-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
I would need a clear & definitive answer from the devs if possible
Sounds like time to upgrade imo. I understand there are cost limitations but xp will run on very basic hardware...
These are the req. for the UIsI would like to know for sure if ppl using win98 SE or Millenium will NEVER be able to log into the game for SA as it is currently the case since the last patch for some of us.
Thanks for replying.
Just want to know
Classic Client
Operating System:
Windows XP
Windows 98 System requirements 486DX-2/66 MHz or higher processor (Pentium processor recommended)
CPU - 400 MHz Intel Pentium II
Enhanced Client
Operating System:
Windows XP or
Windows Vista
CPU:
Intel® Pentium™ III 1000 MHz or
AMD® Athlon™ 1000 MHz
RAM:
512 MB or more
Windows XP was first released on October 25, 2001
If you are trying to run the client (SA) then it is not supported and never was.
As far as entering SA you can do that with the 2D client, but with that old of a sys. I don't know how well it will perform.
I'd expect the 2d client should still work, as you just need to patch it up. Certainly when I ran win ME I had no trouble with UO. If your using older hardware in your PC, it's wise to check the system requirements for the newer windows versions carefully as you may need to upgrade both PC and OS to run windows 7. XP seems to run fairly well on our older PCs, but again I'd check the requirements if it's an old PC.
I haven't fiddled with the new client to get it working on linux, but the 2d version certainly works just fine under Wine emulation. So if money's the reason you're putting off the upgrade, you could always try using a spare partition or second hard drive to run linux instead. I tend to recommend Linux Mint as it's very beginner friendly, sleek and also a complete breeze to install.
Wenchy
I haven't fiddled with the new client to get it working on linux, but the 2d version certainly works just fine under Wine emulation. So if money's the reason you're putting off the upgrade, you could always try using a spare partition or second hard drive to run linux instead. I tend to recommend Linux Mint as it's very beginner friendly, sleek and also a complete breeze to install.
Wenchy
Thx for replying
Millenium has always run UO 2D greatly, as you said, untill the very last patch (the SA one) and I have all the necessary system requirements on my PC by far.
What happens precisely is the following :
I patched successfully and I got the "patch session completed" but when I clicked "OK" to load UO (as usual) it said :
"Error Starting Program
The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32DDL : SetFilePointerEX."
There is another thread about this in UHall : somebody else with windows98 said she/he had the exact same thing.
I have no clue about what to do, I am not very computer wise and I don't know why I should update to XP ; anyway I don't know how to update and I don't dare doing it.
So, now I can't log in anymore in UO and I wanted to know if this is subject to change (as somebody said it was on EA's side) or if it will never change.
In that case I'm afraid I'll have to kiss UO bye bye because all this is far too complicated for me and of course I won't be buying a new computer etc...
That's why I wanted to know for sure from a dev if it'll change or always be the same...
I can't see why it worked so well before and not any more since the last patch and I'm sure the devs (engineers) could do something about it...
See where you've posted the error message, you didn't mean to type:
...The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32.DLL : SetFilePointerEX."
did you? See where I've got the bold bit, is it perhaps a missing .dll file? It's a few years since I used windows properly so I'm totally out of practice fixing it, but I'd have thought that is fixable by simply getting a copy of kernel32.dll and adding it to the correct folder on your system.
Hopefully one of the windows based gurus here will know if I'm right and be able to talk you through the process in more detail.
Wenchy
...The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32.DLL : SetFilePointerEX."
did you? See where I've got the bold bit, is it perhaps a missing .dll file? It's a few years since I used windows properly so I'm totally out of practice fixing it, but I'd have thought that is fixable by simply getting a copy of kernel32.dll and adding it to the correct folder on your system.
Hopefully one of the windows based gurus here will know if I'm right and be able to talk you through the process in more detail.
Wenchy
J
jabeth
Guest
Definately showed on my Win98SE as
"Error Starting Program
The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32DDL : SetFilePointerEX" and same again after reinstalling OS & UO twice.
Happening on so many Win98SE - Find it hard to beleive that its missing a DLL for the operating system , especially when eveything else still works as normal.
Did Google search on " SetFilePointer "and came up with page titled SetFilePointerEx Function (Windows) at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365542(VS.85).aspx so possibly answer may be implied in there. (Note: this page is for Win2000, but... think principle/basic would still be the same.)
"Error Starting Program
The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32DDL : SetFilePointerEX" and same again after reinstalling OS & UO twice.
Happening on so many Win98SE - Find it hard to beleive that its missing a DLL for the operating system , especially when eveything else still works as normal.
Did Google search on " SetFilePointer "and came up with page titled SetFilePointerEx Function (Windows) at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365542(VS.85).aspx so possibly answer may be implied in there. (Note: this page is for Win2000, but... think principle/basic would still be the same.)
G
Grahir
Guest
The problem isn't that the kernel32.dll is missing, I checked my Win98 install and the file is in the windows\systems folder where it should be. The probable is that something in the 7.0.0.0 patch is not correct when trying to use the file on a Win98 system.
I have a friend who is experiencing the exact same problem and is trying to work with EA on getting it resolved. I remember a previous patch that had a similar problem when running Win98 and it took several days for a patch to come out to fix the issue for Win98 users.
I have no problems with my WinXP system but Win98 will not run with the latest patch. Once the patcher finishes and the client begins, the error occurs.
I have a friend who is experiencing the exact same problem and is trying to work with EA on getting it resolved. I remember a previous patch that had a similar problem when running Win98 and it took several days for a patch to come out to fix the issue for Win98 users.
I have no problems with my WinXP system but Win98 will not run with the latest patch. Once the patcher finishes and the client begins, the error occurs.
G
Grahir
Guest
I'm not familiar with WinME at all so don't know if the system folder is the correct location for the KERNEL.DLL file or not. Maybe someone familiar with that OS can help on that.
What I think is happening is the instruction the patch has for the file is trying to make it point to a nonexistant area for Win98 especially afterreading about the SetFilePointerEx Function as shown on the Microsoft site. If that is the problem, the EA Developers will need to look into it. There area some definite size differences for the Kernel32.dll file between Win98 and WinXP and I imagine some internal instruction handling differences as well.
What I think is happening is the instruction the patch has for the file is trying to make it point to a nonexistant area for Win98 especially afterreading about the SetFilePointerEx Function as shown on the Microsoft site. If that is the problem, the EA Developers will need to look into it. There area some definite size differences for the Kernel32.dll file between Win98 and WinXP and I imagine some internal instruction handling differences as well.
Unfortunately I do not have an available copy of win98 to test with, and you could never make me use winME again...ugh
G
Grahir
Guest
I know QA is aware of the problem. My friend has been in contact and working with them since the patch came out. As to how widespread the problem is, I imagine not too many people still use Win98 and/or WinMe. One reason people are still using them is the cost of upgrading OS and computer systems to stay current.
If there aren't many people affected by the problem, it may not get fixed because it would 't be cost effective for EA. That's what she's worried about, she's been playing since Original UO so has been around a long time. Has a few grandfathered houses and such, many now non-obtainable rares. With the current economy and job situation in her area, she can't afford to upgrade anything right now so if it can't be fixed, she'll have to close her account and quit UO.
G
gjohnson5
Guest
X2
Probably more trouble then it's worth even if it did run on Win98
G
Grahir
Guest
Sure, I'll update here once I hear something. Haven't been able to get a hold of her for the last couple of days.
G
Grahir
Guest
Just a quick update on this. They had her try and extract a new copy of KERNEL32.DLL from her installation CD. She had problems getting it to read the CD so at a impasse for now. But I know that isn't the problem, I did exactly what they asked her to do and the error still occurs. I believe the only way this will be fixed is if the programmers take a look at the patch and see how it is affecting the file on win98 systems. Will they? It's anybody's guess........
Ok, I did the patch (btw ty for updating Grahir ) and now the error says :
"The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32.DDL : GetFileSizeEx."
So, yes, there's still an error with Kernell.32ddl but looks slightly (?)different...
*edit*
Somebody just told me the following :
) and now the error says :"The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32.DDL : GetFileSizeEx."
So, yes, there's still an error with Kernell.32ddl but looks slightly (?)different...
*edit*
Somebody just told me the following :
They are going to need to find all the EX suffix calls and change them to be the normal calls.
The EX (as in EXtended) calls are not going to be supported in Win 9X/ME.
The odds are pretty darn small that they really need to use the EX version.
In short, if you see the call ends with an EX, then there is the original call without the EX at the end. That call will always be supported by Win9X/ME.
The EX (as in EXtended) calls are not going to be supported in Win 9X/ME.
The odds are pretty darn small that they really need to use the EX version.
In short, if you see the call ends with an EX, then there is the original call without the EX at the end. That call will always be supported by Win9X/ME.
G
Grahir
Guest
Ok, I did the patch (btw ty for updating Grahir
"The CLIENT.EXE file is linked to a missing export KERNEL32.DDL : GetFileSizeEx."
So, yes, there's still an error with Kernell.32ddl but looks slightly (?)different...
*edit*
Somebody just told me the following :
They are going to need to find all the EX suffix calls and change them to be the normal calls.
The EX (as in EXtended) calls are not going to be supported in Win 9X/ME.
The odds are pretty darn small that they really need to use the EX version.
In short, if you see the call ends with an EX, then there is the original call without the EX at the end. That call will always be supported by Win9X/ME.
Yep, I just retried my win98 machine, got the 7-0-0-2 patch and the error has changed to what you saw RoseBlue. To me that points to it being a problem with how the patch is calling functions in relationship to kernel32.dll.
If it is a call function inside the client like you have heard, fixing it would mean a major rewrite of a large piece of the client. Not likely to happen.
