Forum - DLL-files.com

Something new - invalid page fault in kernel32 while in 'Safe' mode.

One window open, cutting and pasting text into notepad.

Dr.Watson was loaded at the time. It's log:

"The application overflowed its temporary memory area.

Module Name: kernel32.dll
Description: Win32 Kernel core component
Version: 4.10.2226
Product: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Operating System
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

Application Name: Explorer.exe
Description: Windows Explorer
Version: 4.72.3110.1
Product: Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation"

Another log entry from normal operation that refer to the page fault
in <unknown>:

"The application or one of its DLLs used an uninitialized function
pointer variable or attempted to use a DLL which has already been
freed.

Module Name: <unknown>

Application Name: Explorer.exe
Description: Windows Explorer
Version: 4.72.3110.1
Product: Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation"

Again, any bright ideas?

In both cases, Windows was handling virtual memory.
Makes no difference with fixed settings.

RL

legg wrote:
> Something new - invalid page fault in kernel32 while in 'Safe' mode.
>
> One window open, cutting and pasting text into notepad.
>
> Dr.Watson was loaded at the time. It's log:
>
> "The application overflowed its temporary memory area.
>
> Module Name: kernel32.dll
> Description: Win32 Kernel core component
> Version: 4.10.2226
> Product: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Operating System
> Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation
>
> Application Name: Explorer.exe
> Description: Windows Explorer
> Version: 4.72.3110.1
> Product: Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System
> Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation"
>
> Another log entry from normal operation that refer to the page fault
> in <unknown>:
>
> "The application or one of its DLLs used an uninitialized function
> pointer variable or attempted to use a DLL which has already been
> freed.
>
> Module Name: <unknown>
>
> Application Name: Explorer.exe
> Description: Windows Explorer
> Version: 4.72.3110.1
> Product: Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System
> Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation"
>
> Again, any bright ideas?

Well, I can't say I've never ever seen such errors. But do yours happen
all the time? What is your OS? Mine is Win98SE. Our versions of Explorer
are the same. What is the reason you have a greater version of
kernel32.dll than mine?

Here is what mine looks like in Win98SE...

kernel32.dll
Desc: Win32 Kernel core component
Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
Size: 471,040 bytes
Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
Ver: 4.10.2222

If it comes to reinstalling it, that is old enough never to have been
Windows Updated. Therefore, it will be fine right out of the .cabs.

Here is how to do it in DOS...

(a) DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
Will say whether you have it, & where it is. Should be in
"C:\Windows\System", like this...

C:\>DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
kernel32.dll 471,040 04-23-99 10:22p kernel32.dll
1 file(s) 471,040 bytes

(b)
"EXTRACT /a /L C:\Windows\System <LOC>\Base4.cab kernel32.dll"

That is all one line between the quotes with 5 spaces, but do not enter
the quotes. <LOC> is the location of "Base4.cab". This may be discovered
as
follows...

C:\>DIR /s /a C:\base4.cab
Directory of C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS
BASE4 CAB 168,960 04-23-99 10:22p BASE4.CAB
1 file(s) 168,960 bytes

If you have the .cabs on a CD, you will use your CD-ROM drive letter,
instead of "C:\" in that DIR command. And probably it will find it to be
located in... "X:\Win98"... where "X:\" is the CD-ROM letter.

So, in my case, the command is...

"EXTRACT /a /L C:\Windows\System C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS\Base4.cab
kernel32.dll"

All one line: no quotes: there are 5 spaces in the line, including one
after "Base4.cab".

EXTRACT will offer to overwrite, if one is already there. Therefore,
save it first, if you think you'll want it back...

REN C:\Windows\System\kernel32.dll Kernel32.dl_

> In both cases, Windows was handling virtual memory.
> Makes no difference with fixed settings.

Sounds like it isn't a virtual memory problem. If you are uncomfortable
in DOS, try SFC first...

(1) "START button, Run, SFC"
(2) Bolt "Extract one file from installation disk"
(3) Enter "kernel32.dll" in the "Specify..." box.
(4) Click "Start". It should offer to "Save file in
C:\WINDOWS\System". If not, make it so.
(5) In "Restore from", if not already pre-filled, browse to
(a) Installation CD (likely the Win98 folder) or
(b) The folder that has your cabs on the hard drive, likely
"C:\WINDOWS\options\cabs\".
(5) Click "OK"

If it discovers the file already exists, it will offer to back it up.
May as well do so. If it discovers the file is "in use", it will request
that you reboot to complete the install.

> RL

--
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

>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:54:49 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>Well, I can't say I've never ever seen such errors. But do yours happen
>all the time?

These problems began to occur in April, after some hardware-related
crashes had been dealt with. They occur frequently, on user input.
Simply clicking the start icon has been known to trigger restart of
explorer.exe.

>What is your OS? Mine is Win98SE. Our versions of Explorer
>are the same. What is the reason you have a greater version of
>kernel32.dll than mine?
>
>Here is what mine looks like in Win98SE...
>
>kernel32.dll
>Desc: Win32 Kernel core component
>Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>Size: 471,040 bytes
>Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
>Ver: 4.10.2222
>

OS is W98 2Ed with updates per MS web updates - KB891711.EXE and
KB918547.EXE (the last one for W98) load on boot.

The altered kernel32.dll (File size 478K, dated April 10,'06)
originates in an unofficial fix from April 2006, installed in early
2007 along with an unofficial shell32.dll update. This was in order to
avoid problems experienced in large file and folder transfers that MS
had always refused to deal with in the W98 versions. The fixes behaved
as advertised and gave no other problems in the intervening period.

>If it comes to reinstalling it, that is old enough never to have been
>Windows Updated. Therefore, it will be fine right out of the .cabs.
>
>Here is how to do it in DOS...
>
>(a) DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
>Will say whether you have it, & where it is. Should be in
>"C:\Windows\System", like this...
>
>C:\>DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
>Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>kernel32.dll 471,040 04-23-99 10:22p kernel32.dll
> 1 file(s) 471,040 bytes
>
I have the original cab files on the hard drive and the installation
discs, but am actually still in the process of reverting to a back-up
from before the period of misbehavior.(now 6 months old, as the
current issue arose at the time when a quarterly HDD rotation would
have normally been performed).

>Sounds like it isn't a virtual memory problem. If you are uncomfortable
>in DOS, try SFC first...
>
The use of SFC proved problematic, due to a one-hour time-stamp shift
in an unmanageably large number of files. I've re-installed a number
of other suspects, including explorer.exe, in safe mode, running the
substitute winfile executable, without noticeable improvement.

I would have thought that the error - finally showing itself IN 'safe'
mode - should have cut down on the likely candidate sources for the
error.

It was sort of suprising to see a Watson log file generated - I don't
clearly recall invoking the program manually, and it shouldn't have
loaded on boot, in this mode. I guess I must have.

One of the things that did show up in a manual file comparison, was
the number of dlls that were affected by the supposedly benign
installation of some old Corel SW (for use in a publishing
assignment). I suppose that some of these changes could have been
unexpectedly retrograde.

RL

legg wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:54:49 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, I can't say I've never ever seen such errors. But do yours
>>happen all the time?
>
> These problems began to occur in April, after some hardware-related
> crashes had been dealt with. They occur frequently, on user input.
> Simply clicking the start icon has been known to trigger restart of
> explorer.exe.

What were the hardware crashes about? It could be something happened
then -- maybe a driver change -- that interfered with that "updated"
kernel32.dll of yours or with something else that got updated at the
same time.

>>What is your OS? Mine is Win98SE. Our versions of Explorer
>>are the same. What is the reason you have a greater version of
>>kernel32.dll than mine?
>>
>>Here is what mine looks like in Win98SE...
>>
>>kernel32.dll
>>Desc: Win32 Kernel core component
>>Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>>Size: 471,040 bytes
>>Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
>>Ver: 4.10.2222
>>
>
> OS is W98 2Ed with updates per MS web updates - KB891711.EXE and
> KB918547.EXE (the last one for W98) load on boot.

I've got those two also in my DrWatson Diagnosis window. I wouldn't
suspect them. Does anything else beside those show up in that window?

> The altered kernel32.dll (File size 478K, dated April 10,'06)
> originates in an unofficial fix from April 2006, installed in early
> 2007 along with an unofficial shell32.dll update. This was in order to
> avoid problems experienced in large file and folder transfers that MS
> had always refused to deal with in the W98 versions. The fixes behaved
> as advertised and gave no other problems in the intervening period.

That seems to be a long time. I actually tried those, but had to
uninstall them in DOS because I couldn't boot. Others say they work
fine.

I thought it might be something like that that accounted for your
different kernel32.dll version. I don't know whether it is wise to just
undo the kernel32.dll file-- was that separate & distinct from the rest
of it? I don't recall which part of the stuff from that site caused my
inability to boot. I seem to recall none of it fixed my trouble with
"large file and folder transfers". Was yours fixed?

It could be worthwhile reverting kernel32.dll very temporarily just to
see whether the problem disappears. Was was it that just that file was
supposed to cure? If it had to do with hard drive size -- & you've got a
hard drive that requires it which I think is one >137 GB -- then for
sure don't try it, though.

>>If it comes to reinstalling it, that is old enough never to have been
>>Windows Updated. Therefore, it will be fine right out of the .cabs.
>>
>>Here is how to do it in DOS...
>>
>>(a) DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
>>Will say whether you have it, & where it is. Should be in
>>"C:\Windows\System", like this...
>>
>>C:\>DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
>>Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>>kernel32.dll 471,040 04-23-99 10:22p kernel32.dll
>> 1 file(s) 471,040 bytes
>>
> I have the original cab files on the hard drive and the installation
> discs, but am actually still in the process of reverting to a back-up
> from before the period of misbehavior.(now 6 months old, as the
> current issue arose at the time when a quarterly HDD rotation would
> have normally been performed).

That might be the best path for you-- to revert to a functioning backup.
Diagnosing the problem might be difficult because you have a hybrid
system.

>>Sounds like it isn't a virtual memory problem. If you are
>>uncomfortable in DOS, try SFC first...
>>
> The use of SFC proved problematic, due to a one-hour time-stamp shift
> in an unmanageably large number of files. I've re-installed a number
> of other suspects, including explorer.exe, in safe mode, running the
> substitute winfile executable, without noticeable improvement.

That didn't hurt, but your version of Explorer.exe was the same as mine.
I suppose -- in that circumstance you describe -- you shouldn't use SFC
to "scan for altered files" & replace them, until you've primed it again
by accepting all changes once you are sure you want them. But you may
use it to temporarily revert that single kernel32.dll-- PROVIDED it
hasn't given you an indespensible capability!

> I would have thought that the error - finally showing itself IN 'safe'
> mode - should have cut down on the likely candidate sources for the
> error.

Explorer.exe & kernel32.dll both run in Safe Mode as well as Normal
Mode. So, Safe Mode couldn't rule those two out.

> It was sort of suprising to see a Watson log file generated - I don't
> clearly recall invoking the program manually, and it shouldn't have
> loaded on boot, in this mode. I guess I must have.

I think you must have. Startup Programs won't run on their own going to
Safe Mode. Normally, DrWatson would run from C:\WINDOWS\Start
Menu\Programs, which shouldn't happen on its own in Safe Mode.

> One of the things that did show up in a manual file comparison, was
> the number of dlls that were affected by the supposedly benign
> installation of some old Corel SW (for use in a publishing
> assignment). I suppose that some of these changes could have been
> unexpectedly retrograde.

Did you install it at about the time the problems first occurred?

> RL

--
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

On 07/11/2009 04:32 PM, PCR wrote:
> legg wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:54:49 -0400, "PCR"<pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
>>> Well, I can't say I've never ever seen such errors. But do yours
>>> happen all the time?
>> These problems began to occur in April, after some hardware-related
>> crashes had been dealt with. They occur frequently, on user input.
>> Simply clicking the start icon has been known to trigger restart of
>> explorer.exe.
>
> What were the hardware crashes about? It could be something happened
> then -- maybe a driver change -- that interfered with that "updated"
> kernel32.dll of yours or with something else that got updated at the
> same time.
>
>>> What is your OS? Mine is Win98SE. Our versions of Explorer
>>> are the same. What is the reason you have a greater version of
>>> kernel32.dll than mine?
>>>
>>> Here is what mine looks like in Win98SE...
>>>
>>> kernel32.dll
>>> Desc: Win32 Kernel core component
>>> Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>>> Size: 471,040 bytes
>>> Mod: Friday, April 23, 1999 10:22:00 PM
>>> Ver: 4.10.2222
>>>
>> OS is W98 2Ed with updates per MS web updates - KB891711.EXE and
>> KB918547.EXE (the last one for W98) load on boot.
>
> I've got those two also in my DrWatson Diagnosis window. I wouldn't
> suspect them. Does anything else beside those show up in that window?
>
>> The altered kernel32.dll (File size 478K, dated April 10,'06)
>> originates in an unofficial fix from April 2006, installed in early
>> 2007 along with an unofficial shell32.dll update. This was in order to
>> avoid problems experienced in large file and folder transfers that MS
>> had always refused to deal with in the W98 versions. The fixes behaved
>> as advertised and gave no other problems in the intervening period.
>
> That seems to be a long time. I actually tried those, but had to
> uninstall them in DOS because I couldn't boot. Others say they work
> fine.
>
> I thought it might be something like that that accounted for your
> different kernel32.dll version. I don't know whether it is wise to just
> undo the kernel32.dll file-- was that separate& distinct from the rest
> of it? I don't recall which part of the stuff from that site caused my
> inability to boot. I seem to recall none of it fixed my trouble with
> "large file and folder transfers". Was yours fixed?
>
> It could be worthwhile reverting kernel32.dll very temporarily just to
> see whether the problem disappears. Was was it that just that file was
> supposed to cure? If it had to do with hard drive size --& you've got a
> hard drive that requires it which I think is one>137 GB -- then for
> sure don't try it, though.
>
>>> If it comes to reinstalling it, that is old enough never to have been
>>> Windows Updated. Therefore, it will be fine right out of the .cabs.
>>>
>>> Here is how to do it in DOS...
>>>
>>> (a) DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
>>> Will say whether you have it,& where it is. Should be in
>>> "C:\Windows\System", like this...
>>>
>>> C:\>DIR /s /a C:\kernel32.dll
>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>>> kernel32.dll 471,040 04-23-99 10:22p kernel32.dll
>>> 1 file(s) 471,040 bytes
>>>
>> I have the original cab files on the hard drive and the installation
>> discs, but am actually still in the process of reverting to a back-up
>> from before the period of misbehavior.(now 6 months old, as the
>> current issue arose at the time when a quarterly HDD rotation would
>> have normally been performed).
>
> That might be the best path for you-- to revert to a functioning backup.
> Diagnosing the problem might be difficult because you have a hybrid
> system.
>
>>> Sounds like it isn't a virtual memory problem. If you are
>>> uncomfortable in DOS, try SFC first...
>>>
>> The use of SFC proved problematic, due to a one-hour time-stamp shift
>> in an unmanageably large number of files. I've re-installed a number
>> of other suspects, including explorer.exe, in safe mode, running the
>> substitute winfile executable, without noticeable improvement.
>
> That didn't hurt, but your version of Explorer.exe was the same as mine.
> I suppose -- in that circumstance you describe -- you shouldn't use SFC
> to "scan for altered files"& replace them, until you've primed it again
> by accepting all changes once you are sure you want them. But you may
> use it to temporarily revert that single kernel32.dll-- PROVIDED it
> hasn't given you an indespensible capability!
>
>> I would have thought that the error - finally showing itself IN 'safe'
>> mode - should have cut down on the likely candidate sources for the
>> error.
>
> Explorer.exe& kernel32.dll both run in Safe Mode as well as Normal
> Mode. So, Safe Mode couldn't rule those two out.
>
>> It was sort of suprising to see a Watson log file generated - I don't
>> clearly recall invoking the program manually, and it shouldn't have
>> loaded on boot, in this mode. I guess I must have.
>
> I think you must have. Startup Programs won't run on their own going to
> Safe Mode. Normally, DrWatson would run from C:\WINDOWS\Start
> Menu\Programs, which shouldn't happen on its own in Safe Mode.
>
>> One of the things that did show up in a manual file comparison, was
>> the number of dlls that were affected by the supposedly benign
>> installation of some old Corel SW (for use in a publishing
>> assignment). I suppose that some of these changes could have been
>> unexpectedly retrograde.
>
> Did you install it at about the time the problems first occurred?
>
>> RL
>

Might want to check out the prior posts related to this which apparently
fixed the problem AT THAT TIME.. after which a backup/image was to be made.

05/15/2009 08:37 PM - 05/19/2009 01:08 PM
Re: Explorer invalid page fault in <unknown> and in Kernel32

It will save repeated suggestions and potential questions.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:32:45 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>>legg wrote:

>> The altered kernel32.dll (File size 478K, dated April 10,'06)
>> originates in an unofficial fix from April 2006, installed in early
>> 2007 along with an unofficial shell32.dll update. This was in order to
>> avoid problems experienced in large file and folder transfers that MS
>> had always refused to deal with in the W98 versions. The fixes behaved
>> as advertised and gave no other problems in the intervening period.
>
>That seems to be a long time. I actually tried those, but had to
>uninstall them in DOS because I couldn't boot. Others say they work
>fine.
>
>I thought it might be something like that that accounted for your
>different kernel32.dll version. I don't know whether it is wise to just
>undo the kernel32.dll file-- was that separate & distinct from the rest
>of it? I don't recall which part of the stuff from that site caused my
>inability to boot. I seem to recall none of it fixed my trouble with
>"large file and folder transfers". Was yours fixed?

Yes. Shell32.dll was intended to deal with other explorer.exe problems
that I'm not sure were identified clearly.

>
>It could be worthwhile reverting kernel32.dll very temporarily just to
>see whether the problem disappears. Was was it that just that file was
>supposed to cure? If it had to do with hard drive size -- & you've got a
>hard drive that requires it which I think is one >137 GB -- then for
>sure don't try it, though.

I have already temporarily reverted to original kernel32.dll and
shell32.dlls. Regular uninstall capability from the control panel was
included in the unofficial update.

The kernel32.dll change, completed first, was immediately demonstrated
to have no effect - a non-fatal error repeated almost immediately on
first reboot. I'm still waiting for a re-occurance of the non-fatal
error after reverting to old shell32.dll. (6hrs ~ fairly impressed,
but not yet considered conclusive). I think I saw a file search window
closed unexpectedly, since, but there was no error log and it could
have been simple user input sloppiness on my part.

If the errors continue to be suppressed, I'll try re-installing the
new kernel32.dll and shell32.dlls iteratively, to see if the restored
files allow apparently restored function to continue.

>> One of the things that did show up in a manual file comparison, was
>> the number of dlls that were affected by the supposedly benign
>> installation of some old Corel SW (for use in a publishing
>> assignment). I suppose that some of these changes could have been
>> unexpectedly retrograde.
>
>Did you install it at about the time the problems first occurred?

No, but it was the only recent SW addition. The problems followed the
hardware crashes.

RL

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:23:03 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>Might want to check out the prior posts related to this which apparently
>fixed the problem AT THAT TIME.. after which a backup/image was to be made.
>
>05/15/2009 08:37 PM - 05/19/2009 01:08 PM
>Re: Explorer invalid page fault in <unknown> and in Kernel32
>

I think the best that was achieved was to turn fatal errors into
non-fatal ones. As I recall, this was the result of
deleting/rebuilding the swap file.

Any ideas re this first instance of safe-mode explorer misbehaviour?
Any idea why shell32.exe might influence it?

RL

On 07/12/2009 11:20 AM, legg wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:23:03 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Might want to check out the prior posts related to this which apparently
>> fixed the problem AT THAT TIME.. after which a backup/image was to be made.
>>
>> 05/15/2009 08:37 PM - 05/19/2009 01:08 PM
>> Re: Explorer invalid page fault in<unknown> and in Kernel32
>>
>
> I think the best that was achieved was to turn fatal errors into
> non-fatal ones. As I recall, this was the result of
> deleting/rebuilding the swap file.
>
> Any ideas re this first instance of safe-mode explorer misbehaviour?
> Any idea why shell32.exe might influence it?
>
> RL
>

How about we start with the original prior post:
legg wrote:
> Recently I've been battling with Explorer invalid page faults in
>
> module <unknown> at 0096:xxxxxxxx
> module kernel32.dll at 0197:bff9dc19 (recently)
> 0197:bff7b9f5
>
> These can occur as often as every few minutes, sometimes in the very
> process of cleaning up after the last event. This behaviour is
> uncharacteristic, but follows a number of recent hardware-induced
> crashes that resulted in modest disc data and file errors. The
> hardware trouble is corrected.
>
> This is a W98 2Ed installation that has been used daily, without a
> reinstall, for more than nine years. Currently it resides as the most
> frequently used OS in a dual boot system with W2K SP4, in four
> year old hardware (....new power supply, floppy, video card and HDD in
> the mean-time).
>
> The unofficial kernel32.dll fix for large file transfer errors,
> and the unofficial SHELL32.DLL fix for explorer lock-up have both been
> installed for a number of years, and performed as advertised.
>
> Any suggestions on tracking this issue down. I've already re-installed
> explorer.exe from cab files.
>
> The error can occur simply opening and closing different windows, and
> or the 'find files' utility. It has also occurred in copy and paste
> file transfer operations between different open file windows, without
> failure of the actual file transfer.
>
> The symptom is less severe than some actual OS crash behaviour that
> preceded it - occurring under similar circumstances. The crashes
> seemed to stop occurring after I increased virtual memory 'minimum'
> setting from zero to a larger number. (Maximum virtual memory setting
> is unchanged at 750M - roughly twice the installed RAM).
>
> I've been avoiding file transfer in the W98 mode for real work by
> using W2K to manipulated files on the W98 HDD, over the last few days.
>
> Any suggestions from people still nursing a W98 system out there?
>
> RL

memory issues were queried:

> Yes, I've run RAM tests (MEMTEST'86)on boot, without errors.
>
> I'm also confident of connectors and sockets - checked during the root
> hardware cure to the innitial crashes. Hardware cure was PSU
> replacement (psu refurb was not effective). Symptoms of a HDD loose
> connector are, from experience, much more severe and less GUI
> application operator action-dependant.
>
> RL

recent or prior issues with hardware replacement and CMOS/BIOS checks
were verified..

suggestions related to cc_package, QFEcheck, and other were addressed

explorer was replaced by you from CAB on disk previously..

suggestions were placed to profile and diagnose using Dependency Walker
and other tools...

Google search suggestions were placed...

You addressed the Corel8 issue [the original errors apparently
encountered *prior* to hardware issues] and you apprized of manual
registry modifications. Norton WinDoctor had been previously used by you
to "correct" those apparent issues...
This was presented by you as having corrected those then existing
errors [at that time period]...
You also re-addressed your one hour files modified issue.

It was discovered you had a recent backup, which was suggested at
being used to replace the user and system DAT files. You proceeded to
replace the error producing registry files with those from the backup
which fixed the issue. You had an error in Safe Mode PRIOR to replacing
the DAT files, after which you did the replacement which corrected the
fault issues, though you complained of purported registry bloat.

Suggestion was placed to COMPARE the two versions of the *saved* error
including user and system DAT files with the replacements from the
backup to localize/diagnose the *actual issues* [with the problem registry].

You respond with:

> QFECHECK.EXE lists updates to W98 and to W98 2Ed. Only 51 system files
> claim to be updated from the last distribution at 4.10.2222A.
>
> Comparing registry back-up revs looks to be a hurculean exercise, and
> rather pointless if you don't know what to look for.
>
> No recurrences over many hours with multiple excel spreadsheets,
> explorer search windows, desktop-accessed windows, pdfs opening and
> closing, sectional images being copied into renamed jpg formats for
> filing into differing directories and the crankey non-ms web browser,
> all going about their business.
>
> Then.... a double reoccurence, with no files or windows open, when
> double-clicking the (equivalent of the) 'my computer' desktop icon.
> Both an explorer.exe page fault in <unknown> and the rarer Internet
> Explorer 'program will shut down' warning.
>
> As a process, is the latter; wmiexe.exe?
>
> Hell.
>
> RL
to which I responded:

> Okay, THIS particular issue should be something which can be dealt
with via some relatively simple registry entry reviews.
> *PLEASE* wait until some of the regulars can help, before trying
something on your own.
> Make sure they *agree* on any modifications *BEFORE* making any
modifications, and remember how to get back to this point should
something fail.

Apparently no one responded with the registry entry fixes to make the
desktop/My Computer behave properly.

------

** PRIOR to that discussion you placed another in this forum due to file
date and time changes/modifications after installing some program [which
I do not have archived]..

------

What we need at this point and time is WHAT have you done recently to
cause this error again???

Was it more manual registry modifications or registry clean-up,, or
WHAT????


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:04:55 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 07/12/2009 11:20 AM, legg wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:23:03 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Might want to check out the prior posts related to this which apparently
>>> fixed the problem AT THAT TIME.. after which a backup/image was to be made.
>>>
>>> 05/15/2009 08:37 PM - 05/19/2009 01:08 PM
>>> Re: Explorer invalid page fault in<unknown> and in Kernel32
>>>
>>
>> I think the best that was achieved was to turn fatal errors into
>> non-fatal ones. As I recall, this was the result of
>> deleting/rebuilding the swap file.
>>
>> Any ideas re this first instance of safe-mode explorer misbehaviour?
>> Any idea why shell32.exe might influence it?
>>
>> RL
>>
>
> How about we start with the original prior post:
<snip>
> It was discovered you had a recent backup, which was suggested at
>being used to replace the user and system DAT files. You proceeded to
>replace the error producing registry files with those from the backup
>which fixed the issue. You had an error in Safe Mode PRIOR to replacing
>the DAT files, after which you did the replacement which corrected the
>fault issues, though you complained of purported registry bloat.

You've lost me here.

DAT files?

A previous error in 'safe' mode?

Registry bloat?

> Suggestion was placed to COMPARE the two versions of the *saved* error
>including user and system DAT files with the replacements from the
>backup to localize/diagnose the *actual issues* [with the problem registry].
>
>You respond with:
>
> > QFECHECK.EXE lists updates to W98 and to W98 2Ed. Only 51 system files
> > claim to be updated from the last distribution at 4.10.2222A.
> >
> > Comparing registry back-up revs looks to be a hurculean exercise, and
> > rather pointless if you don't know what to look for.
> >
> > No recurrences over many hours with multiple excel spreadsheets,
> > explorer search windows, desktop-accessed windows, pdfs opening and
> > closing, sectional images being copied into renamed jpg formats for
> > filing into differing directories and the crankey non-ms web browser,
> > all going about their business.
> >
> > Then.... a double reoccurence, with no files or windows open, when
> > double-clicking the (equivalent of the) 'my computer' desktop icon.
> > Both an explorer.exe page fault in <unknown> and the rarer Internet
> > Explorer 'program will shut down' warning.
> >
> > As a process, is the latter; wmiexe.exe?
> >
> > Hell.
> >
> > RL
> to which I responded:
>
> > Okay, THIS particular issue should be something which can be dealt
>with via some relatively simple registry entry reviews.
> > *PLEASE* wait until some of the regulars can help, before trying
>something on your own.
> > Make sure they *agree* on any modifications *BEFORE* making any
>modifications, and remember how to get back to this point should
>something fail.
>
> Apparently no one responded with the registry entry fixes to make the
>desktop/My Computer behave properly.
>

Which is all she wrote.....

>------
>
>** PRIOR to that discussion you placed another in this forum due to file
>date and time changes/modifications after installing some program [which
>I do not have archived]..
>
This was an enquiry re operation of internat.exe. Although used by
multiple programs, it maintains an operating environment that refers
only to the first program that runs and calls for it after system
boot-up. This turns out to be normal. It's revision turns out to be
due to japanese or korean character display of some programmes per
jamondo.exe or komondo.exe, installed ages ago. In any event, this can
have no effect in 'safe' mode.
>
> What we need at this point and time is WHAT have you done recently to
>cause this error again???

At the point of 'that's all she wrote', the errors were still present
and no other changes were suggested or applied. One hour date-stamp
differences were considered as benign or irrelevant (though
unaccountably stupid, if so by design), so I ignore them.....

Rolling back the unofficial W98 updates was just a flier, with changes
to kernel32.dll having no effect. Shell32.dll was only rolled back for
consistency, and because it was easy to do. The effect is as reported.

There are about 24hrs of accumulated machine time, since the
shell32.dll roll-back, without errors. I'm going to continue for a
week before taking this, with a grain of salt, as a fix.

If confirmed by a week's absence of non-fatal errors, I'll see what
restoring kernel32.dll and , later, the shell32.dll produce. The
restored files should have the same functionality demonstrated before
the explorer crashing issues arose.

Interested to hear any speculation on this apparent shell32.dll
effect. Can such a file, damaged, exhibit partial functionality?

RL

legg wrote:
>>On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:32:45 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>>legg wrote:
>
>>> The altered kernel32.dll (File size 478K, dated April 10,'06)
>>> originates in an unofficial fix from April 2006, installed in early
>>> 2007 along with an unofficial shell32.dll update. This was in order
>>> to avoid problems experienced in large file and folder transfers
>>> that MS had always refused to deal with in the W98 versions. The
>>> fixes behaved as advertised and gave no other problems in the
>>> intervening period.
>>
>>That seems to be a long time. I actually tried those, but had to
>>uninstall them in DOS because I couldn't boot. Others say they work
>>fine.
>>
>>I thought it might be something like that that accounted for your
>>different kernel32.dll version. I don't know whether it is wise to
>>just undo the kernel32.dll file-- was that separate & distinct from
>>the rest of it? I don't recall which part of the stuff from that site
>>caused my inability to boot. I seem to recall none of it fixed my
>>trouble with "large file and folder transfers". Was yours fixed?
>
> Yes. Shell32.dll was intended to deal with other explorer.exe problems
> that I'm not sure were identified clearly.

I see. If you are unsure of what it fixed & it was separate & distinct
from the rest of it & reverting to the original Shell32.dll is a cure
for these recurring crashes-- need I say more? I was lucky I couldn't
even boot with one of those & had to revert immediately!

>>
>>It could be worthwhile reverting kernel32.dll very temporarily just to
>>see whether the problem disappears. Was was it that just that file was
>>supposed to cure? If it had to do with hard drive size -- & you've
>>got a hard drive that requires it which I think is one >137 GB --
>>then for sure don't try it, though.
>
> I have already temporarily reverted to original kernel32.dll and
> shell32.dlls. Regular uninstall capability from the control panel was
> included in the unofficial update.

That was good of them to provide that capability.

> The kernel32.dll change, completed first, was immediately demonstrated
> to have no effect - a non-fatal error repeated almost immediately on
> first reboot. I'm still waiting for a re-occurance of the non-fatal
> error after reverting to old shell32.dll. (6hrs ~ fairly impressed,
> but not yet considered conclusive).

This is good news.

> I think I saw a file search window
> closed unexpectedly, since, but there was no error log and it could
> have been simple user input sloppiness on my part.

Could be you inadvertently hit a keybord shortcut to close it.

> If the errors continue to be suppressed, I'll try re-installing the
> new kernel32.dll and shell32.dlls iteratively, to see if the restored
> files allow apparently restored function to continue.

As they have separate uninstall routines, I guess they are separate
enough to keep one & loose the other. Sounds like it's Shell32.dll
that's the actual culprit, but you have a good plan. Keep us informed.
My own SHELL32.DLL is...

SHELL32.DLL
Desc: Windows Shell Common Dll
Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
Size: 1,388,816 bytes
Mod: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:25:08 PM
Ver: 4.72.3812.600

That appears to be updated from the original...

Cabinet WIN98_41.CAB
04-23-1999 10:22:00p A--- 1,400,832 shell32.dll

I'm not sure what updated that file for me. I'm not finding it in my IE6
..cabs. Good thing that site allowed you to back it up!

>>> One of the things that did show up in a manual file comparison, was
>>> the number of dlls that were affected by the supposedly benign
>>> installation of some old Corel SW (for use in a publishing
>>> assignment). I suppose that some of these changes could have been
>>> unexpectedly retrograde.
>>
>>Did you install it at about the time the problems first occurred?
>
> No, but it was the only recent SW addition. The problems followed the
> hardware crashes.

It could be something about that crash upset the new SHELL32.DLL. Maybe
the Registry got mussed in some interfering way or something. I see MEB
has reminded me of the history of this problem-- but I can't really
recall all of that gargantuan thread! What was that site again that
provided those .dlls? I would want to keep the one that does the most
work, if possible. There may be some talk of it over there.

> RL

--
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

On 07/12/2009 07:20 PM, legg wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:04:55 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2009 11:20 AM, legg wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:23:03 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Might want to check out the prior posts related to this which apparently
>>>> fixed the problem AT THAT TIME.. after which a backup/image was to be made.
>>>>
>>>> 05/15/2009 08:37 PM - 05/19/2009 01:08 PM
>>>> Re: Explorer invalid page fault in<unknown> and in Kernel32
>>>>
>>> I think the best that was achieved was to turn fatal errors into
>>> non-fatal ones. As I recall, this was the result of
>>> deleting/rebuilding the swap file.
>>>
>>> Any ideas re this first instance of safe-mode explorer misbehaviour?
>>> Any idea why shell32.exe might influence it?
>>>
>>> RL
>>>
>> How about we start with the original prior post:
> <snip>
>> It was discovered you had a recent backup, which was suggested at
>> being used to replace the user and system DAT files. You proceeded to
>> replace the error producing registry files with those from the backup
>> which fixed the issue. You had an error in Safe Mode PRIOR to replacing
>> the DAT files, after which you did the replacement which corrected the
>> fault issues, though you complained of purported registry bloat.
>
> You've lost me here.
>
> DAT files?

When replacing the backed-up registry, either from the image or from
the hidden /Sysbckup, what you replace are the system.dat and user.dat
[which comprise the registry in 9X] files... you used one from January
as that was the one you claimed was before the issues developed.

>
> A previous error in 'safe' mode?

You posted a single instance...

>
> Registry bloat?

Short key elements from your own postings.

>
>> Suggestion was placed to COMPARE the two versions of the *saved* error
>> including user and system DAT files with the replacements from the
>> backup to localize/diagnose the *actual issues* [with the problem registry].
>>
>> You respond with:
>>
>>> QFECHECK.EXE lists updates to W98 and to W98 2Ed. Only 51 system files
>>> claim to be updated from the last distribution at 4.10.2222A.
>>>
>>> Comparing registry back-up revs looks to be a hurculean exercise, and
>>> rather pointless if you don't know what to look for.
>>>
>>> No recurrences over many hours with multiple excel spreadsheets,
>>> explorer search windows, desktop-accessed windows, pdfs opening and
>>> closing, sectional images being copied into renamed jpg formats for
>>> filing into differing directories and the crankey non-ms web browser,
>>> all going about their business.
>>>
>>> Then.... a double reoccurence, with no files or windows open, when
>>> double-clicking the (equivalent of the) 'my computer' desktop icon.
>>> Both an explorer.exe page fault in<unknown> and the rarer Internet
>>> Explorer 'program will shut down' warning.
>>>
>>> As a process, is the latter; wmiexe.exe?
>>>
>>> Hell.
>>>
>>> RL
>> to which I responded:
>>
>>> Okay, THIS particular issue should be something which can be dealt
>> with via some relatively simple registry entry reviews.
>>> *PLEASE* wait until some of the regulars can help, before trying
>> something on your own.
>>> Make sure they *agree* on any modifications *BEFORE* making any
>> modifications, and remember how to get back to this point should
>> something fail.
>>
>> Apparently no one responded with the registry entry fixes to make the
>> desktop/My Computer behave properly.
>>
>
> Which is all she wrote.....

At that point in time, per your own writings, there were *no other
errors* encountered UNLESS you click on the "equivalent of the" My
Computer on the Desktop.. so how about an explanation of why you wrote
"equivalent of".
And what you did after that, attempting to correct this issue on your
own, if anything...

>
>> ------
>>
>> ** PRIOR to that discussion you placed another in this forum due to file
>> date and time changes/modifications after installing some program [which
>> I do not have archived]..
>>
> This was an enquiry re operation of internat.exe. Although used by
> multiple programs, it maintains an operating environment that refers
> only to the first program that runs and calls for it after system
> boot-up. This turns out to be normal. It's revision turns out to be
> due to japanese or korean character display of some programmes per
> jamondo.exe or komondo.exe, installed ages ago. In any event, this can
> have no effect in 'safe' mode.

Not necessarily true... font changes or corrupted fonts, or other that
affects base system file usage can affect Safe Mode boot... Safe Mode is
not an unfailing recovery environment or there would never be the need
to re-install because you CAN NOT get to Safe Mode or Normal Mode
[regardless of method] and registry repairs are in-effective.

>> What we need at this point and time is WHAT have you done recently to
>> cause this error again???
>
> At the point of 'that's all she wrote', the errors were still present
> and no other changes were suggested or applied. One hour date-stamp
> differences were considered as benign or irrelevant (though
> unaccountably stupid, if so by design), so I ignore them.....
>
> Rolling back the unofficial W98 updates was just a flier, with changes
> to kernel32.dll having no effect. Shell32.dll was only rolled back for
> consistency, and because it was easy to do. The effect is as reported.
>
> There are about 24hrs of accumulated machine time, since the
> shell32.dll roll-back, without errors. I'm going to continue for a
> week before taking this, with a grain of salt, as a fix.
>
> If confirmed by a week's absence of non-fatal errors, I'll see what
> restoring kernel32.dll and , later, the shell32.dll produce. The
> restored files should have the same functionality demonstrated before
> the explorer crashing issues arose.
>
> Interested to hear any speculation on this apparent shell32.dll
> effect. Can such a file, damaged, exhibit partial functionality?
>
> RL

Let's tick off WHY after years of use you may now have to remove these
files and may still have *future* issues:

1. This is a 9 year old installation that has been put through distinct
issues in which the system has been radically modified.

2. You have had hardware issues which required you re-install files and
drivers into a previously fully updated and established system.

3. You installed Corel8 which installed system files and modified the
registry. The installation had immediate issues, and you re-installed
files [from CABs], manually modified the registry, and ran a "cleaner"
to correct other issues.

4. You installed modified kernel32 and shell32 files which REQUIRE a
certain level of system updates and files to run properly. These
functioned properly, apparently for a considerable time period before
the latest batch of issues. Remember WHEN you were able to install and
use those files.

5. The latest batch of issues appears to have occurred AFTER the
hardware issues were supposedly corrected [and after whatever
modifications you did and whatever the new drivers might have done].
ONE of those issues was a PSU... which can have distinct impact not only
on other hardware, but the system/files as well. Remember HOW the OS
deals with files...

6. We'll ignore other help discussions which might be related, that seem
to have occurred in this forum over the course of time.

6. One can reasonably question;
[since you are likely now running mismatched DLLs, COMM, VB, C, WS,
gdi, and other files from CAB replacements (rather than from the updates
that might apply), and from multiple hardware changes due to various
reasons (affecting VMM, VXD, and other system activities and files), and
the numerous registry modifications - both manual and otherwise], and
the potential of partially corrupted files residual from the hardware
issues]
WHY you haven't re-installed from an image/backup or re-installed from
scratch {the best option since you also changed hardware} and gotten rid
of most of those programs you likely never use anymore so you could
enjoy another nine years of use.

Your present 9 year old system went through a couple hundred updates
[many of which were NOT superseded nor are presently offered]...
You are nowhere near a pristine fully updated system now, nor are you
anywhere near a 9 year old system that has never been through the issues
yours has been through.

The old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" apparently flew out
the door several months ago. Now you can continue to try to apply
bandages and tourniquets, or consider the alternatives -like restoring a
backup or reinstall... unless, of course, you like being frustrated on a
semi-regular basis, and this forum is now your second lover <wink>...

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:42:29 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 07/12/2009 07:20 PM, legg wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:04:55 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>> How about we start with the original prior post:
>> <snip>
>>> It was discovered you had a recent backup, which was suggested at
>>> being used to replace the user and system DAT files. You proceeded to
>>> replace the error producing registry files with those from the backup
>>> which fixed the issue. You had an error in Safe Mode PRIOR to replacing
>>> the DAT files, after which you did the replacement which corrected the
>>> fault issues, though you complained of purported registry bloat.
>>
>> You've lost me here.
>>
>> DAT files?
>
> When replacing the backed-up registry, either from the image or from
>the hidden /Sysbckup, what you replace are the system.dat and user.dat
>[which comprise the registry in 9X] files... you used one from January
>as that was the one you claimed was before the issues developed.

Method of restoring registry was to 'import' the entire registry that
was 'exported' to a backup folder on a previous date. File extensions
are .reg for these 'backups'. This is my usual procedure, if a
non-bootable (to normal w98 operation) condition seems to have been
'achieved' during unsuccessful AV updates, or the like.

>
>>
>> A previous error in 'safe' mode?
>
> You posted a single instance...

I recall only the current instance from the 10th July, but more recent
attempts to invoke the problem in safe mode (follows) may put the lie
to my memory.

>
>>
>> Registry bloat?
>
> Short key elements from your own postings.

Don't recall this as an issue, save as an inhibition to untrained
examination or manipulation (per immediately below). After 8yrs+. a
bloated registry is a natural state for W98.
>
>>
>>> Suggestion was placed to COMPARE the two versions of the *saved* error
>>> including user and system DAT files with the replacements from the
>>> backup to localize/diagnose the *actual issues* [with the problem registry].
>>>
>>> You respond with:
>>>
>>>> QFECHECK.EXE lists updates to W98 and to W98 2Ed. Only 51 system files
>>>> claim to be updated from the last distribution at 4.10.2222A.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing registry back-up revs looks to be a hurculean exercise, and
>>>> rather pointless if you don't know what to look for.
>>>>
>>>> No recurrences over many hours with multiple excel spreadsheets,
>>>> explorer search windows, desktop-accessed windows, pdfs opening and
>>>> closing, sectional images being copied into renamed jpg formats for
>>>> filing into differing directories and the crankey non-ms web browser,
>>>> all going about their business.
>>>>
>>>> Then.... a double reoccurence, with no files or windows open, when
>>>> double-clicking the (equivalent of the) 'my computer' desktop icon.
>>>> Both an explorer.exe page fault in<unknown> and the rarer Internet
>>>> Explorer 'program will shut down' warning.
>>>>
>>>> As a process, is the latter; wmiexe.exe?
>>>>
>>>> Hell.
>>>>
>>>> RL
>>> to which I responded:
>>>
>>>> Okay, THIS particular issue should be something which can be dealt
>>> with via some relatively simple registry entry reviews.
>>>> *PLEASE* wait until some of the regulars can help, before trying
>>> something on your own.
>>>> Make sure they *agree* on any modifications *BEFORE* making any
>>> modifications, and remember how to get back to this point should
>>> something fail.
>>>
>>> Apparently no one responded with the registry entry fixes to make the
>>> desktop/My Computer behave properly.
>>>
>>
>> Which is all she wrote.....
>
> At that point in time, per your own writings, there were *no other
>errors* encountered UNLESS you click on the "equivalent of the" My
>Computer on the Desktop.. so how about an explanation of why you wrote
>"equivalent of".
> And what you did after that, attempting to correct this issue on your
>own, if anything...

I simply waited, per instructions.

If anything caught my attention, I queried it, as a separate issue, as
the old thread continued only in profound silence : dead to all
intents and purposes.

>>> ------
>>>
>>> ** PRIOR to that discussion you placed another in this forum due to file
>>> date and time changes/modifications after installing some program [which
>>> I do not have archived]..
>>>
>> This was an enquiry re operation of internat.exe. Although used by
>> multiple programs, it maintains an operating environment that refers
>> only to the first program that runs and calls for it after system
>> boot-up. This turns out to be normal. It's revision turns out to be
>> due to japanese or korean character display of some programmes per
>> jamondo.exe or komondo.exe, installed ages ago. In any event, this can
>> have no effect in 'safe' mode.
>
> Not necessarily true... font changes or corrupted fonts, or other that
>affects base system file usage can affect Safe Mode boot... Safe Mode is
>not an unfailing recovery environment or there would never be the need
>to re-install because you CAN NOT get to Safe Mode or Normal Mode
>[regardless of method] and registry repairs are in-effective.
>
>>> What we need at this point and time is WHAT have you done recently to
>>> cause this error again???
>>
>> At the point of 'that's all she wrote', the errors were still present
>> and no other changes were suggested or applied. One hour date-stamp
>> differences were considered as benign or irrelevant (though
>> unaccountably stupid, if so by design), so I ignore them.....
>>
>> Rolling back the unofficial W98 updates was just a flier, with changes
>> to kernel32.dll having no effect. Shell32.dll was only rolled back for
>> consistency, and because it was easy to do. The effect is as reported.
>>
>> There are about 24hrs of accumulated machine time, since the
>> shell32.dll roll-back, without errors. I'm going to continue for a
>> week before taking this, with a grain of salt, as a fix.
>>
>> If confirmed by a week's absence of non-fatal errors, I'll see what
>> restoring kernel32.dll and , later, the shell32.dll produce. The
>> restored files should have the same functionality demonstrated before
>> the explorer crashing issues arose.
>>
>> Interested to hear any speculation on this apparent shell32.dll
>> effect. Can such a file, damaged, exhibit partial functionality?
>>
>> RL
>
> Let's tick off WHY after years of use you may now have to remove these
>files and may still have *future* issues:

I'd rather be a little more specific and focussed, if that's not too
much to ask.........
>
>1. This is a 9 year old installation that has been put through distinct
>issues in which the system has been radically modified.

Not within the immediate time-frame in question. Call me Ludd. Newer
hardware and operating systems serve their purpose in parallel with
this one.

>
>2. You have had hardware issues which required you re-install files and
>drivers into a previously fully updated and established system.

Not lately, and not for this issue. This platform has been pretty
stable, with no new bells or whistles added, for the last 4 or 5 years
(last graphics card failure), save HDD rotation, VDU replacement and
CD/DVD R/w hardware. It is specifically maintained to continue the
useful service of older hardware and software.

>
>3. You installed Corel8 which installed system files and modified the
>registry. The installation had immediate issues, and you re-installed
>files [from CABs], manually modified the registry, and ran a "cleaner"
>to correct other issues.
>
The Corel installation was benign, presenting no symptoms that
correlate to this issue, in real time. I merely commented on the
potential, should there have been someone knowledgeable out there who
might see related issues with specific files. I noted the changes, but
made no substitutions. No 'cleaners' were run, save old norton
registry checking tools that identified un-linked or open calls.

>4. You installed modified kernel32 and shell32 files which REQUIRE a
>certain level of system updates and files to run properly. These
>functioned properly, apparently for a considerable time period before
>the latest batch of issues. Remember WHEN you were able to install and
>use those files.

Any modifications to these files were performed by an installation
package, which also provided an uninstall capability. They performed
well: I expect they will do so again when reinstalled. Their effect on
the current behavior, if any, and why, is of interest. Any relevant
info is appreciated.
>
>5. The latest batch of issues appears to have occurred AFTER the
>hardware issues were supposedly corrected [and after whatever
>modifications you did and whatever the new drivers might have done].
>ONE of those issues was a PSU... which can have distinct impact not only
>on other hardware, but the system/files as well. Remember HOW the OS
>deals with files...

No new drivers at that time. Hardware change was limited to cables and
PSU. Troubleshooting was restricted to pulling non-essentials, to
isolate fault in PSU and (possibly) cables. Hardware issues were
'very' distinct, and are now 'very' corrected.

The operating system has always seemed to 'deal' with files in a very
random manner, if you don't mind me saying so. I'm continually
appalled by the lack of functional partitioning between the simple OS
and the bells and whistles that append it. MS considers this a
'feature'. As there were no SW or driver changes coherent with the
actual time-zero events, I don't see this as of immediate concern.
>
>6. We'll ignore other help discussions which might be related, that seem
>to have occurred in this forum over the course of time.

I think we've been down that road. Your links tended to turn on
themselves. (paraphrasing...) A good link is hard to find.
>
>6. One can reasonably question;
> [since you are likely now running mismatched DLLs..... from the hardware
>issues]
Lets not get carried away. W98 has always reminded me of a ship which
loses both barnacles and functions, in collisions along the way. I'll
know when it's not salvageable for it's intended purpose, which
admittedly is shrinking. On that day other options (and operating
systems) will have to be examined.

>WHY you haven't re-installed from an image/backup....you could
>enjoy another nine years of use.

Mainly because a real repair seems to be so temptingly close.

Resorting to the back-up is the last resort... a reinstall pointless
and impractical precisely for all of the reasons you list below.
>
> Your present 9 year old system went through a couple hundred updates
>[many of which were NOT superseded nor are presently offered]...
> You are nowhere near a pristine fully updated system now, nor are you
>anywhere near a 9 year old system that has never been through the issues
>yours has been through.
>
> The old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" apparently flew out
>the door several months ago. Now you can continue to try to apply
>bandages and tourniquets, or consider the alternatives -like restoring a
>backup or reinstall... unless, of course, you like being frustrated on a
>semi-regular basis, and this forum is now your second lover <wink>...
>
You are fond of malapropisms, it seems.

It was 'broke'. It is agonizingly close to being 'fixed'.

We learn nothing without a modicum of persistence and focus. The
latter, especially, is needed here.

RL

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 19:36:43 -0400, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>legg wrote:
<snip>
>> The kernel32.dll change, completed first, was immediately demonstrated
>> to have no effect - a non-fatal error repeated almost immediately on
>> first reboot. I'm still waiting for a re-occurance of the non-fatal
>> error after reverting to old shell32.dll. (6hrs ~ fairly impressed,
>> but not yet considered conclusive).
>
>This is good news.
>
>> I think I saw a file search window
>> closed unexpectedly, since, but there was no error log and it could
>> have been simple user input sloppiness on my part.
>
>Could be you inadvertently hit a keybord shortcut to close it.
>
<snip>
I've examined the search window behaviour more closely, both in normal
and safe mode.

It looks like there is still irregular behavior. In normal mode it now
just does not produce an error log.

from my notes:
.......................
In safe mode
from start menu
find files and folders
file name kernel32.dll
found in C:\Windows\System
copied to C:\Windows\System\backup.
close destination directory window
close 'find files'
explorer crashes.
drwatson report:

Win32 Kernel core component attempted to access memory that does not
exist.

Module Name: kernel32.dll
Description: Win32 Kernel core component
Version: 4.10.2222
Product: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Operating System
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

Application Name: Explorer.exe
Description: Windows Explorer
Version: 4.72.3110.1
Product: Microsoft(R) Windows NT(R) Operating System
Manufacturer: Microsoft Corporation

the explorer error window will not close.

cntrl-alt-del shows programs running:
Notepad
Taskinfo
diagnose (open folder)
Explorer.exe
Explorer

Taskinfo shows:
DrWatson.exe
Explorer.exe
Taskinfo.exe
msgsrv32.exe
notepad.exe (this program)
kernel32.dll
mprexe.exe
vxd ntkern

When this is done in normal mode
closing the destination directory window causes
explorer.exe to restart - closes 'find files' window
and any other folder windows that may be open, without
generating a drwatson log
...................................end
>As they have separate uninstall routines, I guess they are separate
>enough to keep one & loose the other. Sounds like it's Shell32.dll
>that's the actual culprit, but you have a good plan. Keep us informed.
>My own SHELL32.DLL is...
>
>SHELL32.DLL
>Desc: Windows Shell Common Dll
>Loc: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
>Size: 1,388,816 bytes
>Mod: Thursday, December 06, 2001 11:25:08 PM
>Ver: 4.72.3812.600
>
>That appears to be updated from the original...
>
>Cabinet WIN98_41.CAB
>04-23-1999 10:22:00p A--- 1,400,832 shell32.dll
>
>I'm not sure what updated that file for me. I'm not finding it in my IE6
>.cabs. Good thing that site allowed you to back it up!
>
<snip>
>It could be something about that crash upset the new SHELL32.DLL. Maybe
>the Registry got mussed in some interfering way or something. I see MEB
>has reminded me of the history of this problem-- but I can't really
>recall all of that gargantuan thread! What was that site again that
>provided those .dlls? I would want to keep the one that does the most
>work, if possible. There may be some talk of it over there.

From my records, the software was accessed through:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=& ... t&p=572137

RL

You continue resist sound basis and explanation. As that is the case,
I bow out of further discussions with you related to these and any
further issues you may have.

Good luck...

On 07/13/2009 12:10 PM, legg wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:42:29 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2009 07:20 PM, legg wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:04:55 -0400, MEB<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> <snip>
>>>> How about we start with the original prior post:
>>> <snip>
>>>> It was discovered you had a recent backup, which was suggested at
>>>> being used to replace the user and system DAT files. You proceeded to
>>>> replace the error producing registry files with those from the backup
>>>> which fixed the issue. You had an error in Safe Mode PRIOR to replacing
>>>> the DAT files, after which you did the replacement which corrected the
>>>> fault issues, though you complained of purported registry bloat.
>>> You've lost me here.
>>>
>>> DAT files?
>> When replacing the backed-up registry, either from the image or from
>> the hidden /Sysbckup, what you replace are the system.dat and user.dat
>> [which comprise the registry in 9X] files... you used one from January
>> as that was the one you claimed was before the issues developed.
>
> Method of restoring registry was to 'import' the entire registry that
> was 'exported' to a backup folder on a previous date. File extensions
> are .reg for these 'backups'. This is my usual procedure, if a
> non-bootable (to normal w98 operation) condition seems to have been
> 'achieved' during unsuccessful AV updates, or the like.
>
>>> A previous error in 'safe' mode?
>> You posted a single instance...
>
> I recall only the current instance from the 10th July, but more recent
> attempts to invoke the problem in safe mode (follows) may put the lie
> to my memory.
>
>>> Registry bloat?
>> Short key elements from your own postings.
>
> Don't recall this as an issue, save as an inhibition to untrained
> examination or manipulation (per immediately below). After 8yrs+. a
> bloated registry is a natural state for W98.
>>>> Suggestion was placed to COMPARE the two versions of the *saved* error
>>>> including user and system DAT files with the replacements from the
>>>> backup to localize/diagnose the *actual issues* [with the problem registry].
>>>>
>>>> You respond with:
>>>>
>>>>> QFECHECK.EXE lists updates to W98 and to W98 2Ed. Only 51 system files
>>>>> claim to be updated from the last distribution at 4.10.2222A.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparing registry back-up revs looks to be a hurculean exercise, and
>>>>> rather pointless if you don't know what to look for.
>>>>>
>>>>> No recurrences over many hours with multiple excel spreadsheets,
>>>>> explorer search windows, desktop-accessed windows, pdfs opening and
>>>>> closing, sectional images being copied into renamed jpg formats for
>>>>> filing into differing directories and the crankey non-ms web browser,
>>>>> all going about their business.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then.... a double reoccurence, with no files or windows open, when
>>>>> double-clicking the (equivalent of the) 'my computer' desktop icon.
>>>>> Both an explorer.exe page fault in<unknown> and the rarer Internet
>>>>> Explorer 'program will shut down' warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a process, is the latter; wmiexe.exe?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell.
>>>>>
>>>>> RL
>>>> to which I responded:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, THIS particular issue should be something which can be dealt
>>>> with via some relatively simple registry entry reviews.
>>>>> *PLEASE* wait until some of the regulars can help, before trying
>>>> something on your own.
>>>>> Make sure they *agree* on any modifications *BEFORE* making any
>>>> modifications, and remember how to get back to this point should
>>>> something fail.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently no one responded with the registry entry fixes to make the
>>>> desktop/My Computer behave properly.
>>>>
>>> Which is all she wrote.....
>> At that point in time, per your own writings, there were *no other
>> errors* encountered UNLESS you click on the "equivalent of the" My
>> Computer on the Desktop.. so how about an explanation of why you wrote
>> "equivalent of".
>> And what you did after that, attempting to correct this issue on your
>> own, if anything...
>
> I simply waited, per instructions.
>
> If anything caught my attention, I queried it, as a separate issue, as
> the old thread continued only in profound silence : dead to all
> intents and purposes.
>
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>> ** PRIOR to that discussion you placed another in this forum due to file
>>>> date and time changes/modifications after installing some program [which
>>>> I do not have archived]..
>>>>
>>> This was an enquiry re operation of internat.exe. Although used by
>>> multiple programs, it maintains an operating environment that refers
>>> only to the first program that runs and calls for it after system
>>> boot-up. This turns out to be normal. It's revision turns out to be
>>> due to japanese or korean character display of some programmes per
>>> jamondo.exe or komondo.exe, installed ages ago. In any event, this can
>>> have no effect in 'safe' mode.
>> Not necessarily true... font changes or corrupted fonts, or other that
>> affects base system file usage can affect Safe Mode boot... Safe Mode is
>> not an unfailing recovery environment or there would never be the need
>> to re-install because you CAN NOT get to Safe Mode or Normal Mode
>> [regardless of method] and registry repairs are in-effective.
>>
>>>> What we need at this point and time is WHAT have you done recently to
>>>> cause this error again???
>>> At the point of 'that's all she wrote', the errors were still present
>>> and no other changes were suggested or applied. One hour date-stamp
>>> differences were considered as benign or irrelevant (though
>>> unaccountably stupid, if so by design), so I ignore them.....
>>>
>>> Rolling back the unofficial W98 updates was just a flier, with changes
>>> to kernel32.dll having no effect. Shell32.dll was only rolled back for
>>> consistency, and because it was easy to do. The effect is as reported.
>>>
>>> There are about 24hrs of accumulated machine time, since the
>>> shell32.dll roll-back, without errors. I'm going to continue for a
>>> week before taking this, with a grain of salt, as a fix.
>>>
>>> If confirmed by a week's absence of non-fatal errors, I'll see what
>>> restoring kernel32.dll and , later, the shell32.dll produce. The
>>> restored files should have the same functionality demonstrated before
>>> the explorer crashing issues arose.
>>>
>>> Interested to hear any speculation on this apparent shell32.dll
>>> effect. Can such a file, damaged, exhibit partial functionality?
>>>
>>> RL
>> Let's tick off WHY after years of use you may now have to remove these
>> files and may still have *future* issues:
>
> I'd rather be a little more specific and focussed, if that's not too
> much to ask.........
>> 1. This is a 9 year old installation that has been put through distinct
>> issues in which the system has been radically modified.
>
> Not within the immediate time-frame in question. Call me Ludd. Newer
> hardware and operating systems serve their purpose in parallel with
> this one.
>
>> 2. You have had hardware issues which required you re-install files and
>> drivers into a previously fully updated and established system.
>
> Not lately, and not for this issue. This platform has been pretty
> stable, with no new bells or whistles added, for the last 4 or 5 years
> (last graphics card failure), save HDD rotation, VDU replacement and
> CD/DVD R/w hardware. It is specifically maintained to continue the
> useful service of older hardware and software.
>
>> 3. You installed Corel8 which installed system files and modified the
>> registry. The installation had immediate issues, and you re-installed
>> files [from CABs], manually modified the registry, and ran a "cleaner"
>> to correct other issues.
>>
> The Corel installation was benign, presenting no symptoms that
> correlate to this issue, in real time. I merely commented on the
> potential, should there have been someone knowledgeable out there who
> might see related issues with specific files. I noted the changes, but
> made no substitutions. No 'cleaners' were run, save old norton
> registry checking tools that identified un-linked or open calls.
>
>> 4. You installed modified kernel32 and shell32 files which REQUIRE a
>> certain level of system updates and files to run properly. These
>> functioned properly, apparently for a considerable time period before
>> the latest batch of issues. Remember WHEN you were able to install and
>> use those files.
>
> Any modifications to these files were performed by an installation
> package, which also provided an uninstall capability. They performed
> well: I expect they will do so again when reinstalled. Their effect on
> the current behavior, if any, and why, is of interest. Any relevant
> info is appreciated.
>> 5. The latest batch of issues appears to have occurred AFTER the
>> hardware issues were supposedly corrected [and after whatever
>> modifications you did and whatever the new drivers might have done].
>> ONE of those issues was a PSU... which can have distinct impact not only
>> on other hardware, but the system/files as well. Remember HOW the OS
>> deals with files...
>
> No new drivers at that time. Hardware change was limited to cables and
> PSU. Troubleshooting was restricted to pulling non-essentials, to
> isolate fault in PSU and (possibly) cables. Hardware issues were
> 'very' distinct, and are now 'very' corrected.
>
> The operating system has always seemed to 'deal' with files in a very
> random manner, if you don't mind me saying so. I'm continually
> appalled by the lack of functional partitioning between the simple OS
> and the bells and whistles that append it. MS considers this a
> 'feature'. As there were no SW or driver changes coherent with the
> actual time-zero events, I don't see this as of immediate concern.
>> 6. We'll ignore other help discussions which might be related, that seem
>> to have occurred in this forum over the course of time.
>
> I think we've been down that road. Your links tended to turn on
> themselves. (paraphrasing...) A good link is hard to find.
>> 6. One can reasonably question;
>> [since you are likely now running mismatched DLLs..... from the hardware
>> issues]
> Lets not get carried away. W98 has always reminded me of a ship which
> loses both barnacles and functions, in collisions along the way. I'll
> know when it's not salvageable for it's intended purpose, which
> admittedly is shrinking. On that day other options (and operating
> systems) will have to be examined.
>
>> WHY you haven't re-installed from an image/backup....you could
>> enjoy another nine years of use.
>
> Mainly because a real repair seems to be so temptingly close.
>
> Resorting to the back-up is the last resort... a reinstall pointless
> and impractical precisely for all of the reasons you list below.
>> Your present 9 year old system went through a couple hundred updates
>> [many of which were NOT superseded nor are presently offered]...
>> You are nowhere near a pristine fully updated system now, nor are you
>> anywhere near a 9 year old system that has never been through the issues
>> yours has been through.
>>
>> The old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" apparently flew out
>> the door several months ago. Now you can continue to try to apply
>> bandages and tourniquets, or consider the alternatives -like restoring a
>> backup or reinstall... unless, of course, you like being frustrated on a
>> semi-regular basis, and this forum is now your second lover<wink>...
>>
> You are fond of malapropisms, it seems.
>
> It was 'broke'. It is agonizingly close to being 'fixed'.
>
> We learn nothing without a modicum of persistence and focus. The
> latter, especially, is needed here.
>
> RL


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:17:44 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> You continue resist sound basis and explanation. As that is the case,
>I bow out of further discussions with you related to these and any
>further issues you may have.
>
> Good luck...
>

I had assumed as much. Thanks for your assistance, earlier.

RL