I had planned to tell you about something great

[Guest mm]

Much of this post is written for a win98 audience, but not all of it.

 

I had planned to tell you about something great, about software for

win98 that would soon disappear, so you should get it now.

 

But now I'm not sure what to say.

 

I'm talking about free photo arranging and editing software.

 

When developing film, I've been getting a copy put on CD, and this

would also apply to digital camera images.

 

I've been getting one roll done at as many different processors as

possible. Kodak, Ritz Camera (is that only around here?), Walmart,

and any place else that seems to use a different processor, because

each processor has its own software on the CD.

 

More about the others later, but the Walmart CD, processing by Fujica,

seemed to be maybe the best and certainly the one with the most

interesting story.

 

It has a viewer on the CD which worked fine, and had in itself the

abiltiy to email photos, complete with photo compression, by a factor

of 10, to make uploading and downloading go more quickly**. This is

something my email program alone can't do.

 

And I haven't tried it yet, but it seems to be able to burn photos to

a CD too, and while one could do that with Nero etc. I think this will

turn out to be better integrated with the viewer. I can send the

software to anywho wants, but it's probably not necessary as you will

see below.

 

When closing the viewer, it then as promised gives one the opportunity

to install an editor, called the Photo Manager, which it says has the

ability to get out red eye, to adjust contrast, brigntess, color, and

something else. Normally I wouldn't bother, but there are occasional

pictures that really could use improvement, and if it works well and

is easy, maybe even more could.

 

So I do that and the software install gets all the way to the copy

files step, and when it is almost done, it stops, the progress bar

goes backwards, and it says it couldn't install, it has not left

anything in my system (except it turns out 3 files in the temp

directory, but that's not much) and to try again. Trying again and

again gives the same problem. When the progress bar reverses, in

small print very quickly it displays "rolling back actions"!

 

So I called the Walmart Photo Customer service, and they (the woman I

talked to asked someone else) didn't know the answers, knew about

printing pictures for customers but not about software. So I wrote

the email address given, and I think a computer read the email and

because I had made one passing reference to the Walmart Photo Center,

wrote back about that only. So I wrote again, spelling it Foto

Sentre, and this time I got an email that addressed the Photo Manager.

 

But what did it say? "We received your email and we no longer use the

photo manager, you can know upload your pictures straight from our

site."

 

The misspelling of "now" makes it seem that the email was written by a

real person, but otoh, I knew a cook in the WWII army who said that

for every 1000 powdered eggs, they would throw in one real egg shell

to make the soldiers think they were getting real eggs. I wouldn't

put it past corporations to put mistakes in computer-generated letters

to make them seem real (although the first email I got had no such

errors, and it was even more likely to be computer-generated.

 

But anyhow, they "no longer use the photo manager"!!! This despite

the fact that they include the software, separately from the viewer,

on the CD I got only 8 days earlier, and they have a win2000/XP

version available for download on the Walmart photo webpage!!! It

sounds like she's flat out lying to me, but in case she wasn't, I

didn't reply to her on this because fore the people with win2000/XP, I

want the software to be still available.

 

What they want me to do is to upload any picture I take to their

wegsite and to edit them there. A) Sometimes I go to my parents and

that's a great opportunity to do things I don't have time to do at

home, but they only have dial-up. My laptop isn't even set up for

dial-up and it it were, I don't want to spend hours downnloading and

uploading so that I can edit from the Walmart server. B) Sometiems I

go camping at various places in the woods, or I spend a day at the

beach. No internet there at all, but plenty of time to edit pictures

on my laptop. It is a self-centered power-grab for Walmart to take

away the software that worked on the customers' computers and replace

it with what only works from their server. (If they had never offered

the better software, I wouldn't know and wouldn't complain, but they

did, so I do.)

 

Failing in this course, I tried another: I had noted that when the

viewer started up, it said something like "Preclick Powered", so I

guessend and went to http://www.preclick.com and that has some good stuff.

 

First check out this page, for all of their software and their

cooperative software, written for a particular customer:

http://www.preclick.com/products/?PHPSESSID=86771250d9387c7afb86d5c0a3b41e57#ppd

 

For one thing, it has the preclick software which definitely works

under win98SE and is pretty useful. IPM; PhotoMovieMaker; Gold

(photo orgainizer. That's what I dl'd, installed, and like);Back; and

Wiki.

 

The HP co-branded stuff says it only works on win2000/XP/Vista.

 

But the Costco stuff doesn't say that.

 

http://www.preclick.com/demo/costco/

 

Either:

http://www.costcophotocenter.com/organizer/ which has for download:

***

http://preclick.com/builds/Costco/1.4.0.96/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.96Signed.exe

This version also reversed its installation like the Walmart version**

did! So could some Win98 guru try installing this and see if there is

some way I can get it to work for myself. I think you also will like

having it if you can get it to work.

 

**The win98 Walmart version isn't on the web, only on the CD that I

paid for when I got them to develop my film. I could send that to

anyone who wants, but the Costco version seem to have tbe same problem

and is probably similar in function.

 

 

OR, one version newer it seems, but the same problem, rolling back

action:

***

http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.97.exe

or the viewer, which includes the manager also, but which also rolls

back and won't install:

http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoCDViewer1.4.0.97.zip

The viewer, however, is the same or almost the same as the Walmart

Viewer, except for the logos.

 

Costco is far away from me, requires a 50 dollar "membership", and

sells in bulk that I can never use. And they don't say you have to be

a Costco member to download this stuff.

 

 

The Post-it stuff looks pretty good too, but I'm still trying to get

the earlier stuff to work.

 

The PhotoBackPack for U3 drives (flash drives) looks great, absolutely

great, and it might work great to show my pictures to my brother in

Dallas, who has XP. I already happen to have a 2 gig U3 drive,

(Sandisk, only 20 dollars at Best Buy, more elsewhere), and it came

with U3 software on it, but since I only have win98SE, I don't know if

I can or how to install it. *I didnt' understand what U3 was for

until I looked at this, and at http://www.u3.com

 

 

**I would think that the picture compression can be useful. While

one picture isn't much (3-500K, sometimes more) even uncompressed,

they mount up quickly if you want to send 10 or 30. With just 10, now

we're talking about 4 meg so getting it down to 400K total, even with

broadband, is helpful. And I sent a copy to myself and the quality

looks just as good as the original, at least with the kind of

snapshots I was taking.

 

I'm sorry this is so long, but I hope it is helpful.

 

Any help with the installation problem above will be greatly

appreciated***

 

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest Brian A.]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:gt61s3hffsifvoosboeniau519epqbm2pg@4ax.com...

> Much of this post is written for a win98 audience, but not all of it.

>

> I had planned to tell you about something great, about software for

> win98 that would soon disappear, so you should get it now.

>

> But now I'm not sure what to say.

>

 

<snipped>

 

You may not of known what to say, yet your fingers prancing all over the keyboard

did.

 

 

--

 

 

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

 

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

[Guest RJK]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

....and you question was ?

 

regards, Richard

 

 

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:gt61s3hffsifvoosboeniau519epqbm2pg@4ax.com...

> Much of this post is written for a win98 audience, but not all of it.

>

> I had planned to tell you about something great, about software for

> win98 that would soon disappear, so you should get it now.

>

> But now I'm not sure what to say.

>

> I'm talking about free photo arranging and editing software.

>

> When developing film, I've been getting a copy put on CD, and this

> would also apply to digital camera images.

>

> I've been getting one roll done at as many different processors as

> possible. Kodak, Ritz Camera (is that only around here?), Walmart,

> and any place else that seems to use a different processor, because

> each processor has its own software on the CD.

>

> More about the others later, but the Walmart CD, processing by Fujica,

> seemed to be maybe the best and certainly the one with the most

> interesting story.

>

> It has a viewer on the CD which worked fine, and had in itself the

> abiltiy to email photos, complete with photo compression, by a factor

> of 10, to make uploading and downloading go more quickly**. This is

> something my email program alone can't do.

>

> And I haven't tried it yet, but it seems to be able to burn photos to

> a CD too, and while one could do that with Nero etc. I think this will

> turn out to be better integrated with the viewer. I can send the

> software to anywho wants, but it's probably not necessary as you will

> see below.

>

> When closing the viewer, it then as promised gives one the opportunity

> to install an editor, called the Photo Manager, which it says has the

> ability to get out red eye, to adjust contrast, brigntess, color, and

> something else. Normally I wouldn't bother, but there are occasional

> pictures that really could use improvement, and if it works well and

> is easy, maybe even more could.

>

> So I do that and the software install gets all the way to the copy

> files step, and when it is almost done, it stops, the progress bar

> goes backwards, and it says it couldn't install, it has not left

> anything in my system (except it turns out 3 files in the temp

> directory, but that's not much) and to try again. Trying again and

> again gives the same problem. When the progress bar reverses, in

> small print very quickly it displays "rolling back actions"!

>

> So I called the Walmart Photo Customer service, and they (the woman I

> talked to asked someone else) didn't know the answers, knew about

> printing pictures for customers but not about software. So I wrote

> the email address given, and I think a computer read the email and

> because I had made one passing reference to the Walmart Photo Center,

> wrote back about that only. So I wrote again, spelling it Foto

> Sentre, and this time I got an email that addressed the Photo Manager.

>

> But what did it say? "We received your email and we no longer use the

> photo manager, you can know upload your pictures straight from our

> site."

>

> The misspelling of "now" makes it seem that the email was written by a

> real person, but otoh, I knew a cook in the WWII army who said that

> for every 1000 powdered eggs, they would throw in one real egg shell

> to make the soldiers think they were getting real eggs. I wouldn't

> put it past corporations to put mistakes in computer-generated letters

> to make them seem real (although the first email I got had no such

> errors, and it was even more likely to be computer-generated.

>

> But anyhow, they "no longer use the photo manager"!!! This despite

> the fact that they include the software, separately from the viewer,

> on the CD I got only 8 days earlier, and they have a win2000/XP

> version available for download on the Walmart photo webpage!!! It

> sounds like she's flat out lying to me, but in case she wasn't, I

> didn't reply to her on this because fore the people with win2000/XP, I

> want the software to be still available.

>

> What they want me to do is to upload any picture I take to their

> wegsite and to edit them there. A) Sometimes I go to my parents and

> that's a great opportunity to do things I don't have time to do at

> home, but they only have dial-up. My laptop isn't even set up for

> dial-up and it it were, I don't want to spend hours downnloading and

> uploading so that I can edit from the Walmart server. B) Sometiems I

> go camping at various places in the woods, or I spend a day at the

> beach. No internet there at all, but plenty of time to edit pictures

> on my laptop. It is a self-centered power-grab for Walmart to take

> away the software that worked on the customers' computers and replace

> it with what only works from their server. (If they had never offered

> the better software, I wouldn't know and wouldn't complain, but they

> did, so I do.)

>

> Failing in this course, I tried another: I had noted that when the

> viewer started up, it said something like "Preclick Powered", so I

> guessend and went to http://www.preclick.com and that has some good stuff.

>

> First check out this page, for all of their software and their

> cooperative software, written for a particular customer:

> http://www.preclick.com/products/?PHPSESSID=86771250d9387c7afb86d5c0a3b41e57#ppd

>

> For one thing, it has the preclick software which definitely works

> under win98SE and is pretty useful. IPM; PhotoMovieMaker; Gold

> (photo orgainizer. That's what I dl'd, installed, and like);Back; and

> Wiki.

>

> The HP co-branded stuff says it only works on win2000/XP/Vista.

>

> But the Costco stuff doesn't say that.

>

> http://www.preclick.com/demo/costco/

>

> Either:

> http://www.costcophotocenter.com/organizer/ which has for download:

> ***

> http://preclick.com/builds/Costco/1.4.0.96/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.96Signed.exe

> This version also reversed its installation like the Walmart version**

> did! So could some Win98 guru try installing this and see if there is

> some way I can get it to work for myself. I think you also will like

> having it if you can get it to work.

>

> **The win98 Walmart version isn't on the web, only on the CD that I

> paid for when I got them to develop my film. I could send that to

> anyone who wants, but the Costco version seem to have tbe same problem

> and is probably similar in function.

>

>

> OR, one version newer it seems, but the same problem, rolling back

> action:

> ***

> http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.97.exe

> or the viewer, which includes the manager also, but which also rolls

> back and won't install:

> http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoCDViewer1.4.0.97.zip

> The viewer, however, is the same or almost the same as the Walmart

> Viewer, except for the logos.

>

> Costco is far away from me, requires a 50 dollar "membership", and

> sells in bulk that I can never use. And they don't say you have to be

> a Costco member to download this stuff.

>

>

> The Post-it stuff looks pretty good too, but I'm still trying to get

> the earlier stuff to work.

>

> The PhotoBackPack for U3 drives (flash drives) looks great, absolutely

> great, and it might work great to show my pictures to my brother in

> Dallas, who has XP. I already happen to have a 2 gig U3 drive,

> (Sandisk, only 20 dollars at Best Buy, more elsewhere), and it came

> with U3 software on it, but since I only have win98SE, I don't know if

> I can or how to install it. *I didnt' understand what U3 was for

> until I looked at this, and at http://www.u3.com

>

>

> **I would think that the picture compression can be useful. While

> one picture isn't much (3-500K, sometimes more) even uncompressed,

> they mount up quickly if you want to send 10 or 30. With just 10, now

> we're talking about 4 meg so getting it down to 400K total, even with

> broadband, is helpful. And I sent a copy to myself and the quality

> looks just as good as the original, at least with the kind of

> snapshots I was taking.

>

> I'm sorry this is so long, but I hope it is helpful.

>

> Any help with the installation problem above will be greatly

> appreciated***

>

> If you are inclined to email me

> for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest mm]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:28:49 -0000, "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>...and you question was ?

>

>regards, Richard

 

Mostly it was a review and a story, but the question is

 

After downloading

http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.97.exe

how can one make it install correctly?

 

At the start of the install it says on a splash screen of sorts that

it works with win98.

 

It gets through most of the install, but in the Copying Files step,

the prgress bar gets maybe 80% of the way across and then starts

getting shorter, along with the message "Rolling back action".

 

What could make that happen and how to I change my system so it won't

happen?

 

Does it happen to other people reading this post?

 

Is there likely to be a log of the install somewhere that would give

me a clue?

 

Would it help to start up Cleansweep, which keeps its own record of

what files and registry entries are copied during an install?

 

Any other ideas of how to debug an install?

 

Thanks.

 

 

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest MEB]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

 

 

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:6sr3s31qvm1u6fseq3sdpe9rl8onolto2o@4ax.com...

| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:28:49 -0000, "RJK" <notatospam@hotmail.com>

| wrote:

|

| >...and you question was ?

| >

| >regards, Richard

|

| Mostly it was a review and a story, but the question is

|

| After downloading

|

http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.97.exe

| how can one make it install correctly?

|

| At the start of the install it says on a splash screen of sorts that

| it works with win98.

|

| It gets through most of the install, but in the Copying Files step,

| the prgress bar gets maybe 80% of the way across and then starts

| getting shorter, along with the message "Rolling back action".

|

| What could make that happen and how to I change my system so it won't

| happen?

|

| Does it happen to other people reading this post?

|

| Is there likely to be a log of the install somewhere that would give

| me a clue?

|

| Would it help to start up Cleansweep, which keeps its own record of

| what files and registry entries are copied during an install?

|

| Any other ideas of how to debug an install?

|

| Thanks.

|

|

| If you are inclined to email me

| for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

 

Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This will

provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur during

that attempt.

Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the tool

bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

etc.].

.. In addition you can, if a MSI installer, use its debug to create a report

of the attempt.

 

MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGISTRY SHOULD NOT E DONE BY IN-EXPERIANCED PEOPLE

First note the key below and export the original so you can reset

afterwards then create a text file [.reg extension] with its inclusions and

merge or manually edit the key:

 

----COPY BELOW----------

REGEDIT4

 

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Installer]

"Logging"="voicewarmup"

"Debug"=dword:00000007

 

--- COPY ABOVE WITH THE LAST BLANK LINE --------------

 

Use the above in conjunction with debugview

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896647.aspx Debugview by

sysinternals

 

Between the three, you will have a good idea of exactly where to look, and

what needs corrected.

 

[Reprinted from web page -

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/ref/gen/sys_diagnos.htm]

 

--

 

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

_________

[Guest Jeff Richards]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

Have you confirmed with the manufacturer that it really is compatible with

W98?

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:6sr3s31qvm1u6fseq3sdpe9rl8onolto2o@4ax.com...

> snip <

>

> After downloading

> http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoOrganizer1.4.0.97.exe

> how can one make it install correctly?

>

> At the start of the install it says on a splash screen of sorts that

> it works with win98.

>

> It gets through most of the install, but in the Copying Files step,

> the prgress bar gets maybe 80% of the way across and then starts

> getting shorter, along with the message "Rolling back action".

>

> What could make that happen and how to I change my system so it won't

> happen?

>

> Does it happen to other people reading this post?

>

> Is there likely to be a log of the install somewhere that would give

> me a clue?

>

> Would it help to start up Cleansweep, which keeps its own record of

> what files and registry entries are copied during an install?

>

> Any other ideas of how to debug an install?

>

> Thanks.

[Guest mm]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:16 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>...

 

I"m going to try all three methods you've given me, but first I tried

Dependancy Walker and I have a couple questions.

> Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This will

>provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur during

>that attempt.

>Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the tool

>bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

>finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

>etc.].

 

Wow, this really gives a lot of info.

 

One line I've found so far (because it displays in red!) is worth

asking about:

 

GetProcAddress(0x7FCB0000 [sHELL32.DLL], "SHGetFolderPathW") called

from "SHFOLDER.DLL" at address 0x719317BD and returned NULL. Error:

The specified module could not be found (126).

 

 

The thing is, shfolder.dll is in C:\Windows\System, so I don't

understand why it couldn't find it. Unless I'm understanding the

message backwards. Shell32.dll is in the same folder.

 

Also: a few lines further up are, also in RED:

GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsAlloc") called from

"MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341950 and returned NULL. Error: The

specified module could not be found (126).

GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsGetValue") called from

"MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34195D and returned NULL. Error: The

specified module could not be found (126).

GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsSetValue") called from

"MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34196A and returned NULL. Error: The

specified module could not be found (126).

GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsFree") called from

"MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341977 and returned NULL. Error: The

specified module could not be found (126).

 

I also have Kernel32.dll and MSVCR71.DLL so I don't know what these

mean either. Maybe the called modules aren't at the right address??

 

I could look in the FATs etc. and check on that. What do you

recommend.

 

>. In addition you can, if a MSI installer, use its debug to create a report

>of the attempt.

 

How do I know if it is using an MSI installer? It does refer at

installation-start to the Install Shield Wizard.

 

Using the /? option after the install program, I see that it has 4

possible options. Do you think any of them might help me?

/Q Quiet mode

/T:<full path> specifies temporary working folder

/C Extract file only to the working folder when used with /T

/C<cmd> Override Install Command defined by author

 

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest mm]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:14:41 +1100, "Jeff Richards"

<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>Have you confirmed with the manufacturer that it really is compatible with

>W98?

 

It says so in a sort of splash screen early on in the installation

process.

 

On the "Costco Photo Organizer - InstallShield Wizard" it says:

 

....System Requirements:.... Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, or Vista...

 

But I guess that isn't proof.

 

Walmart has a simmilar program, both written by Reclick, but when I

asked customer service at Walmart, they only knew about printing

pictures. I'll see if I can ask Costco also, but I'll bet they don't

know any more. Maybe Reclick will know.

 

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

mm wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:16 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>> ...

>

> I"m going to try all three methods you've given me, but first I tried

> Dependancy Walker and I have a couple questions.

>

>> Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This

>> will

>> provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur during

>> that attempt.

>> Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the

>> tool

>> bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

>> finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

>> etc.].

>

> Wow, this really gives a lot of info.

>

> One line I've found so far (because it displays in red!) is worth

> asking about:

>

> GetProcAddress(0x7FCB0000 [sHELL32.DLL], "SHGetFolderPathW") called

> from "SHFOLDER.DLL" at address 0x719317BD and returned NULL. Error:

> The specified module could not be found (126).

>

>

> The thing is, shfolder.dll is in C:\Windows\System, so I don't

> understand why it couldn't find it. Unless I'm understanding the

> message backwards. Shell32.dll is in the same folder.

>

> Also: a few lines further up are, also in RED:

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsAlloc") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341950 and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsGetValue") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34195D and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsSetValue") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34196A and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsFree") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341977 and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

>

> I also have Kernel32.dll and MSVCR71.DLL so I don't know what these

> mean either. Maybe the called modules aren't at the right address??

>

> I could look in the FATs etc. and check on that. What do you

> recommend.

 

I think the program isn't compatible with Win98 - going on all this. I've

seen something similar to this (but not identical) with some other programs

that weren't compatible - always complaining about not finding an entry

point (or whatever) in some DLL file(s).

[Guest Lee]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Feb 25, 6:30 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:16 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not h...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:

>

> >...

>

> I"m going to try all three methods you've given me, but first I tried

> Dependancy Walker and I have a couple questions.

>

> > Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This will

> >provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur during

> >that attempt.

> >Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the tool

> >bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

> >finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

> >etc.].

>

> Wow, this really gives a lot of info.

>

> One line I've found so far (because it displays in red!) is worth

> asking about:

>

> GetProcAddress(0x7FCB0000 [sHELL32.DLL], "SHGetFolderPathW") called

> from "SHFOLDER.DLL" at address 0x719317BD and returned NULL. Error:

> The specified module could not be found (126).

>

> The thing is, shfolder.dll is in C:\Windows\System, so I don't

> understand why it couldn't find it.   Unless I'm understanding the

> message backwards.  Shell32.dll is in the same folder.

>

> Also: a few lines further up are, also in RED:

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsAlloc") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341950 and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsGetValue") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34195D and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsSetValue") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34196A and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsFree") called from

> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341977 and returned NULL. Error: The

> specified module could not be found (126).

>

> I also have Kernel32.dll and MSVCR71.DLL so I don't know what these

> mean either.    Maybe the called modules aren't at the right address??

>

> I could look in the FATs etc. and check on that.  What do you

> recommend.  

>

> >. In addition you can, if a MSI installer, use its debug to create a report

> >of the attempt.

>

> How do I know if it is using an MSI installer?  It does refer at

> installation-start to the Install Shield Wizard.

>

> Using the /? option after the install program, I see that it has 4

> possible options.  Do you think any of them might help me?

> /Q   Quiet mode

> /T:<full path> specifies temporary working folder

> /C   Extract file only to the working folder when used with /T

> /C<cmd>  Override Install Command defined by author

>

> If you are inclined to email me

> for some reason, remove NOPSAM  :-)

 

You can open the executable with WinZip to see the .msi file inside

the installation package for one. MSI packages by default send a log

to the TEMP folder even though it's a bit lacking in detail. You can

ramp up the detail to an extraordinary amount but this has to be done

by the invoking method and you are NOT close enough to that process to

pull of this bit of magic. It appears to be done by the setup

executable according to Resource Hacker.

http://www.angusj.com/resourcehacker/

 

The switches you list are only for the iexpress installation package

itself and you are unlikely to benefit at all from them.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=197147

 

Inside the Setup.ini file I read that 8 megs of free space are

required.

It looks like the package will also install on Win95.

 

The information returned by Dependency walker indicates to me, in the

first line, that your particular version of Shfolder.dll file doesn't

contain the "SHGetFolderPathW" function. That's not right. So the

problem is that you've got the wrong Shfolder.dll file, somehow.

 

Mine is version 6.00.2800.1106 and only contains two functions, that

one and the A variant of the same function, which makes me ask. Where

did you get yours from? And how can I avoid you without making you

feel bad? Seriously though, by my version number I can tell that mine

came from IE 6.00 SP1 as that is the same version number that are

carried by most IE 6.00 SP1 files and that is no coincidence at all.

 

To get your correct Shfolder.dll file back in place you could

reinstall IE which should fix this situation and perhaps others that

we don't yet know about? When reinstalling IE it is paramount to

manualy check all the boxes for all the items that were installed

before or else the files including Shfolder.dll don't get extracted

from the IE Cab files so that they can be refreshed anew. Double

click on ie6setup.exe and select Custom, then do the manual checkbox

thing and everything else will fall into line.

 

Or you can extract the file from the ie_5.cab which is inside the

IE_S5.cab file of the IE installation cab files and just manually

replace it. But I would reinstall IE just to clear the decks as it

were, anyway.

 

I suspect that the wrong file is the reason you can't install the

package.

 

But on another note isn't what you want a CD Photo viewer? Like this

one?

http://www.preclick.com/releases/partner/costco/CostcoCDViewer1.4.0.97.zip

from this page with full instructions?

http://www.preclick.com/demo/costco/

It's 10.5 megs but it's the only free CD photo viewer I've come across

yet, shy of XP that is, so thanks. It appears to have the red eye

remover, cropper, and other tools along with it so why even install

the Organizer Software too?

[Guest MEB]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

 

Bill is likely correct, though perhaps a little explanation is needed.

 

INLINE

 

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:sco6s3tl6vl2t5vqjva6hbj20kdpohiud7@4ax.com...

| On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:16 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

| wrote:

|

| >...

|

| I"m going to try all three methods you've given me, but first I tried

| Dependancy Walker and I have a couple questions.

|

| > Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This

will

| >provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur during

| >that attempt.

| >Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the

tool

| >bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

| >finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

| >etc.].

|

| Wow, this really gives a lot of info.

 

Yes it does, more than most can digest.

 

|

| One line I've found so far (because it displays in red!) is worth

| asking about:

 

All the red are failed segments.

 

|

| GetProcAddress(0x7FCB0000 [sHELL32.DLL], "SHGetFolderPathW") called

| from "SHFOLDER.DLL" at address 0x719317BD and returned NULL. Error:

| The specified module could not be found (126).

|

|

| The thing is, shfolder.dll is in C:\Windows\System, so I don't

| understand why it couldn't find it. Unless I'm understanding the

| message backwards. Shell32.dll is in the same folder.

 

shfolder.dll returned a call to shell32 which was not supported =

GetProcAddress >< SHGetFolderPathW - the defining words are "called from".

 

If you looked at some of the other panes you might have noticed that

thread 1 or 2 had several errors or functions which could not be completed,

which snowball into final failures.

 

|

| Also: a few lines further up are, also in RED:

| GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsAlloc") called from

| "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341950 and returned NULL. Error: The

| specified module could not be found (126).

| GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsGetValue") called from

| "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34195D and returned NULL. Error: The

| specified module could not be found (126).

| GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsSetValue") called from

| "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34196A and returned NULL. Error: The

| specified module could not be found (126).

| GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsFree") called from

| "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341977 and returned NULL. Error: The

| specified module could not be found (126).

|

| I also have Kernel32.dll and MSVCR71.DLL so I don't know what these

| mean either. Maybe the called modules aren't at the right address??

|

| I could look in the FATs etc. and check on that. What do you

| recommend.

 

That's not the problem. The calls being used are not supported in the

modules/dll being used for that functioning.

As I'm noticing more often,, the compilations/compilers are not supporting

the 9X environment.

That was somewhat demonstrated in this discussion forum recently when a

simple file renaming tool had to be re-compiled several times until finally

using an older autocompiler... The sad part is, that had older versions of

the compilers been used, these failing applications would likely have

worked, without changing any of the NT specific aspects now being used for

2000/XP/VISTA applications. After all, 9X is a stable code base to work upon

and its code exchanges were used for years on the older cross platform

installers and applications..

 

|

|

| >. In addition you can, if a MSI installer, use its debug to create a

report

| >of the attempt.

|

| How do I know if it is using an MSI installer? It does refer at

| installation-start to the Install Shield Wizard.

 

It is what it says,

http://www.macrovision.com/products/installation/installshield.htm - What is

InstallShield now

http://consumer.installshield.com/ - main consumer support page

http://consumer.installshield.com/faq.asp?id=Q108230#Q108230n - Q&A links -

hints

http://consumer.installshield.com/kb.asp?id=Q108322 - see this for how to

check versions and download InstallShield files.

 

Install Shield files installed in a base updated 98SE:

C:\Program Files\Common Files\InstallShield\Driver\7\Intel 32

IDriver.exe - 7.04

C:\Program Files\Common Files\InstallShield\Engine\6\Intel 32

IKERNEL.EXE - 6, 31, 100, 1221

 

MSI - Windows Installer

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\msiexec.exe - 2.0.2600.2 - last 9X version

 

Q108312 - Sometimes in an attempt to fix installation-related errors, you

may have to update the engine that runs the installation itself.

 

|

| Using the /? option after the install program, I see that it has 4

| possible options. Do you think any of them might help me?

| /Q Quiet mode

| /T:<full path> specifies temporary working folder

| /C Extract file only to the working folder when used with /T

| /C<cmd> Override Install Command defined by author

 

If you wanted to pick apart the file, such as to find out the version used

to create the installer, then yes, the /T{path} /C MIGHT give you the files

to look at if the creater did not disable those functions or otherwise

over-ride them [hence the /C{cmd} which you would not know]. Use that

consumer page above to find out how to find out otherwise.

The installer itself may have been compiled using one of the newer

[incompatible] versions of Install Shield.

 

Keep us posted on what you find...

 

|

| If you are inclined to email me

| for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

 

--

 

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

_________

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

I should have said "not finding some function call(s) within the DLL(s)", to

be more accurate below. (which, in retrospect, makes some sense, since

the system DLLs used by Windows 98 won't generally be identical to those

used in/by Windows XP, or whatever).

 

But some internal function calls are new to the newer operating systems,

and/or have different and even additional parameters, at least from what

little I know about it.

 

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> mm wrote:

>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:16 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> ...

>>

>> I"m going to try all three methods you've given me, but first I tried

>> Dependancy Walker and I have a couple questions.

>>

>>> Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This

>>> will

>>> provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur

>>> during

>>> that attempt.

>>> Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the

>>> tool

>>> bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

>>> finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

>>> etc.].

>>

>> Wow, this really gives a lot of info.

>>

>> One line I've found so far (because it displays in red!) is worth

>> asking about:

>>

>> GetProcAddress(0x7FCB0000 [sHELL32.DLL], "SHGetFolderPathW") called

>> from "SHFOLDER.DLL" at address 0x719317BD and returned NULL. Error:

>> The specified module could not be found (126).

>>

>>

>> The thing is, shfolder.dll is in C:\Windows\System, so I don't

>> understand why it couldn't find it. Unless I'm understanding the

>> message backwards. Shell32.dll is in the same folder.

>>

>> Also: a few lines further up are, also in RED:

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsAlloc") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341950 and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsGetValue") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34195D and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsSetValue") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34196A and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsFree") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341977 and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>>

>> I also have Kernel32.dll and MSVCR71.DLL so I don't know what these

>> mean either. Maybe the called modules aren't at the right address??

>>

>> I could look in the FATs etc. and check on that. What do you

>> recommend.

>

> I think the program isn't compatible with Win98 - going on all this.

> I've

> seen something similar to this (but not identical) with some other

> programs

> that weren't compatible - always complaining about not finding an entry

> point (or whatever) in some DLL file(s).

[Guest mm]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:21:14 -0800 (PST), Lee <melee5@my-deja.com>

wrote:

>On Feb 25, 6:30 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:00:16 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not h...@hotmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>> >...

>>

>> I"m going to try all three methods you've given me, but first I tried

>> Dependancy Walker and I have a couple questions.

>>

>> > Try using Dependency Walker to *profile* the installation/setup. This will

>> >provide a detailed setup debug of any calls, exes, etc. that occur during

>> >that attempt.

>> >Open Dependency Walker, choose the installer exe, go to Profile on the tool

>> >bar. Choose the level of profiling and run it. Wait until its completely

>> >finished [this may take a while as it debugs all calls, program starts,

>> >etc.].

>>

>> Wow, this really gives a lot of info.

>>

>> One line I've found so far (because it displays in red!) is worth

>> asking about:

>>

>> GetProcAddress(0x7FCB0000 [sHELL32.DLL], "SHGetFolderPathW") called

>> from "SHFOLDER.DLL" at address 0x719317BD and returned NULL. Error:

>> The specified module could not be found (126).

>>

>> The thing is, shfolder.dll is in C:\Windows\System, so I don't

>> understand why it couldn't find it.   Unless I'm understanding the

>> message backwards.  Shell32.dll is in the same folder.

>>

>> Also: a few lines further up are, also in RED:

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsAlloc") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341950 and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsGetValue") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34195D and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsSetValue") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C34196A and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>> GetProcAddress(0xBFF70000 [KERNEL32.DLL], "FlsFree") called from

>> "MSVCR71.DLL" at address 0x7C341977 and returned NULL. Error: The

>> specified module could not be found (126).

>>

>> I could look in the FATs etc. and check on that.  What do you

>> recommend.  

>>

>> >. In addition you can, if a MSI installer, use its debug to create a report

>> >of the attempt.

>>

>> How do I know if it is using an MSI installer?  It does refer at

>> installation-start to the Install Shield Wizard.

>>>

>You can open the executable with WinZip to see the .msi file inside

>the installation package for one.

 

Well, I can get and use WinZip, but tonight I just tried the

extraction program that comes with PowerDesk5, freeware that I've used

for several years. When I try to un"zip" the self-extracting .exe

file, it says "error in installfile.exe archive directory". OTOH, I'll

bet this same self-extracting program will install fine on win2000.

Also, when I try the same technique one the Preclick-brand

self-extracting .exe file, it expands it. (7 of the 11 files are also

found in the Program Files folder for this program, and the others are

used during the install.)

> MSI packages by default send a log

>to the TEMP folder even though it's a bit lacking in detail. You can

>ramp up the detail to an extraordinary amount but this has to be done

>by the invoking method and you are NOT close enough to that process to

>pull of this bit of magic. It appears to be done by the setup

>executable according to Resource Hacker.

>http://www.angusj.com/resourcehacker/

 

I'll look at that soon.

>The switches you list are only for the iexpress installation package

>itself and you are unlikely to benefit at all from them.

>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=197147

>

>Inside the Setup.ini file I read that 8 megs of free space are

>required.

>It looks like the package will also install on Win95.

>

>The information returned by Dependency walker indicates to me, in the

>first line, that your particular version of Shfolder.dll file doesn't

>contain the "SHGetFolderPathW" function. That's not right. So the

>problem is that you've got the wrong Shfolder.dll file, somehow.

>

>Mine is version 6.00.2800.1106 and only contains two functions, that

>one and the A variant of the same function, which makes me ask. Where

>did you get yours from?

 

I don't know -- I am running IE6, not sure about SP1 -- but I looked

in msinfo32, and I have the same version you do. Listed under 32-bit

modules loaded. I was really hoping this was the problem. It sounded

likely. I haven't looked inside, but it's the same version number,

dated 8/29/02 at 2:07:36 PM GMT!

 

Moved from up above:

>> I also have Kernel32.dll and MSVCR71.DLL so I don't know what these

>> mean either.    Maybe the called modules aren't at the right address??

 

Kernel32.dll is version 4.10.2222, dated 4/22/99 at 12:45:40 AM GMT.

bff70000 to bffe3000.

MSVCR71.dll is version 7.10.3052.4 dated 2/21/03 at 12:42:20 PM GMT.

7c340000 to 7c396xxx (probably zeroes)

>>

> And how can I avoid you without making you

>feel bad?

 

Just do what everybody else does.

>?Seriously though, by my version number I can tell that mine

>came from IE 6.00 SP1 as that is the same version number that are

>carried by most IE 6.00 SP1 files and that is no coincidence at all.

>

>To get your correct Shfolder.dll file back in place you could

>reinstall IE which should fix this situation and perhaps others that

>we don't yet know about? When reinstalling IE it is paramount to

>manualy check all the boxes for all the items that were installed

>before or else the files including Shfolder.dll don't get extracted

>from the IE Cab files so that they can be refreshed anew. Double

>click on ie6setup.exe and select Custom, then do the manual checkbox

>thing and everything else will fall into line.

 

I'll remember this for next time.

>Or you can extract the file from the ie_5.cab which is inside the

>IE_S5.cab file of the IE installation cab files and just manually

>replace it. But I would reinstall IE just to clear the decks as it

>were, anyway.

 

And this.

>I suspect that the wrong file is the reason you can't install the

>package.

 

Me too.

 

I went to a friend's with win2000, and even the Walmart version

installed there just fine, and has features that I would like to

use**. But installing on his still doesn't mean it shouldn't

install on win98 too, and I'm learning things by pursuiing this, so

I'm going to keep at it for a while at least.

 

**So does the Preclick editor and they might turn out to be the same,

but I still want to see if I can install this.

>But on another note isn't what you want a CD Photo viewer?

 

Discussed in another answer, already or yet to be posted. :)

 

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest mm]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:35:43 -0500, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>

> Bill is likely correct, though perhaps a little explanation is needed.

>

>INLINE

 

Too much to do tonight. I'll try to do these things tomorrow and

reply.

 

Thanks for all the help, Meb, Bill, and Lee.

 

If you are inclined to email me

for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)

[Guest MEB]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

Hey Lee, have you ever used XN Resource Hacker?

http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d10resourceeditor.htm

 

--

 

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

_________

[Guest Lee]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

On Feb 27, 3:03 pm, "MEB" <meb@not h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Lee, have you ever used XN Resource Hacker?http://www.wilsonc.demon.co..uk/d10resourceeditor.htm

>

> --

>

> MEBhttp://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> _________

 

No MEB, I never heard of it before but thanks to you I did go get it.

 

mm, I did install the Cosco Organizer successfully tonight, it took

all of 20 seconds with nothing particularly interesting as the

installation was monitored by Total Install. There was an overwrite

of C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\msvcp60.dll with the "old" one of 6/16/98 being

replaced with exactly the same file of 8/29/00 date. That's a Visual C

++ 6 file obtained here:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=259403

 

I did notice your system had at least one C++ 7 file on it

(MSVCR71.DLL) but version 7 doesn't seem to have a redistributable

package for it, version 8 does and also in a SP1 flavor:

Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable Package (x86)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=32bc1bee-a3f9-4c13-9c99-220b62a191ee&DisplayLang=en

 

Visual C++ 2005 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) version ATL.dll

8.00.50727.762

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=200B2FD9-AE1A-4A14-984D-389C36F85647&displaylang=en

 

Both do install on 98 even though SP1 doesn't list 98 as "supported".

Both seem to claim to want Windows Installer 3 and version 2 is the

highest for 98 - it works anyway.

 

What was your version number of Shfolder.dll? and any joy yet?

[Guest MEB]

Re: I had planned to tell you about something great

 

Darn near forgot to post this..

 

Just an FYI [FWIU]:

 

That Visual C Version 6 should only be used in 98 Standard Edition/FE/Gold,

the S and E seem to throw people off and think its for 98SE. 98SE

[second/Service Edition] will receive newer VC6 files when its updates

and/or IE 6 and its updates are installed.

Its offered as an update for Standard Edition/Gold/FE and/or when only IE 5

is installed and MAY cause issues if attempted at installation in an updated

98SE or after IE6 installation..

 

--

 

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

_________

 

 

"Lee" <melee5@my-deja.com> wrote in message

news:3662ea21-92bd-40ff-9ae3-d7b40c8e40a3@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 27, 3:03 pm, "MEB" <meb@not h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Lee, have you ever used XN Resource

Hacker?http://www.wilsonc.demon.co.uk/d10resourceeditor.htm

>

> --

>

> MEBhttp://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> _________

 

No MEB, I never heard of it before but thanks to you I did go get it.

 

mm, I did install the Cosco Organizer successfully tonight, it took

all of 20 seconds with nothing particularly interesting as the

installation was monitored by Total Install. There was an overwrite

of C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\msvcp60.dll with the "old" one of 6/16/98 being

replaced with exactly the same file of 8/29/00 date. That's a Visual C

++ 6 file obtained here:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=259403

 

I did notice your system had at least one C++ 7 file on it

(MSVCR71.DLL) but version 7 doesn't seem to have a redistributable

package for it, version 8 does and also in a SP1 flavor:

Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable Package (x86)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=32bc1bee-a3f9-4c13-9c99-220b62a191ee&DisplayLang=en

 

Visual C++ 2005 SP1 Redistributable Package (x86) version ATL.dll

8.00.50727.762

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=200B2FD9-AE1A-4A14-984D-389C36F85647&displaylang=en

 

Both do install on 98 even though SP1 doesn't list 98 as "supported".

Both seem to claim to want Windows Installer 3 and version 2 is the

highest for 98 - it works anyway.

 

What was your version number of Shfolder.dll? and any joy yet?