Maurice addresses Windows operating systems problems on the Internet
These matters were originally addressed via postings which displayed the actual errors occurring via the use of a debug style program called Dependancy Walker.
Copy of materials posted upon Microsoft News group obtained by using Dependancy Walker [recommended program to trace any program errors or debug].
As you will note below, Maurice is doing other things in this world beyond the Peoples' cases. [See: Reference Main page for other Windows materials; and materials used for briefings]
This concerns certain activities occurring now (2005-2006) regarding problems associated with all Windows OS versions before XP, after installation of IE 6.0.
The below is self-explanatory, however, the attempt is to help literally millions of people across the world using Windows for an operating system.
Not as anti-Microsoft, but as an attempt to inform Microsoft of the potential legal problems it may be facing, via it's own newsgroups/forums.
Most people forget or do not realize that without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, (wish I could remember the other names, they deserve our utmost respect, like the Sun people) and several other pioneers of the computer and Internet, none of what is now taken for granted on the 'NET' would be occurring. Why?
Because it probably would not exist.
From this opening of ARPA (federal network) to the public,
comes all of the "networking" now taken for granted, such as:
cell phones, IPODS, WIFI, and all these other "wonders of the
world".
The discussions concerning the IE6 / XP files installation extended for several weeks and in several different threads. See the discussion group for more.
Maurice presented prior rulings against Microsoft as a necessary basis for Microsoft to "fix" the effected operating systems. One of those rulings is Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) - Civil Action No. 98-1233 (TPJ) the anti-trust / Sherman Act case against Microsoft; which discusses IE, java, and other violations of Law by Microsoft.
___ From public.Win98.gen_discussion on Microsoft News Service ____
[several discussions over lapped during the time period around 01/14/2006 two of which were:
installation, java problems, and still unable to download from v4update and
Win98SE constant problems-ole32,shell32,other]
>MEB - BTW: I did that supposed fix, no help.. It's apparently
a java action on the site, which would help to explain the
problem with having to completely shut down the internet service
to reset..
Also, a little addition for those who "watch" to the search bar
statement:
add- or that I did not know about and wasn't concerned.
(end)
We begin with the new segment:
Gosh I was reluctant do this type of activity again, however, to
end all the discussions concerning whether or not 98, Millennium,
2000, and possibly other OSs have been compromised, I did.
Moreover, this potentially could help several hundred thousand
people, or is it more likely millions, across the world.
XP Versions via IE 6.0 setup....
ADVAUTH.cab
jsproxy.dll 6.00.2800.1106
licmgr10.dll 6.00.2800.1106
pngfilt.dll 6.00.2800.1106
IE_1 cab
inetcpl.cpl 6.00.2800.1106
inetcplc.dll 6.00.2800.1106
mshtml.dll 6.00.2800.1106
mshtml.tbl 6.00.2800.1106
IE_2 cab
mshtmled.dll 6.00.2800.1106
shdoclc.dll 6.00.2800.1106
shdocvw.dll 6.00.2800.1106
urlmon.dll 6.00.2800.1106
wininet.dll ? a split file
IE_3 cab
actprxy.dll 6.00.2800.1106
bindfile.dll 6.00.2800.1106
ledkcs32.dll 6.00.2800.1106
lernonce.dll 6.00.2800.1106
imgutil.dll 6.00.2800.1106
mlang.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msrating.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msxml.dll 8.0.6730.0 ??
msxmla.dll 8.0.6730.0 ??
msxmlr.dll 8.0.6730.0 ??
occache.dll 6.00.2800.1106
shlwapi.dll 6.00.2800.1106
IE_4 cab
browseui.dll 6.00.2800.1106
IE_5 cab
dxtmsft.dll 6.00.2800.1106
dxtrans.dll 6.00.2800.1106
iepeers.dll 6.00.2800.1106
iesetup.dll 6.00.2800.1106
inseng.dll 6.00.2800.1106
mshta.exe 6.00.2800.1106
mahtmler.dll 6.00.2800.1106
mstime.dll 6.00.2800.1106
shfolder.dll 6.00.2800.1106
IE_6 cab
digest.dll 6.00.2800.1106
hmmapi.dll 6.00.2800.1106
IE_extra cab
ieident.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msident.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msidntld.dll 6.00.2800.1106
ieexisnt cab
expinst.exe 6.00.2800.1106
mailnews cab
inetcomm.dll 6.00.2800.1106
inetres.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msimn.exe 6.00.2800.1106
msoe.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msoeres.dll 6.00.2800.1106
oeimport.dll 6.00.2800.1106
oemig50.dll 6.00.2800.1106
oemiglib.dll 6.00.2800.1106
setup50.exe 6.00.2800.1106
mobile95 cab
cdview.dll 6.00.2800.1106
webcheck.dll 6.00.2800.1106
setup95 cab
advpack.dll 6.00.2800.1106
ie4.dll 6.00.2800.1106
iebatch.exe 6.00.2800.1106
iemigrat.dll 6.00.2436.0001
migrate.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msvcrt.dll 6.00.8397.0
setupwbv.dll 6.00.2800.1106
url.dll 6.00.2800.1106
wab cab
acctres.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msoeacct.dll 6.00.2800.1106
msoert2.dll 6.00.2800.1106
setup50.exe 6.00.2800.1106
wab.exe 6.00.2800.1106
wab32.dll 6.00.2800.1106
wab32res.dll 6.00.2800.1106
wabfind.dll 6.00.2800.1106
wabimp.dll 6.00.2800.1106
wabmig.exe 6.00.2800.1106
Of course, since the cabs are crosslinked, certain files can not be directly checked. (they could, but I won't take that time.) I may also have missed some files (not yet necessary to proof this activity).
I did not check the other files for system/other, looking only for XP or possible XP file versions (except as otherwise noted), however, the numbering in some files appears to be Millennium or other operating systems, in addition to those which are or were weighed as Win98/95.
Nor did I check the present files on my system. That, at present, is unimportant.
Additionally, I did not bother to check for all errors being produced, that also is unnecessary at this point in time, service is still being supplied to these OSs.
Though all these files may not have been installed, most have been on any system which installed IE 6.
I think we can see from the base installation of IE 6.0, that any system other than XP has been, or might be, seriously compromised at it's base system level. Which happens to be the exact reason for the previous extensions, and the Second Edition upgrade.
Win98 undeniably has been (anyone still using 95?, it's toast), Millennium probably has been, NT may have been, 2000 may have been, etc.
So, if I had to guess, there are probably several dozen attorneys waiting patiently for Microsoft to officially declare that the support is over for these systems, That would violate the prior court orders and be undeniable contempt of court. Moreover, this would be reasonable cause for further action. Lots of money for the attorneys again, and another big loss for Microsoft.[UPDATE 2007 - of course this never happened, complacency and deals with the Federal government allowed Microsoft to continue down its course]
So for Microsoft, it's apparent best option, is to do a Third Edition upgrade for 98 with certified and validated files, and ensure that all installations necessary to correct any bugs, flaws, or breaches, are verified and certified to 98, and the other operating systems it has compromised. That being, during (Microsoft is not going to like this) the period which it must supply to ensure the bugs, flaws, and breaches can be repaired. A reasonable time period? Probably what the court originally set out in it's ruling.
Why would I say that?
Because it happens to be the cheapest route for Microsoft. However, as this is the second time it has broken this system, it would appear necessary that it do so absolutely free. {Send in your address with verifiable system purchase {I happen to have two verified in their data base), they send you the free cdrom, no charge.]
Again, IE 6 was, what, 2002, under Microsoft recommendation. and generally installed via it's own upgrade site?
It does not matter that is was optional, it was presented as a recommended safe installation.
{Sorry Bill, just trying to be helpful, and save the business another class action Lawsuit.)
"MEB" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in message news:OAEXwp1FGHA.376@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Again, thanks for the time, so nice to discuss these
issues with someone
> who provides clues, or takes interest in working through
them. Moreover,
> perhaps others may find this helpful..
>
> As for the first recommendation, I will check this.
>
> Moving to the setup information: I probably have one of the
cleanest
> systems/maintained systems - all temps, tifs, gifs, and
other garbage
> collected is automatically removed, and zeroed,, setup the
zone settings
> years ago.. firewall has been disabled upon various tries,
no help... the
> other is always done (cookies off, though accepted from
trusted sites;
> time etc always; toolbars - do you think
> I would actually let ANYONE track me (you, of course, know
that they ALL
> do); av - turned off or on (via startup config options, i.e.
completely
> non-existent upon restart) - no difference been tried;,, all
other
> verified/set properly (even tested for reversed check -
un-check), which provided
> no help..
> In short (though this is now long) as the MS update service
has been used
> from it's inception, and worked successfully, these issues
would appear to
> be moot.
>
> Which brings us to the XP versions in IE: actually they will
always cause
> problems. Any
> time there are calls to non-existent functions or dlls one
must always
> suspect and expect potential problems.
> All code for certification is SUPPOSED to pass this MINIMUM
requirement
> for MS certification, e.g. no errors - all coding verified
to the OSs for
> which it is intended, e.g. these files are verified and
certified to XP
> but un-certifiable to 98, hence, not installable.
> Microsoft has apparently broken it's own requirements and
caused these
> failures, directly or indirectly. Not, at present, a legal
matter, but
> definitely a problem that should be addressed and corrected.
It would be
> ludicrous to presume one could "break" a system and not fix
it, if one was
> both the system creator and it's recommending and/or
supplying updater..
> As there are calls to non-existent dlls AND functions, and
these files
> are used by other programs, there will ALWAYS be errors.
Moreover, each
> compounds the other, error stacked upon error, until, of
course the final
> failure, lockup, device failure, or (I think you get the
picture) ...
> Per the repair of IE, that was tried (is that now months
ago?) IE was
> removed with all updates, then reinstalled
> as a recommended fix per another MVP in the 12th month, of
course no fix..
> just reinstalled the error prone files..
>
> "mae" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in message
> news:%23piWGTyFGHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > If this was only after the WU,
> > I would try the kbid=909889 fix.
> > For better assistance with update problems
> > try the troubleshooter at WU, or post to
> >
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsupdate
> >
> > Some general things to try before WU.
> > Empty all your history, tif's.
> > Under internet properties trusted zone:
> > Set to default.
> > Add http://*.microsoft.com to trusted zone.
> > Uncheck "require server verification".
> > Uncheck enable third party applications in advanced
settings.
> > Verify correct date, time, zone, a language set in
IE.
> > Disable toolbars, popup-script blockers, enhancers,
etc.
> > Turn off firewall unless it can be configured
appropriately.
> > Temporarily turn off antivirus.
> > Connect with Windows Update on the start menu using
IE.
> > If using AOL connect and then open IE.
> >
> > None of the XP versions in IE should cause any
problem.
> > Generally, I don't see MVP's recommending
reinstalling
> > routinely, only under specific circumstances.
> > And a repair of IE does correct many windows
problems.
> >
> > Well, goodluck.
> > --
> > mae
> >
> > "MEB" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in message
> > news:O76NnYoFGHA.312@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > | mae I appreciate your input and your response, thanks
again for the
> time.
> > | However, through my own error, I directed you to the
wrong problem
> > files..
> > |
> > | Just for an update as I continue to search for the
ACTUAL problems
> > | associated with these Microsoft updates:
> > |
> > | Relooking at these debug (Dependency Walker) files, I
noted I missed
> the
> > | actual caller of the errors.. (for give me please,
I'm getting to old
> for
> > | this time consuming tracing, said I'd never do this
again after
several
> > | years of testing Microsoft buggy alpha and beta code
for free)
> > |
> > | The errors are apparently called from shlwapi.dll
which is installed
> via
> > IE
> > | 6.0 (IE 6.1). The version installed (IE 6.0) is from
XP e.g.
> > 6.00.2800.1106.
> > | (from the ie_3 cab) Somehow, I now have this
installed- 6.00.2800.1740
> > | (xpsp2.050831-1533), but that does not matter, both
make the same
> illegal
> > | calls. [The file check was done from a saved \Windows
Update Setup
> > | Files(IE6.0) folder save.]
> > | Hence, these calls would be supported in XP but not
other Windows
plain
> > (non
> > | XP) versions, or more exactly, as we are discussing
Win98SE,
completely
> > | unsupported...
> > | There appear to be several other XP files, a couple
millennium as
well
> in
> > | IE 6X, which, if I took the time, I'm sure would also
show calls to,
> > illegal
> > | functions in Win98...
> > | So to put it plainly and bluntly, the errors being
caused by many of
> > these
> > | updates apparently comes from the base install of IE
6.0 and
> incompatible
> > | files for Win98 (and all versions not having
apphelp.dll and
> userenv.dll,
> > | these will all have errors)...
> > |
> > | So, if you would, advise the MVPs to stop telling all
these people to
> > | re-install, uninstall, or reformat to correct these
errors, and
perhaps
> > look
> > | for more viable, supported answers, as you did.
> > |
> > | While I have your attention though, if you don't
mind, I still have
> that
> > | problem of inability to download from update site
from either the
> catalog
> > or
> > | the normal.
> > | As originally stated, I went through most, if not all
the fixes I
could
> > | find, yet there is still a problem.
> > | It seems that once the activeX (or is it java) runs
after clicking
> > download
> > | or install, nothing will occur. The button presses,
activity through
the
> > | firewall, but no success (did not have this problem
until, apparently,
> the
> > | last update,
> > | per original post).
> > | Moreover, after this failure, I must shut down the
Internet access
> > | completely to shut down whatever script/code was run.
If I just shut
> down
> > | IE, and restart, it will not allow the button
presses.
> > | So did I miss some fix somewhere? Or which particular
update/upgrade
> > would
> > | fix this problem. Only file I supposedly need is the
90???? file,
which
> I
> > | can NOT get from corporate or technet... or should I
try through IT..
> ;=}
> > |
> > | "mae" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
message
> > | news:O458LRQFGHA.2708@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > -snip-
> > | > this is a problem related to a recent security
update:
> > | >
http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?kbid=909889
> > | > for the above if applicable, change to
REGEDIT4
> >
> > | > "MEB" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in message
> > | >
news:%23VDI0uIFGHA.532@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > | > | "mae" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
message
> > | > |
news:OIHYFw6EGHA.2704@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > | > | > "MEB" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
message
> > | > | >
news:%236hB$O2EGHA.2648@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >
> > | > | > | "PCR" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
message
> > | > | > |
news:eJiXPlxEGHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >
> > | > | > | "MEB" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
message
> > | > | > |
news:O4Gl$jiEGHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...