in
| |> the
| |> | > | > | > Microsoft
| |> | > | > | > | > | > products
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > that are listed in the "Applies to" section.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > MORE INFORMATION
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > The Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port Wizard
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > checks
| |> the
| |> | > | > root
| |> | > | > | > system
| |> | > | > | > | > | > folder
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > for some dynamic-link libraries (DLLs)
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > before it
| |> | > checks
| |> | > | > the
| |> | > | > | > | > System32
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched for above files. Found
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > snmpapi.dll(3), wsmp32.dll, and mgmtapi.dll
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > renamed them with.old sufix.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Also found HPtcpMib.dll, HPTcpMUI.dll, and
| |> | > HPTcpMON.ddid
| |> | > | > not
| |> | > | > | > | > touch
| |> | > | > | > | > | > these
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > as
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > I assume they are for my HP all-in one.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > After reboot still get the "Error loading
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll" message. Search for tcpm*.dll
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > shows no files on my computer.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Any ideas as to what is calling for this
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > file?
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > If I do need it where do I get it. Searched
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > my
| |> system
| |> | > | > restore
| |> | > | > | > | > disks
| |> | > | > | > | > | > and
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > could not find it.
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > thanks for any help. D.L. Sayre
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| Should things get worse after this,
| PCR
| pcrrcp@netzero.net
|
|

 

[PCR]

MEB wrote:
| Well, not to worry, the web has already done that for us... the search
| engines WILL pick up this thread when questions on updates occur, and
| forums HAVE mirrored it... and whatever its value is will be
| determined by the readers, and likely the thought/process WILL make
| it to some web page(s)... those without it will lose ranking and
| become lost... why??? because it makes sense and works.

Yea. It's good you put it out there. I remember cases of an application
(can't remember which) refusing to install after the Security Update CD
was run. The solution was to change back a certain Registry key...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
SubVersionNumber " A "

The Security Update CD puts a "B" in there!

| --
| MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| --
| _________
|
| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:eERKbesuIHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|| Gary S. Terhune wrote:
|| | I shouldn't think anyone who'd successfully reinstalled the system
|| | a couple of times already, including problem apps, would be asking
|| | for assistance.
|| |
|| | Anyway, I can't see appending your recommendation, including
|| | sufficient detail to be useful, to my standard response when asked
|| | about Windows Update not working, or even to basic installation
|| | instructions. Gonna have to shoulder that one on your own, or have
|| | PCR add it to a Master Post.
||
|| I cannot fit even half of MEB's verbiage into even a Master Post!
|| Several have already exploded from the attempts! I've lost an ear &
|| six toes!
||
|| | --
|| | Gary S. Terhune
|| | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| | www.grystmill.com
|| |
|| | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|| | news:%23Jb3P7huIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|| |> Oh, okay, don't look for me to make dozens of web pages on the
|| |> installation
|| |> orders I have used... the issue there would be, that the finder
|| |> would think
|| |> they had the scope of what needed done, skipping the prior
|| |> activities/pages
|| |> [thank the search engines for that nifty *decrease* in knowledge]
|| |> or failing
|| |> to understand WHY the order may need modified due to the OTHER
|| |> INSTALLS they
|| |> intended to do.
|| |>
|| |> The obvious answer to "what to do if it won't install with IE6"
|| |> would be, either you skip installation or start from scratch, or
|| |> buy something that works WITH it installed [which is what most
|| |> people did]...
|| |>
|| |> As for solutions: No, Microsoft and other developers produced no
|| |> solutions or modified updates to work in updated systems [or might
|| |> have, or may have gone out of business, or followed the world
|| |> business model of forcing updating by non-support and no updates]
|| |> Office 97 DID get two version of SR1, but only one SR2, by that
|| |> time it was
|| |> basically unsupported and really only received the WORD
|| |> {Office97-KB830354-ENU.exe - 2003} [and EXCEL, maybe some others,
|| |> I forget and they are *filed away somewhere*] update due to MAJOR
|| |> flaws..
|| |> Hence you find numerous complaints archived on the NET concerning
|| |> programs which couldn't be installed or couldn't be updated...
|| |> many wouldn't go the routine of fresh install and following an
|| |> installation order anyway... its easier to PAB/complain than to
|| |> work through the issues OR buy something that
|| |> DOES work, you know that from experience I'm sure....
|| |>
|| |> So, though you apparently think I didn't supply the answer,
|| |> essentially I did two post up by using the created program date
|| |> and its updates date as indicators of WHEN to install. Compare
|| |> that to the date of your OS and the dates of its updates.... if
|| |> its a 1998 or 1999 program then when do you think it should be
|| |> installed, likely early, once the OS is installed.. if its a 2002
|| |> or 2005 program, then what might need done PRIOR to installing it
|| |> [like installing the older programs, checking the CDROM or
|| |> installer to see
|| |> if it requires something OR may update key system files {mdac,
|| |> DirectX, DCOM, VBS, etc} incompatible with older
|| |> installers/programs..], etc...
|| |> Of course, even this is incomplete, as many programs MUST be run
|| |> at least once after installation AND configured to complete the
|| |> installation, wait, and you may have file or registry issues..
|| |>
|| |> It doesn't take an encyclopedia of knowledge, but it does take
|| |> time, a little thought, effort, and a bit of patience. Not
|| |> exactly what you find in
|| |> today's world is it...
|| |> But really, if that individual has been running 98 for years and
|| |> re-installed more than twice, they should have at least figured
|| |> out some of
|| |> this for themselves... the Security CD came out, in what, 2004,
|| |> and was intended to be used upon WELL ESTABLISHED systems [so
|| |> let's think of it like
|| |> XP, we have 98 - - SE is {literally} Service Pack{Edition} 1, and
|| |> the SecCD
|| |> is Service Pack 2 {though the SecCD also contains XPSR1 and 98 and
|| |> SE {and ME} updates}]...
|| |>
|| |> --
|| |> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|| |> --
|| |> _________
|| |>
|| |> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|| |> news:uqhcRnguIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|| |> | That was a non-response. I didn't ask for and don't need
|| |> | examples, and I acknowledged the possibility of your scenario
|| |> | making sense, in limited cases, and presuming one is in
|| |> | possession of an encyclopedic knowledge of the problematic apps
|| |> | you cite.
|| |> |
|| |> | I really am interested in your responses to my second paragraph.
|| |> | It is, for me, the core of the issue. Whatever does one do when
|| |> | an install of Word97 update/patch whatever fails on a fully
|| |> | updated 98 system? Were no solutions to this presumably common
|| |> | problem developed? Presuming one did NOT know about this and
|| |> | installed IE6 first during a fresh installation, then didn't
|| |> | get around to installing Word97 and its updates until a week
|| |> | later. Would you have to flatten the system in order to
|| |> | successfully install the app and all its updates. Given all
|| |> | this, what you're suggesting is that all Win98 Gold
|| |> | installations pass through an IE5.1 installation (and then
|| |> | maybe an IE
|| |> | 5.5 installation and/or intermediate versions???) Are there
|| |> | similar procedures suggested for Win98SE? If I were an average
|| |> | user, where would I find the information I need to know --
|| |> | whether or not any of my apps present the problem, just which
|| |> | steps I need to take in each case? As you've stated, they're
|| |> | all pretty old apps. Not supported, etc. Would not simple
|| |> | experience be the only way for the user to know if the problem
|| |> | is present or not, and if it requires a flattening to prove and
|| |> | fix it, well perhaps some notes will be appended to the
|| |> | installation media.
|| |> |
|| |> | I simply can't see going through the intermediate step(s) of
|| |> | extra IE installations on GP.
|| |> |
|| |> | --
|| |> | Gary S. Terhune
|| |> | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| |> | www.grystmill.com
|| |> |
|| |> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|| |> | news:uQOwUSfuIHA.4528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > Well as examples:
|| |> | >
|| |> | > Take the old Word97 from Office or Home Essentials [or some
|| |> | > other installation]. You can attempt to run the base install
|| |> | > in an updated system,
|| |> | > but to install all the updates {SR1, SR2, some of the addins,
|| |> | > and the final
|| |> | > WORD8 to 9} the updaters balk if IE6 is installed. ALWIO
|| |> | > Another is the old WinFax Pro 7, it will not install [easily
|| |> | > anyway] nor will its updates, if the system gets much beyond
|| |> | > the base SE {FE updated may
|| |> | > cause issues} install.
|| |> | >
|| |> | > So, yeah, these are majorly outdated programs, but if the
|| |> | > client [or me] doesn't want to update, whacha gonna do...
|| |> | >
|| |> | > --
|| |> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|| |> | > --
|| |> | > _________
|| |> | >
|| |> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|| |> | > news:%23R92pmduIHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | OK, I see the point, and yes, I do recall hearing of apps
|| |> | > | installers that did that and I've probably even dealt with a
|| |> | > | lot of their problems (vaguely recall, memory issues.)
|| |> | > | Presented with the need to install such apps, the extra
|| |> | > | steps would seem worth it. But I would think you'd need a
|| |> | > | massive catalog, mental or otherwise, to remember between
|| |> | > | which versions of IE or before or after which Updates you
|| |> | > | want to install which apps.
|| |> | > |
|| |> | > | What do you do when you already have a nice, well adjusted
|| |> | > | system and decide to install such an app? Surely there are
|| |> | > | well-developed solutions that don't involve regressing
|| |> | > | entire versions of IE. Are they so much more
|| |> | > difficult
|| |> | > to
|| |> | > | deploy after IE6 has been installed that they actually make
|| |> | > | the
|| |> | > trade-off
|| |> | > of
|| |> | > | installing entire versions of IE a good deal?
|| |> | > |
|| |> | > | --
|| |> | > | Gary S. Terhune
|| |> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| |> | > | www.grystmill.com
|| |> | > |
|| |> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|| |> | > | news:euYYgVduIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > Oh no, you missed the point. Some applications or their
|| |> | > | > updates were designed around a limited system update
|| |> | > | > status, example: certain DLL versions were needed and
|| |> | > | > checked for during the install or were
|| |> | > | > written/modified/added specifically during the install.
|| |> | > | >
|| |> | > | > You find this in some programs written during the early 9X
|| |> | > | > era, such as transitional 95 to 98 programs or 98 to 98SE
|| |> | > | > [or even some written before IE
|| |> | > | > 6 changes], where even the minimally updated files may
|| |> | > | > cause
|| |> issue.
|| |> So
|| |> | > | > installing them early in the process [as the system would
|| |> | > | > have existed when
|| |> | > | > they were created], allows their installation or their
|| |> | > | > updates which after
|| |> | > | > installation and application upgrade, generally causes no
|| |> | > | > further problems.
|| |> | > | > The installer is no longer attempting to determine SYSTEM
|| |> | > | > STATUS and what needs installed, so the system updates
|| |> | > | > done afterwards [hopefully backwards
|| |> | > | > compatible with earlier versions] cause no errors in the
|| |> | > | > programs.
|| |> | > | >
|| |> | > | > IF a program needs an older version of some DLL and the
|| |> | > | > updated
|| |> | > version
|| |> | > is
|| |> | > | > NOT fully backwards compatible or even recognized by the
|| |> installer,,
|| |> | > it
|| |> | > is
|| |> | > | > much easier to then go to SYSBKUP or Options\CABS\ or VCM
|| |> | > | > [depending upon whether they were involved] OR the update
|| |> | > | > INF file to determine the exact issue involved [or run
|| |> | > | > something like Process Explorer, FileMon or RegMon, or the
|| |> | > | > like, to locate/diagnose], so you can place the older
|| |> | > | > required DLL {whatever} into the problem application's
|| |> | > | > folder or temporarily re-install [degrade] the DLL {or
|| |> | > | > whatever} to the needed version..EXAMPLE: You can find
|| |> | > | > indications of this when a program REQUIRES IE6SP1 be
|| |> | > | > installed.
|| |> | > | >
|| |> | > | > This is the way I have found produces THE MOST stable
|| |> installation.
|| |> If
|| |> | > you
|| |> | > | > think about it, it makes sense.
|| |> | > | >
|| |> | > | > The sub-version change referred to the A to B change.
|| |> | > | >
|| |> | > | > --
|| |> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|| |> | > | > --
|| |> | > | > _________
|| |> | > | >
|| |> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|| |> | > | > news:ev9DDTYuIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | Uh. Never seen that myself. What is a "subversion
|| |> | > | > | change"?
|| |> Anyway,
|| |> I
|| |> | > | > | understand your logic, and I'm guessing that you have
|| |> | > | > | specific cases in mind. But if Windows has to be left
|| |> | > | > | outdated because it can't
|| |> get
|| |> | > along
|| |> | > | > with
|| |> | > | > | the updated state of the system, if it has to be left in
|| |> | > | > | IE 5.x land, then it's a machine I would respectfully
|| |> | > | > | suggest stay offline.
|| |> | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | --
|| |> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|| |> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| |> | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|| |> | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|| |> | > | > | news:ulzLAGVuIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | > Agreed, the SecCD does make it considerable easier.
|| |> | > | > | > It seems to start with IE6 as well, but of course, it
|| |> | > | > | > also controls the system and the exact order of
|| |> | > | > | > installations and shut downs.
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > Second startup [order]:
|| |> | > | > | > 238453USA8.EXE
|| |> | > | > | > 245729us8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 256015usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 259728usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 273727usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 314147usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 329048usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 249973usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 274548usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 323172usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 329115usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 811630usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 823559usa8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 273991USA8.EXE
|| |> | > | > | > 314941USA8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > 323255USA8.exe
|| |> | > | > | > telnetup.exe
|| |> | > | > | > q240308.exe
|| |> | > | > | > q313829.exe
|| |> | > | > | > q330994.exe
|| |> | > | > | > q828750.exe
|| |> | > | > | > js56men.exe
|| |> | > | > | > KB819639.exe
|| |> | > | > | > dx9_98.exe
|| |> | > | > | > mdac_typ.exe
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > Then finishes, including the subversion change.
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > However, I also [when using any of the OSs or update
|| |> | > | > | > routines] attempt to install as many of the oldest
|| |> | > | > | > programs, applications, and
|| |> games
|| |> | > [yes
|| |> | > I
|| |> | > | > | > still
|| |> | > | > | > play some old ones occasionally] prior to running the
|| |> | > | > | > SecCD or any updating,
|| |> | > | > | > as I have had difficulties not doing so, due to file
|| |> | > | > | > changes [either from the installed or due to SecCD]
|| |> | > | > | > such as wrong mdac type, some DLL, or otherwise [then
|| |> | > | > | > unable to update the program].
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > Anyway, IE5.1 is used as an intermediate installation
|| |> | > | > | > and then update process, when an application balks at
|| |> | > | > | > its updates [needs a newer version of
|| |> | > | > | > something], yet also refuses to update at all when IE6
|| |> | > | > | > is installed first.
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > --
|| |> | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|| |> | > | > | > --
|| |> | > | > | > _________
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|| |> | > | > | > news:eroN6zSuIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | > | OK, my memory sucks. And yesterday was just FULL of
|| |> distractions
|| |> | > so
|| |> | > | > I'm
|| |> | > | > | > | surprised I didn't screw up worse.
|| |> | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | Though of course I always recommend IE6SP1. I see
|| |> | > | > | > | where you suggest some more intricate form of
|| |> | > | > | > | updating, but since I've yet to run into any
|| |> | > | > | > | problems, I'll stick with what I got. Besides, most
|| |> | > | > | > | of the
|| |> time,
|| |> | > I
|| |> | > | > run
|| |> | > | > | > the
|| |> | > | > | > | SecUp Feb 2004 CD before anything else, and that
|| |> | > | > | > | includes IE6SP1.
|| |> | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | --
|| |> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|| |> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| |> | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|| |> | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
|| |> | > | > | > | news:e0xD0GJuIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | > | > Last test I did of IE versions produced minimum of
|| |> | > 5.02314.1003.
|| |> | > | > Found
|| |> | > | > | > as
|| |> | > | > | > | > IE5.1 on several CDROMs from that era.
|| |> | > | > | > | > Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 5.01 and
|| |> | > | > | > | > Internet Tools November
|| |> | > | > | > | > 1999
|| |> | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > Though that was a few months ago, when re-testing
|| |> | > windowsupdate
|| |> | > | > with
|| |> | > | > | > fresh
|| |> | > | > | > | > installs of Win98[FE/Gold/SE].
|| |> | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > --
|| |> | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|| |> | > | > | > | > --
|| |> | > | > | > | > _________
|| |> | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|| |> | > | > | > | > news:Okp0vbHuIHA.1872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | > | > | That's not IE5.5 minimum? Seems to me I tested
|| |> | > | > | > | > | that a
|| |> while
|| |> | > | > back.
|| |> | > | > | > Don't
|| |> | > | > | > | > | recall the answer, though.
|| |> | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | > | --
|| |> | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|| |> | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| |> | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|| |> | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in
|| |> | > | > | > | > | message
|| |> | > | > | > | > | news:eLkBeLGuIHA.672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > Likely can't get to windowsupdate due to the
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > wrong
|| |> browser
|| |> | > | > | > version...
|| |> | > | > | > | > need
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > at least IE5.1
|| |> | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > As for the autoupdater, it does install
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > numerous XP files/mods and unofficial
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > fixes/files, so each individual system may
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > have differing errors depending upon the
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > configuration, software, adapters, etc...
|| |> | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > --
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > --
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > _________
|| |> | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
|| |> | > | > | > | > | >
news:%23o$fLjEuIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Suggest you start over, and this time, after
|| |> installing
|| |> | > | > Windows
|| |> | > | > | > go
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > directly
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | to Windows Updates and download EVERYTHING,
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | then
|| |> | > restart,
|| |> | > | > then
|| |> | > | > | > go
|| |> | > | > | > | > back
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > to
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > WU
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | and do it again until no more updates are
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | offered.
|| |> Do
|| |> | > this
|| |> | > | > | > BEFORE
|| |> | > | > | > | > you
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | install anything else. Once you've done
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | this, you'll
|| |> | > never
|| |> | > | > have
|| |> | > | > | > to
|| |> | > | > | > | > go
|| |> | > | > | > | > to
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows Updates again. I've followed some of
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | your
|| |> trail
|| |> | > and
|| |> | > | > I
|| |> | > | > | > think
|| |> | > | > | > | > you
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | installed something that screwed up your
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | ability to
|| |> get
|| |> | > to
|| |> | > | > WU.
|| |> | > | > | > What
|| |> | > | > | > | > do
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > you
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | use for Security. Norton products? Because
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | WU still
|| |> | > works
|| |> | > | > just
|| |> | > | > | > fine,
|| |> | > | > | > | > and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > my
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | guess from what you've written before and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | elsewhere
|| |> is
|| |> | > that
|| |> | > | > | > | > something
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > like
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | that is what screwed up WU for you.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | All that stuff you cite below is worthless.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | It
|| |> applies
|| |> | > to
|| |> | > | > | > Windows
|| |> | > | > | > | > XP,
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > not
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x. AFAICT, TcpMib.dll is not and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | has never
|| |> been
|| |> | > any
|| |> | > | > | > part
|| |> | > | > | > of
|| |> | > | > | > | > a
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Windows 9x system. Suggests to me that the
|| |> AutoUpdater
|| |> | > is
|| |> | > a
|| |> | > | > POS.
|| |> | > | > | > And
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > I'll
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | bet there's no way to uninstall it.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Or, you can write to me at
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | updates_at_grystmill.com
|| |> and
|| |> | > I'll
|| |> | > | > | > explain
|| |> | > | > | > | > how
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > you
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | can get my set of CDs that include all
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Updates for
|| |> | > Win98,
|| |> | > | > 98SE
|| |> | > | > | > and
|| |> | > | > | > | > ME.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > No,
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | there's no tweaks, no HotFixes, just Windows
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Updates
|| |> on
|| |> | > CD.
|| |> | > | > $3
|| |> | > | > | > | > covers
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > costs.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | --
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | www.grystmill.com
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | "dlsayremn"
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com>
|| |> wrote
|| |> | > in
|| |> | > | > | > message
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > |
|| |> | > news:48B016EA-CB38-4B44-BBB8-3F6E1C341FD7@microsoft.com...
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Have been working on my GW Essential 667
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > with
|| |> 98SE.
|| |> | > Some
|| |> | > | > | > problems
|| |> | > | > | > | > so
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > did
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > a
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > clean reinstall and was adding/updating
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > programs
|| |> when
|| |> | > | > found
|| |> | > | > | > out
|| |> | > | > | > I
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > could
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > longer get Windows Update service.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > @#$%^&*(. Found and used
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Autopatcher98.Dec_Full_Final.exe.
|| |> It
|| |> | > has
|| |> | > | > | > updates
|| |> | > | > | > | > and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > tweaks.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Now when my computer starts I get the
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > message
|| |> "Error
|| |> | > | > loading
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll".
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > click ok, message goes away and computer
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > still
|| |> seems
|| |> | > to
|| |> | > | > work
|| |> | > | > | > ok,
|| |> | > | > | > | > but
|| |> | > | > | > | > I
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > am
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > getting a little tired of checking ok
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > whenever I
|| |> turn
|| |> | > the
|| |> | > | > | > computer
|| |> | > | > | > | > on.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched MSKb for message.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > "Error Loading the TCP MIB Library" error
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > when you
|| |> add
|| |> | > a
|| |> | > | > | > standard
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > TCP/IP
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > printer port in Windows XP and in Windows
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > 2000 View products that this article
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > applies to. Article ID : 261302
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Last Review : October 30, 2006
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Revision : 5.1
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > This article was previously published
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > under Q261302 SYMPTOMS
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you use the Add Standard TCP/IP
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Printer Port
|| |> | > Wizard
|| |> | > | > in
|| |> | > | > | > | > Microsoft
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Windows XP or Microsoft Windows 2000, you
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > may
|| |> receive
|| |> | > the
|| |> | > | > | > | > following
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > error
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > message:
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Error loading the TCP MIB library.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, you receive the
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > following
|| |> | > additional
|| |> | > | > error
|| |> | > | > | > | > message:
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Specified port cannot be added. Operations
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > could
|| |> not
|| |> | > be
|| |> | > | > | > completed.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > When you click OK, the Add Standard TCP/IP
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Printer
|| |> | > Port
|| |> | > | > Wizard
|| |> | > | > | > | > quits,
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > no
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > port is added.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > CAUSE
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > This behavior may occur if a third-party
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > version
|| |> of
|| |> | > the
|| |> | > | > | > | > Wsnmp32.dll,
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Ntprint.dll, Tcpmib.dll, Mgmtapi.dll, or
|| |> Snmpapi.dll
|| |> | > file
|| |> | > | > has
|| |> | > | > | > been
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > copied
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > to
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot% folder.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > RESOLUTION
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > To resolve this behavior, rename or delete
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > these
|| |> files
|| |> | > in
|| |> | > | > the
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > %SystemRoot%
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder. These files are taking precedence
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > over the Microsoft-supplied file in
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > the %SystemRoot%\System32 folder.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Back to the top
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > STATUS
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Microsoft has confirmed that this is a
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > problem in
|| |> the
|| |> | > | > | > Microsoft
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > products
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > that are listed in the "Applies to"
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > section. Back to the top
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > MORE INFORMATION
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > The Add Standard TCP/IP Printer Port
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Wizard checks
|| |> the
|| |> | > | > root
|| |> | > | > | > system
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > folder
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > for some dynamic-link libraries (DLLs)
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > before it
|| |> | > checks
|| |> | > | > the
|| |> | > | > | > | > System32
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > folder.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched for above files. Found
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > snmpapi.dll(3), wsmp32.dll, and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > mgmtapi.dll renamed them with.old sufix.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Also found HPtcpMib.dll, HPTcpMUI.dll, and
|| |> | > HPTcpMON.ddid
|| |> | > | > not
|| |> | > | > | > | > touch
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > these
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > as
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > I assume they are for my HP all-in one.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > After reboot still get the "Error loading
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > TcpMib.dll" message. Search for tcpm*.dll
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > shows no files on my computer.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Any ideas as to what is calling for this
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > file?
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > If I do need it where do I get it.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > Searched my
|| |> system
|| |> | > | > restore
|| |> | > | > | > | > disks
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > and
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > could not find it.
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | >
|| |> | > | > | > | > | > | > thanks for any help. D.L. Sayre
||
|| --
|| Thanks or Good Luck,
|| There may be humor in this post, and,
|| Naturally, you will not sue,
|| Should things get worse after this,
|| PCR
|| pcrrcp@netzero.net

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

[dlsayremn]

MEB, Gary, Franc, again thanks for help.

The tcpmib.dll error message is gone. Not sure why.

Wanted to print out all the things you had suggested to make sure I had
tried them all, so I re-installed my printer.
When the computer re-booted after the install, the error message was gone. I
have shut the computer down and restarted 10 times without getting the
message.

MEB, the search I did was a search in files for term "tcpmib.dll" and the
five files listed were what I got.

Again, thanks for the help. DLSayre

 

[MEB]

Right, I had somewhat overlooked that, it was a quick post hoping to catch
you in case you were transient to the group.

The user.dat and system.dat were the registry, which could have allowed
checking the registry to see if there was an error in the location or
otherwise. As the issue no longer appears after re-installing the printer,
whatever was there has now, apparently, been corrected.

Thanks for posting back and good luck with that "unofficial system" {I have
run them before}. Any further issues and you now have some ideas to work
with towards a resolution.

BTW: though MSFN would be a primary posting area for issues, this group has
numerous parties who either have run similar systems, or are presently
running them. So don't feel you can't post a question, just remind us that
you have an unofficial system in whatever you post requesting help. It does
make a difference.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:00BD445A-1060-4A9F-85D5-CFA4CC5E52EF@microsoft.com...
| MEB, Gary, Franc, again thanks for help.
|
| The tcpmib.dll error message is gone. Not sure why.
|
| Wanted to print out all the things you had suggested to make sure I had
| tried them all, so I re-installed my printer.
| When the computer re-booted after the install, the error message was gone.
I
| have shut the computer down and restarted 10 times without getting the
| message.
|
| MEB, the search I did was a search in files for term "tcpmib.dll" and the
| five files listed were what I got.
|
| Again, thanks for the help. DLSayre

 

[dlsayremn]

the MEB'

Thanks again.
I dropped a post at the MSFN AutoPatch98 thread about this.
I am going to mark this as solved by the printer reinstall.

Now I can see if there is a cure for my Update problem besides a reinstall.

DLSayre

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Assuming you're fully patched (using that other tool), you have no reason to
go to Windows Updates, now or ever. There will never be anything new posted
there.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:438258B9-5FF4-467F-9998-2137E78540CD@microsoft.com...
> the MEB'
>
> Thanks again.
> I dropped a post at the MSFN AutoPatch98 thread about this.
> I am going to mark this as solved by the printer reinstall.
>
> Now I can see if there is a cure for my Update problem besides a
> reinstall.
>
> DLSayre
>
>

 

[MEB]

Ah, what update problem???

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:438258B9-5FF4-467F-9998-2137E78540CD@microsoft.com...
| the MEB'
|
| Thanks again.
| I dropped a post at the MSFN AutoPatch98 thread about this.
| I am going to mark this as solved by the printer reinstall.
|
| Now I can see if there is a cure for my Update problem besides a
reinstall.
|
| DLSayre
|
|

 

[dlsayremn]

The reason all this happened in the first place. I posted in Windows Update
and Robert Aldwinckle crossposted it to Windows 98 Update.

After installing an WU update for v4, next time I went WU got download v4
again. When checked ok got the" You must be logged on as Admiinistrator to
use..." screen.
After using all the MS KB solutions, when I go to WU I still get the
Administrator screen (not asked to update anymore).
Probably won't need to use Update any more, but I check anyway.

DLSayre




"MEB" wrote:

> Ah, what update problem???
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
> "dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:438258B9-5FF4-467F-9998-2137E78540CD@microsoft.com...
> | the MEB'
> |
> | Thanks again.
> | I dropped a post at the MSFN AutoPatch98 thread about this.
> | I am going to mark this as solved by the printer reinstall.
> |
> | Now I can see if there is a cure for my Update problem besides a
> reinstall.
> |
> | DLSayre
> |
> |
>
>
>

 

[MEB]

As long as you are running that un-official system, your system updates {if
you want them} will come from MSFN. ANY attempt to use others may break the
system or install conflicting files [that's a bit overbroad, but it gives
the right idea].

You might want to post the Administrator issue on MSFN, as you now have
other updates to deal with and our standard information may not help much.
Likely its now a modification to an existing registry entry rather than one
of the updates originally offered from Microsoft for 9X..

Good luck, let us know how that system works out.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

"dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0BA71364-B8DF-4B86-859A-82E7AACE4381@microsoft.com...
| The reason all this happened in the first place. I posted in Windows
Update
| and Robert Aldwinckle crossposted it to Windows 98 Update.
|
| After installing an WU update for v4, next time I went WU got download v4
| again. When checked ok got the" You must be logged on as Admiinistrator to
| use..." screen.
| After using all the MS KB solutions, when I go to WU I still get the
| Administrator screen (not asked to update anymore).
| Probably won't need to use Update any more, but I check anyway.
|
| DLSayre
|
|
|
|
| "MEB" wrote:
|
| > Ah, what update problem???
| >
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| > "dlsayremn" <dlsayremn@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| > news:438258B9-5FF4-467F-9998-2137E78540CD@microsoft.com...
| > | the MEB'
| > |
| > | Thanks again.
| > | I dropped a post at the MSFN AutoPatch98 thread about this.
| > | I am going to mark this as solved by the printer reinstall.
| > |
| > | Now I can see if there is a cure for my Update problem besides a
| > reinstall.
| > |
| > | DLSayre
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
| >