nLite 1.4.x seems to be incopatible with XP SP3 build 5503.

Actually system gives some errors after installing. Themes service is not running at all if patched.
Some other problems.
I did not check logs 'couse of time.

Only I can say we shell check everything in a new version of nLite to work correctly with new XP.

I was already working on it since yesterday and wondering how come no one reported it.

Fixed and releasing today.

Thx.

Is that a Russian Service Pack?

Okay, I found the English version also. Thanks nuhi.
Sounds a little suspicious to me. Hope you're not jumping the gun.

Heh no.

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPo...9&SiteID=17

Actually it seems you are right, there are Russian and English versions judging by that thread.

Actualy not too much people knows about this build.
I found MS HDA drivers is already included in it.

Today evng I'll check the beta 2. Thanks

Anyone try this and still getting an invalid key error?

I'm downloading 5503 now, and I'm currently rebuilding a new SP3 image with the "Windows Activation and Sysrep" option checked off to see if that was the issue

if you integrate sp3 in vista environment, you will get key error.
Work under XP only

Beta 2 works fine for me...

But it's not beta 2. Why there is so much difference in numbering? I mean that there is so big jump, from RC2 which was 3311 to the new one which is 5503

hi
i slipstreamed sp3 build 5503 to my clean sp2 xp cd with my legit serial, and used nlite 1.4.5 latest beta 2 to make it unattended, but in middle of the installation it prompts me for serial... plz help
thanks in advance

nuhi could you confirm if this is a legit build and not hacked one? the technet forum link is pretty inconclusive. thanks

shahed26, wait SP3 final. Or search for any solutions, I am not sure if I am allowed to help with that. Just know it is not nLite's fault.

pallavsuri, no I can not. But hacked how? I have never heard of a fake SP release, I think no one is that bored.

Ah, thanks for the heads up. My notebook only has Vista on it, and I was so confused heh

nuhi: Is this always going to be the case? Or will it hopefully change by the time the final SP3 comes out?

Greetings my fellow SP3 beta testers. I must admit, this new build version is a mysterious one. Slipstreaming to SP0 or SP2 still suffers from some files not being updated during integration. Nothing new about that since there is a thread about it. Again, SP1 image still remains the only source image to integrate into properly. Integrating into SP0 or SP2 still works, but like stated before, a few files do not update properly and the result of that could be nothing, or it could mean at some point, something might throw a fit in bizarre situations. Also, this mysterious 5503 build includes some 15 or so new files, and also has "spcompat.dll" instead of "spcompat.exe" in the \i386\update folder. The prior SP3 builds had spcompat.exe files. Taking 5503 to windows updates netted 2 updates for my equipment that none of the prior SP3 would pick up. Also, IE6 still has the crash bug, so the registry entry fix is still needed. This issues has been stated will be fixed when SP3 is final. 5503 will sometimes list the build number in system properties after install, sometimes it will not. In VM install, it will almost always not show the SP3 build version, but a real install will. This is because the registry key CSDReleaseType is failing to update properly, leaving it at default value of 0 (which does not list build version), changing it to a value of 1 will properly display the build version.



Lots of stuff for people to mull over. Among them being the huge jump in build number. Last I heard, 3380 would be final build.

well 3311 to 5503 for starters is a pretty big jump especially since there is nothing different compared to 3311 on the face of it.

how difficult is it to hack/change build numbers anyway.

insert some malware in 3311, bump up the build number and re-release it.

who knows?

the only reason for it to be legit is the new integration method needed.

btw, offtopic sysinfo and ipconfig commands no longer work in command prompt... what component is responsible?

thanks

IPCONFIG: Hehe. How interesting. You can run it, see the dos box for a 1/4 of a second then it closes. going to a command prompt and running ipconfig will list DNS suffix, the IP Address, the Subnet Mask, and the Default Gateway. But, no configuration can be done unless you know what you are doing at a command prompt.

As far as sysinfo goes, sysinfo.exe does not exist and you must run msinfo32.exe to get to what you would normal see when you run sysinfo. (I am probably wrong about sysinfo.exe no longer exsisting, as I did not have all files and folders set to be displayed, including hidden system files/folders)


-edit: Oh, and to hack to make it appear a different version really isn't that hard if you know what files to manipulate. Trouble is, on recompiling, the Digital Signature would be invalid. (However, there are some really crafty Russians and Chinese and people from India that have the know how and the means to make a Digital Signature appear legit. But, as nuhi stated, I doubt anyone is that bored.

argument of being bored holds little water. there are sufficient commercial reasons to do that - bored or not.

jumping the gun without any official confirmation is pretty strange - releasing 1.4.5 b2 is supporting piracy imho.

What are you talking about? Have you checked the i386 folder? There are more then 1200 files having 5503 in their version number, and in the same time having a different build number (5.1.2600.5503, 5.2.... , 6.0.... )
Maybe this is not the final one (even if it is already "shared" as one), but it's almost there. And nobody will hack an illegal SP to be used on a few test systems. We all are waiting for the official release before using the SP on the main OS.

Can anyone confirm this?

Any chance that MS also has included SATA AHCI?

pallavsuri, supporting piracy? Because some crafty Chinese and Russians resigned the changed SP3 which is actually a virus in some wonder land? Or because we talk about the leaked SP?
We always talk about the leaked MS betas, don't insult me with such statements.

1200? i guess u can count that on your fingers... (attachment last column)

@nuhi my exact point why should anyone bother with "crafty Chinese and Russians resigned the changed SP3 which is actually a virus in some wonder land?"

nothing personal or not even trying to insult anyone here but providing official support for pirated releases is supporting what?

Not all Windows XP setup files have File Version info, it is actually Product Version, you will need to enable that in the column headers.
edit: actually they show different only for some file. Be careful with refresh, if not all dlls have the info scroll down, wait and refresh...so on.

Tone down the paranoia man, remember that there was never a fake SP, only fake news.

I will support any SP that is released to avoid bug reports. Does not matter if they are real or not, I do not break compatibility with older versions, just adjust to generically support all.

What if nuhi has a chinese/russian friend that he wants to support? Who are you to tell him what he should/shouldn't support in HIS program?
If you dislike this just find another program to do what nLite does or code one yourself.

haha there is no paranoia my friend nuhi...

the product version shot is attached for your kind perusal as well

good job with nlite/vlite

despite the good intentions supporting 5503 is supporting piracy dear friend (no insults intended)

catch you later

ssjkakaroto, hehe, well I do not support illegal activities, so I would not support a hand-made SP. Also he is not talking against nLite, just that I promote unconfirmed beta.
I can only say that this is not the first leaked beta in the history that we should be that careful.

pallavsuri, how do I support piracy?
You know for sure that I am not a beta tester?

Btw I counted more than 1200 file versions ending with 5503, meaning the build. If you cannot see that then why bother with more complicated matters.
You have to first EXTRACT the files to be able to read all versions.

nuhi, I just find it irritating that people can't just ignore a change that won't affect them and start complaining and accusing like they work for M$ or something...

Working for MS and not knowing how to read a file's version by extracting the packed files ending with " _ " ? You're joking...

Those files version don't mean it's a pirated version, I think you may be joking...

He was being sarcastic.

I will lock this thread to fix my own mistake of wrong approach, I think we have said it all.