problems with 32.dll when loading drivers

[thanatoid]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:j4rBM+WAo4qIFwMb@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> In message <e1fkC8mAJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary S.
> Terhune <none@?.?.invalid> writes
>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>
> I do, actually.

See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
it's a figment of our imagination.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

In message <##sF8ZIAJHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
<meb@not.here.invalid> writes
>I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?

It was the full UBCD, but with the option - which it offers - to install
over an existing system, keeping settings etcetera. I should have known
better - this sort of thing is always better done as a full clean
install. And I don't _really_ hold soporific responsible.
>
> I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this situation
>and the procedure when installing an un-official compilation. Perhaps it
>might be beneficial for you to outline what you have already done. You

The installation proceeded quite far, but did get to a point (after one
- I think - reboot) where it went into a loop, repeatedly encountering
some error message.

>should also note that unless you follow the procedures and updates/patch
>process being used in unofficial patchings by the creator of the patch, your
>results will likely NOT reflect the same success.
> That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image should
>the testing fail or corrupt one's system.
[]
Indeed. I managed to restore my system to how I had it by use of an ERD
saveset from before I started with UBCD this is not a full image, but
is a Microsoft utility. Unfortunately, as I've only discovered
subsequently, it (a) didn't bring back sound - which I didn't notice
immediately - and (b) has damaged _some_thing involved with the loading
of drivers in general. (I've now found it with _three_ things - the
sound, the microscope [webcam], and a new USB stick.)

To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite any advice
given may not be applicable to those who are not.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
Windows 98?

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

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:an7$LCUB+3qIFw6+@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <##sF8ZIAJHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <meb@not.here.invalid> writes

<SNIP OT material>
>
> To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite any advice given
> may not be applicable to those who are not.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: AFTER INSTALLING/UNINSTALLING 98LITE Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

In message <ODofbeKAJHA.4148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
<none@?.?.invalid> writes
[]
>If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
>statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of the
>realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it

This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)

>is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
>screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due to

I am pretty sure you are right there.

>your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
>the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a

I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the
sound circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware",
and either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it
starts to load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.
[]
>> Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
>> with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)
>
>As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
>98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
>and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
>rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
>that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
>That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in the
>slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
>shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS from
>the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn that
>logic on its head doesn't mean squat.

I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
say above it seems to me that you mean different things by the two
terms. (Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't
learn, will I!)
>
>You've got two problems.
>1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
>huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
>obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
>to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to go
>back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
>professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
>original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc., ad
>infinitum.

Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
years before I tried the soporific stuff.
>
>2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
>failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --

I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere
- I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out however, I've
moved house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard
manufacturer's website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only
part that isn't working, the sound circuitry.

>what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
>like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
>won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and I
>just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened and
>rebuilt by now.

If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.
>
>Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make it
>your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you

I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong?

>didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
>went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but

No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where
I just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
manually.

>not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
>throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more

I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to
itself! But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose
some of the utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such
as hard drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these
days, but I'm sure there are some unexpected ones too.)

>importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY on
>that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
>more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
>adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
>they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly hidden
>from each other and ameliorate the rest.
>
>But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how I
>learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping track
>of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such a
>deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a day,
>over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave up
>on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb

Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had
developed as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.
[]
>At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
>Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the fact
>that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself what
>will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
>strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait for

Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting
into DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

>the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That it
>is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
>nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
>metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.

Indeed.
>
>>>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic, you
>>
>> Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your post,
>> and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
>> fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to I suspect the "su" means
>> it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.
>
>Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone

Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in
a language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.

>associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
>the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
>98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in there.

What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

>Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
>these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
>give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are interested
>in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
>feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
>applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
>experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.

Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing) all of these,
but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
(IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
[]
>years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
>recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
>efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its bounds.

Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
[]
>I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not that
>you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a 98Lite
>issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
>98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
>Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.
>
I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the
"has anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause
is" sort.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

In message <e1fkC8mAJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
<none@?.?.invalid> writes
>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent user
>who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
>Windows 98?
>
I do, actually.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: AFTER INSTALLING/UNINSTALLING 98LITE Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qIzDAgWjm4qIFwOH@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <ODofbeKAJHA.4148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
> <none@?.?.invalid> writes
> []
>>If you'll notice, nobody is responding to it, anyway, except me. Your
>>statement "I have tried to revert...." is exactly what takes this out of
>>the
>>realm of stock Windows 98. You can't fix a problem until you know what it
>
> This reversion is one of the functions offered by 98lite - a shell swap,
> between the 95 shell and the 98 shell. (It does more than just change
> explorer.exe and shell32.dll - it also amends several files, such as
> notepad.exe, such that they work properly with whichever shell.)

The reversion function failed this time, which is a 98Lite problem, not a
Windows 98 problem. Please take it to a 98Lite forum.

>>is, and in this case the problem is almost certainly caused by a serious
>>screwing up of your system caused by your experiment. And, possibly, due
>>to
>
> I am pretty sure you are right there.
>
>>your total lack of preparation for said experiment by making sure you have
>>the drivers to install your system stored carefully away, preferably in a
>
> I have the drivers for the sound circuitry. The problem does not seem to
> be the drivers themselves, but the process (?) which handles the
> installation of (any) driver: when I add new hardware (or delete the sound
> circuitry and then reboot), I get the usual "found new hardware", and
> either it finds the drivers or I tell it where they are, and it starts to
> load them - and then I get the rundll32 error box.

Then I must have misread an earlier post that I thought said you couldn't
decently reinstall the system from scratch because you lacked all the
drivers. I in no way thought that the sound drivers were to blame, as I
explain farther down.

>>> Interesting - does 98lite have something to do with Linux then? (I ask
>>> with no baggage: I'm just genuinely interested.)
>>
>>As far as code goes, nothing (I presume.) I was referring to the fact that
>>98Lite and it's brethren tear the 98 OS into pieces, rip out whole chunks,
>>and then (and here's where the Linux reference comes in), replace it (or
>>rather, some of it) with homegrown, "Open Source"--style code. Then claim
>>that because it still has the 98 kernel, it's Windows 98, just tweaked.
>>That's a load of bullcrap. At that point, it is no longer Windows 98 in
>>the
>>slightest. Note your phrase, above: "I have tried reverting to the '98
>>shell..." Far more than the kernel, it is the shell that defines an OS
>>from
>>the point of view of the user, and just because some nerds want to turn
>>that
>>logic on its head doesn't mean squat.
>
> I'm confused by the difference between "shell" and "kernel" in what you
> say above it seems to me that you mean different things by the two terms.
> (Please don't gloat in your answer! If I don't ask, I won't learn, will
> I!)

These may not be the best explanations, but they'll do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computer_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(computing)

>>
>>You've got two problems.
>>1. You don't have a functional '98 machine anymore because you ripped out
>>huge chunks and replaced them, and then the aptly named "soporific"
>>obviously either didn't do a good enough job with the installer (referring
>>to it's uninstall functions) or didn't expect anyone to bother trying to
>>go
>>back to the original shell. And you, due to total lack of foresight and
>>professionalism, haven't the slightest idea just how different from your
>>original system your current one is, just how much DLL Hell exists, etc.,
>>ad
>>infinitum.
>
> Well, my "shredded" system had been working fairly reliably for several
> years before I tried the soporific stuff.

You've had 98Lite installed for years? Regardless, I didn't say that 98Lite
doesn't work, I say that installing it shreds your Windows 98 system. And
that's exactly what it does. That's its *intent*. The rip out great gobs of
Windows 98 that the creators and users don't want in there. Fine, but it is
no longer Windows 98 and I doubt that it's even close to possible to restore
a functioning Windows 98 System once 98Lite has been installed.

>>2.You don't have the original drivers for your Win98 system. That's just a
>>failure on your part, period. I don't think it would mater if you did --
>
> I almost certainly _do_ still have the original motherboard CD somewhere -
> I certainly wouldn't throw something like that out however, I've moved
> house since I built the PC. I went to the motherboard manufacturer's
> website and fetched a - Windows 98 - driver for the only part that isn't
> working, the sound circuitry.

Again, that was a misread on my part and I've clearly explained what I think
is wrong in another in the next paragraph.

>>what you describe doesn't sound like it's at all that simple, sounds more
>>like rampant DLL Hell in the Hardware/PnP/Drivers installation layer. I
>>won't go through all the steps in my logic, but if it were my machine, and
>>I
>>just wanted to get my real Windows 98 back, it would have been flattened
>>and
>>rebuilt by now.
>
> If I were going to do that, I think I'd go for XP.

If you've been running Windows 98 and/or 98Lite for "years" on that machine,
I doubt it's built to handle XP in any manner that would satisfy you. But I
don't know the machine's specs, so I'm just guessing.

>>Except that you still apparently want to play with the big boys and make
>>it
>>your holy grail to find out what went wrong and fix it. Problems is, you
>
> I'm very puzzled why you consider this to be such a satanic wish: what,
> exactly, is wrong with wanting to know what has gone wrong.

Absolutely nothing! You just didn't prepare for your experiment in a manner
that would have allowed you to determine what went wrong. You have no data
from your experiment except that you installed it, then tried to get out and
can't. Beyond that, you only have my *guess* that the issue is in the
hardware installation programming.

>>didn't set out with a pro's mentality, you just slapped the thing in and
>>went for broke. I do that on one or more of my test machine regularly, but
>
> No, I did an ERD, which though not a complete backup by any means, has
> nearly always allowed me to restore a working system in the past. In the
> very few cases where it hasn't, it has got me back to a situation where I
> just had to reinstall one piece of software (usually Easy CD Creator)
> manually.

So I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from this. Just because you got
away with half-measure tools in the past (ERD, SCANREGW /BACKUP, Windows
ME/XP/Vista's System Restore) NOTHING takes the place of a full backup that
can be quickly restored to a reformatted or new hard drive.

>>not even on a separate partition of my main work machine. Only on totally
>>throw-away boxes. Believe it or not, software CAN wreck hardware, and more
>
> I remember there was (allegedly - I never investigated!) a command you
> could type on the Commodore PET that would cause it to do harm to itself!
> But yes, even on PCs, there certainly are things. (I suppose some of the
> utilities that thoroughly exercise bits of the system - such as hard
> drives, or in extremis processors, are the most likely these days, but I'm
> sure there are some unexpected ones too.)
>
>>importantly, what gets installed on one partition may not behave and STAY
>>on
>>that partition and totally leave the others untouched. Windows XP and even
>>more, Vista, are excellent examples of this. I do install all of them on
>>adjacent partitions on my main machine, but I also know fairly well what
>>they will do to each other, and I generally keep them at least mostly
>>hidden
>>from each other and ameliorate the rest.
>>
>>But then, I'm pretty much the same brand of fool that you are. That's how
>>I
>>learned Windows 98. Install it, do whatever I can to it, while keeping
>>track
>>of what happens when I install this or that, until I get myself into such
>>a
>>deep hole, I'd reformat and reinstall. I did that up to a dozen times a
>>day,
>>over 300 times in the first year I owned it, until I got it right or gave
>>up
>>on whatever application or hardware I was playing with. I've had to curb
>
> Wow! Well, it was the (presumed) expertise that I sensed you had developed
> as a result of all that, that I'd hoped I could tap into.

Nope. If I haven't made it plain, yet, I think your system is totally hosed.
If you can't get into it, then an Overinstall of Win98 might get it working
sufficiently well enough that you can more easily copy off your personal
files before reformatting and reinstalling from scratch..

>>At all times, even now with my main XP installation (that has four other
>>Windows OS partitions that I multi-boot), I am always conscious of the
>>fact
>>that I might lose the use of it at any moment and constantly ask myself
>>what
>>will I do in that case, with, of course, dozens upon dozens of possible
>>strategies available to ponder and perfect (even practice) while I wait
>>for
>
> Well, except for actual hardware failure or perhaps FAT corruption, I am
> fairly certain I can extract my _data_ files, if necessary by booting into
> DOS. (I frequently dump them to CD as well.)

Extract your data files in DOS to where? You have a DOS CD burning utility?
Easiest way is to put the drive into another machine and use that machine to
back up the files to CD or DVD (or get an external drive if your system is
new enough that BIOS sees and recognizes them, then use a bootable CD system
like BartPE to copy the files from your system to the external HD.) Now that
I say that, I think there are bootable CD systems out there that include
burner utilities. Might check them out.

>>the inevitable -- and that is how you have to think about computers: That
>>it
>>is inevitable that at any moment it will be destroyed, with absolutely
>>nothing to recover, neither hardware or data, a blackened chunk of melted
>>metal and silicon, ready for immediate delivery to the recycler.
>
> Indeed.
>>
>>>>disservice by not dealing with them in a forum dedicated to the topic,
>>>>you
>>>
>>> Hmm, I was unaware there were any, but I've done a search after your
>>> post,
>>> and I see that both of the newsservers I use actually include
>>> fido7.su.f98lite, which I have now subscribed to I suspect the "su"
>>> means
>>> it'll be in Finnish (which I don't speak), but I'll report back.
>>
>>Doesn't look to me like there's even a forum for 98Lite, let alone
>
> Well, I've now loaded some posts from that, and they're certainly not in a
> language I can understand - it could well be Finnish.
>
>>associated hackers. Which does nothing but lower my already low opinion of
>>the product and the crowd that uses it. Unless maybe if you pay for
>>98Lite... there's a member's login -- maybe there's a forum hiding in
>>there.
>
> What is your opinion of TweakUI, and the other PowerTools?

For the most part, I think they are too dangerous for the average user. I
don't use them, I prefer to do things manually for the most part. The short
and sweet is that I don't trust them, and every one of them contains
functions that can wreck your system, either immediately or in the form of a
time bomb. Using TUI to get rid of IE4 integration into Win98 was one such.
I forget what the actual wording is of the settings involved, but once they
were involved, it turned out the functions they supposedly "turned off"
ended up completely hosed, with some secondary damage that was MUCH worse
than just not being able to view the desktop as a webpage. IOW, the
presumably simple tweaks had hidden parts that you aren't warned about and
that most people found out they wanted after all. Coincidentally, those
functions are among the same exact things 98Lite hoses.

>>Otherwise, it indicates to me that there is no seriousness on the part of
>>these cross-breeders. That they're just a bunch of silly hackers who don't
>>give a crap about anyone else, especially not the people who are
>>interested
>>in supporting their efforts, if not with money, then with ideas and
>>feedback. That's how the people I know who have developed very successful
>>applications for computers have always conducted their business. Seeks
>>experts to get behind their effort and have a very open and lively forum.
>
> Agreed - or, do it all themself, but still have plenty of dialog (about
> both problems and suggestions) with the users. A couple of examples of
> that, I would say, are Irfan Skiljan's IrfanView, John Steed's Brother's
> Keeper (genealogy software), and GoldWave (sound editing) all of these,
> but particularly the first two, deal openly with the users. I have
> actually bought all of these (and some others), even though at least one
> (IrfanView) is free for home use, as I believe in encouraging them.
> []
>>years.) This is at least historically true. I haven't kept up with AOL in
>>recent years, but it seems to me that they have at least lessoned their
>>efforts to reprogram the OS, and instead learned to work within its
>>bounds.
>
> Just about - I've had to do battle with it for a friend recently, and it
> still seems to have very much its own way of doing things, at least the
> interface to BB, for no advantage to the user that I can see.
> []
>>I honestly beg to differ. Hijack these NGs is exactly what you did, not
>>that
>>you had much choice. But your issue is NOT a Windows 98 issue, it's a
>>98Lite
>>issue. And 98Lite users, if they have any respect whatsoever for the stock
>>98 users that regularly attend these groups, they'd get their own room.
>>Otherwise, they're no less obnoxious than any other trolls.
>>
> I thought a troll was someone who deliberately posted something
> inflammatory, hoping to start a flamewar or similar. I certainly didn't
> intend to do that - mine was (and still is) a genuine request of the "has
> anyone else come across anything like this, and know what the cause is"
> sort.

There has been plenty of trollish behavior on the part of 98Lite promoters
in this group over the more recent years. Sorry, but in my eyes, you are
guilty by association. But that wasn't my primary intent, to call you a
troll, only "just as bad" as the others who *are* trolls. More accurately,
to define "hijacking a group" as a troll-like behavior, especially if it is
deliberately done and/or continues even after it's been pointed out to
someone less in the know what he's actually, even if unwittingly, doing.

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

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

Just wanted to be sure. So how about you either stop this thread that isn't
going anywhere useful, or make sure you change the Subject line if you
should happen to get a response that actually does anything about your
original issue? Make yourself useful and flatten/rebuild your hosed system.

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

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j4rBM+WAo4qIFwMb@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <e1fkC8mAJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
> <none@?.?.invalid> writes
>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about the innocent
>>user
>>who might stumble upon this thread and not realize that it isn't about
>>Windows 98?
>>
> I do, actually.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
> PCs. **
>
> it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief
> executive
> of
> the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006,
> page 26.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

In message <Xns9B00A0A3D3E0thanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:j4rBM+WAo4qIFwMb@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message <e1fkC8mAJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary S.
>> Terhune <none@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>>
>> I do, actually.
>
>See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
>Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
>Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
>in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
>it's a figment of our imagination.
>
>
Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

In message <OIm0xApAJHA.4512@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary S. Terhune
<none@?.?.invalid> writes
>Just wanted to be sure. So how about you either stop this thread that isn't
>going anywhere useful, or make sure you change the Subject line if you
>should happen to get a response that actually does anything about your
>original issue? Make yourself useful and flatten/rebuild your hosed system.
>
Oh, I certainly will (though I see you've done so anyway) - _if_ anyone
does come up with an actual suggestion (of something I might try, rather
than just of what might be wrong. And I know you've suggested a complete
reinstallation). I rather fear that anyone who might, has been
frightened off.

I will answer your longer post later despite what some may think, I
like to try to remain on speaking terms with everybody!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief executive
of
the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006, page 26.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

You can tell the King of Idiots that his statement is about as stupid as any
I've seen him make. The issue isn't whether the crap is built from MS files,
it's that they aren't Windows 98 files, in their entirety, as distributed
under the name "Windows 98 Operating System". It's a butchery of Windows 98,
regardless of the goals, efficacy or failures that result.

You can chop off the top of a certain type of fruit tree (I don't remember
which, but let's say it's a pear tree) and graft all kinds of other closely
related fruit trees onto it. You no longer have a pear tree, it will never
produce pears, even though it has a "kernel" that can be called "pear". Yes,
it produces fruit, but they are not pears. It is no longer a "pear tree" and
a club devoted to the growth and care of pear trees would have nothing to do
with your grafted monstrosity and probably vote you out of the club and show
you the door with little to say other than, "Good Luck. Hope you can find
someone to help you with that one graft that's failing. But you and your
tree don't belong here."

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

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Sx1duhh4u8qIFwKj@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Xns9B00A0A3D3E0thanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid
> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:j4rBM+WAo4qIFwMb@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> In message <e1fkC8mAJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary S.
>>> Terhune <none@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>>>
>>> I do, actually.
>>
>>See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
>>Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
>>Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to argue
>>in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program. After all,
>>it's a figment of our imagination.
>>
>>
> Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
> ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on
> PCs. **
>
> it is no use hitting all the targets and missing the point. - chief
> executive
> of
> the Disability and Carers Service, quoted in computing, 23 March 2006,
> page 26.

 

[thanatoid]

Re: OT 98Lite ISSUE_Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:Sx1duhh4u8qIFwKj@soft255.demon.co.uk:

> In message <Xns9B00A0A3D3E0thanexit@66.250.146.158>,
> thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes
>>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>in news:j4rBM+WAo4qIFwMb@soft255.demon.co.uk:
>>
>>> In message <e1fkC8mAJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Gary
>>> S. Terhune <none@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>>Just to keep me happy, eh? So you really don't care about
>>>>the innocent user who might stumble upon this thread and
>>>>not realize that it isn't about Windows 98?
>>>>
>>> I do, actually.
>>
>>See what I mean? According to Terhune, Windows xLite is NOT
>>Windows. I have asked him to show me a single file in
>>Win98SELite which did not come from MS, but he prefers to
>>argue in ignorance and refuses to even look at the program.
>>After all, it's a figment of our imagination.
>>
>>
> Well, to be fair, I rather suspect 98lite.exe is not M$ (-:

Yes, but that file is NOT in the OS! It's the customizer! It's
like saying that if the BIOS is not made by MS, it's not a
Windows machine!
(I should have said "in a finished Win98SELite install".)

--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[MEB]

Re: problems apparently with rundll32 when loading drivers in 98lite with UBCD

In news:an7$LCUB+3qIFw6+@soft255.demon.co.uk ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) contemplated and posted:

| In message <##sF8ZIAJHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
| <meb@not.here.invalid> writes
|>I see you installed something new from soporific, what was it?
|
| It was the full UBCD, but with the option - which it offers - to
| install over an existing system, keeping settings etcetera. I should
| have known better - this sort of thing is always better done as a
| full clean install. And I don't _really_ hold soporific responsible.

Well you shouldn't, no one knows whether these things will work perfectly
on everyone's system.

BTW: the UBCD of this discussion is soporific's *Unattended Boot &
Installation CD* ** NOT** the Universal Boot CD, for testing and diagnostic
purposes.

IF I'm reading this and your other posts correctly: Your issue stems from a
*MIXED modified system*. 98Lite removes system files AND modifies registry
settings during its modification process, so does soporific's UBCD. Many of
these MODs require some of the IE5/6 files [and depending upon the MOD, IE
updates] be installed within the system.

|>
|> I have outlined what would likely be the normal procedure in this
|>situation and the procedure when installing an un-official
|>compilation. Perhaps it might be beneficial for you to outline what
|>you have already done. You
|
| The installation proceeded quite far, but did get to a point (after
| one - I think - reboot) where it went into a loop, repeatedly
| encountering some error message.

The problem likely arose with the massive device changes being made within
the system, During the process USB [a universal driver is installed] and
other devices [PCI, firewire, etc.] were being changed. Depending upon where
in the process it failed, the registry may not have been fully updated
[which appears to be the issue].

Potenially, you could physically remove all added adapters from the system,
which *might* allow booting to Safe Mode. From there, you may be able to
remove *all* adapters shown in Device Manager. This DID work for me once
upon a time during my testing of some of the older MODs.

As an additional FYI for potential MOD users: you will find these work
better if you uninstall/physically remove USB/Firewire devices [not the
software] *prior* to attempting the installation.

|
|>should also note that unless you follow the procedures and
|>updates/patch process being used in unofficial patchings by the
|>creator of the patch, your results will likely NOT reflect the same
|>success.
|> That type of process requires one be prepared to re-install an image
|>should the testing fail or corrupt one's system.
| []
| Indeed. I managed to restore my system to how I had it by use of an
| ERD saveset from before I started with UBCD this is not a full
| image, but is a Microsoft utility. Unfortunately, as I've only
| discovered subsequently, it (a) didn't bring back sound - which I
| didn't notice immediately - and (b) has damaged _some_thing involved
| with the loading of drivers in general. (I've now found it with
| _three_ things - the sound, the microscope [webcam], and a new USB
| stick.)
|
| To keep some people happy I will say: I am using 98lite any advice
| given may not be applicable to those who are not.

Again, the UBCD installs the universal driver package [among other device
changes]. That universal driver package DOES require the removal of ALL USB
and Firewire devices prior to its installation.

Wish I could be more help, but since you are stuck in a loop of failed
software installation, in a *dual modified* system, much of what I would
potentially suggest will not be viable.

*IF* Safe Mode can be entered after removing the devices, run through the
file re-registration processes outlined within the Microsoft KBs PRIOR to
re-installing the removed adapters..

Looks something like this from the Run or Prompt:

regsvr32 {switches} {some DLL}

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