Is possible integrate DirectX9 update?
I try add to Update packs but not working :-(
Full Version: DX9
look in ryan site
There's an addon on this forum to (DX9.c december 06)
HFSLIP will do that for you!
Follow the instructions and everything will be ok.
HFSLIP
http://hfslip.org/
Follow the instructions and everything will be ok.
HFSLIP
http://hfslip.org/
Here is a addon is you would like to do it the easy way: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=76299 
HFSLIP slipstreams.
With the addon DX installs when windows install.
HFSLIP will replace the old files with the new!
With the addon DX installs when windows install.
HFSLIP will replace the old files with the new!
QUOTE (hulkviper @ Dec 21 2006, 05:25 PM) 
HFSLIP will do that for you!
Follow the instructions and everything will be ok.
Follow the instructions and everything will be ok.
Well it wasn't for me. HFSlip refused to work.
Is NLite incapable of integrating DirectX, because whenever someone asks about this people never give a straight answer, they just start talking about other programs or complicated manual methods.
I tried using Ryan DX pack but I keep getting an error during Windows setup. HFSlip won't work either.
As a nice simple solution like USP5.2 will probably never be released, I'm left wondering if I will ever get DX slipstreamed.
You shouldn't be getting any errors slipstreaming Ryan's DX Pack.. what error are you getting? Could you tell us a bit more about your nLite? (i.e. attach your LAST SESSION.INI)
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 22 2006, 11:18 PM)
Well it wasn't for me. HFSlip refused to work.
...
HFSlip won't work either.
hi Quisquose! what do you mean HFSLIP doesn't work? perhaps you should post you concern about HFSLIP here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=129 ... also, i have never encountered members claiming likewise for users of both nLite & RyanVM's pack ... much so HFSLIP ... ...
HFSlip won't work either.
QUOTE (Kiki Burgh)
What do you mean HFSLIP doesn't work? perhaps you should post you concern about HFSLIP
Hi Kiki,
I did think about posting to that forum, but I'm not really an HFSLIP user (I don't find it very intuitive) and I prefer NLite. I only resorted to trying HFSLIP after repeated attempts to integrate DirectX using NLite had failed (and I was getting so fed up that ANY method that worked would have been acceptable to me).The issue that I was having occurred when running HFSLIP for the second time. Basically nothing would happen at all. No error messages, no pop ups or anything. I could try running the file as many times as I wanted but it just did nothing. At first I left it for ages (thinking it might be doing something in the background) but it wasn't. I went back and followed the HFSLIP guidelines really carefully, step by step. The program always worked on the first launch (it created all the correct folders as expected) but then when it came to the second time to run it, nothing at all would happen. I tried uninstalling and starting again, but the same problem persisted. So I gave up and came back to NLite (which I am more comfortable with).
QUOTE (Ver Greeneyes)
You shouldn't be getting any errors slipstreaming Ryan's DX Pack.. what error are you getting? Could you tell us a bit more about your nLite? (i.e. attach your LAST SESSION.INI)
Thanks for enquiring into my problem. The error happens during the text mode part of Windows 2000 setup (after the partioning and formatting have completed). The error message says:
The following file in SIF file used by Setup is corrupted or missing value 0 on the line in section [sourcediskfiles.x86] with key "d3dx9_24.dll"
I checked my files and the file mentioned is actually present (along with other DX files). I also checked my txtsetup.sif and the line referred to by the error message is:
d3dx9_24.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
but I'm afraid that I don't really understand the contents of the txtsetup.sif file, so I don't know if that value is correct or not.
These are all the DX related files that appear in that particular section of the txtsetup.sif:
d3dx9_24.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_24.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_24_x86.inf
d3dx9_25.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_25.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_25_x86.inf
d3dx9_26.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_26.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_26_x86.inf
d3dx9_27.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_27.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_27_x86.inf
d3dx9_28.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_28.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_28_x86.inf
d3dx9_29.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_29.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_29_x86.inf
d3dx9_30.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_30.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_30_x86.inf
d3dx9_31.dll = 100,,,,,,,2,0,0
d3dx9_31.inf = 100,,,,,,,20,0,0,d3dx9_31_x86.inf
Originally I was working with NLite v1.2 Final, but thought I'd try 1.3 beta as well (just in case) but it made no difference. I still get the same error message even when integrating again from scratch with clean source files.
My first reaction was that it was a problem with the DX pack itself, but it's difficult to raise issues with the pack when you are using NLite to integrate it (because you can't really ask for help on Ryan's forum).
My NLite session ini file is attached.
Thanks for your help.
Why do people bother to integrate these later redistributions of DirectX? I've played almost every recent RPG/FPS out there and never get any errors because of my DirectX. What is the point?
Hmm... you might want to try replacing the '100's in there with '1's as I believe 100 is meant for Windows XP SPx (I could be wrong, but 1 should be the default and it's already messing up anyway 
)
Edit: However, keep in mind that Windows 2k may need more than Ryan's DX pack, as DX9 isn't included originally.. I've never used Windows 2k so unfortunately I can't really experiment with it, but..
)Edit: However, keep in mind that Windows 2k may need more than Ryan's DX pack, as DX9 isn't included originally.. I've never used Windows 2k so unfortunately I can't really experiment with it, but..
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Dec 22 2006, 04:31 PM)
Why do people bother to integrate these later redistributions of DirectX? I've played almost every recent RPG/FPS out there and never get any errors because of my DirectX. What is the point?
I'm not trying to integrate a "later" distribution, I'm using Windows 2000 (which has no DirectX 9 in it all) and so I'm just trying to get any version of DirectX on to the system.
I don't know about you, but I'm not prepared to run Windows in 4bit (16 colours) @ 60Hz, and if you try to install ATI drivers without DirectX 9 being present on the system, then you will get an instant BSOD crash.
I don't even play any games (I don't have the slightest interest in gaming), I just want the damned thing to work at a decent colour depth and refresh rate.
@ Ver Greeneyes now that you mention it, that section does stand out from the rest of the sif file because of the 100s (which none of the other entries seem to have). I'll edit the txtsetup.sif and see what happens.
If it doesn't work, then at least I know it is more likely that Ryan's pack is to blame (as it not taking into account installation on Windows 2000).
It gives me a direction to investigate further.
Thanks for the heads up.
@ Quisquose ... PMd you! 
Thanks for your message Kiki,
I'll look into it
I'll look into it
If the PM wasn't too private, let us know what you find
QUOTE (Ver Greeneyes)
If the PM wasn't too private, let us know what you find
I'm sorry, I can't do that ......... the information is classified TOP SECRET.
KiKi's 'people' would hunt me down like dog if I talked.
Well this is the update on the situation:
Thanks to Mr. Greeneyes, I've managed to get rid of the text mode setup errors. (I changed all the 100, values in that section of the TXTSETUP.SIF to 1,)
There was a second section with similar values (much further down the file) that I hadn't noticed. This caught me out, but the Windows error message that was generated gave a different file name to the one it was giving before, so I knew that the first lot of fixes must have worked because Windows stopped complaining about those. I also knew where to look to find the second lot of values that needed fixing because I could search for the new filename being stated in this latest error message.
This time I went through the whole .sif file, making sure there were no other entries with the same starting value. I then saved the .sif and burned a new CD and it worked!
Well, ... when I say "worked" I mean I am now back to my original problem of the setup locking up in GUI install mode at 55%.
But still, at least the text mode section is completing without complaining now.The 55% GUI mode hang problem is really winding me up though. This has been going on for days now, and I think I'm slowly losing the will to live!
I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be down to the USP5.1 that I've been using, so I'm gonna have to go through yet more tedious testing to narrow it down (which is not easy as I've been integrating quite a few post SP5.1 hotfixes too, and the problem could possibly be down to any one of those files or a particular combination of them).
I've got a feeling that it's going to be days more testing before I get anywhere near having a usable custom setup CD
Just wish I had a hint to help me narrow things down.
Good to hear my idea worked - sorry I can't really help you beyond that, as I said I don't have Windows 2k... I'll keep an eye on this topic though, hope you figure it out!
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 22 2006, 01:00 PM)
I'm using Windows 2000
This wasn't stated until now so I was obviously unaware. Had that been known, my post wouldn't have been made. Cheers.
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Dec 22 2006, 09:10 PM)
This wasn't stated until now so I was obviously unaware.
Actually that's incorrect. If you re-read the thread you will see that I said it before you even posted.
That's how Ver Greeneyes spotted the problem (he recognised that the XP style install commands I'd quoted in my message were incorrect for use on Windows 2000).
Anyhow, it's sorted now.
Onwards and upwards to try to defeat the 55% hang bug!
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 22 2006, 12:10 PM)
The error happens during the text mode part of Windows 2000 setup
Ah, there it is. I missed it. My apologies.
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 22 2006, 04:38 PM)
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Dec 22 2006, 09:10 PM)
This wasn't stated until now so I was obviously unaware.
Actually that's incorrect. If you re-read the thread you will see that I said it before you even posted.
That's how Ver Greeneyes spotted the problem (he recognised that the XP style install commands I'd quoted in my message were incorrect for use on Windows 2000).
Anyhow, it's sorted now.
Onwards and upwards to try to defeat the 55% hang bug!
Mind posting a link to the 55% hang bug thread so we can help you to resolve it?
This DX is an installer that runs during setup, it doesn't integrate in your Windows.
Especially for Windows XP, it is a waste of CD/DVD space to use the full installers that are presented in this topic.
B)-->
You could take Serebys DirectX Slipstream that integrates only the newest files of the december release.
You have to keep DX in nlite of course and it's a direct Slipstream no silent installer.
[/quote]
It really integrates, replacing files with the newest version (DX december). So it's not an installer. It will hardly use more space on your cd/dvd.
Since it integrates and updates your DX files, it's not meant for Windows2000 since 2000 doesn't have DX.
So the installers in this topic are good for Windows2000. And Sereby's integration pack is good for XP.
Especially for Windows XP, it is a waste of CD/DVD space to use the full installers that are presented in this topic.
B)-->
QUOTE(chris.b @ Dec 22 2006, 03:37 PM)
You could take Serebys DirectX Slipstream that integrates only the newest files of the december release.
You have to keep DX in nlite of course and it's a direct Slipstream no silent installer.
[/quote]
It really integrates, replacing files with the newest version (DX december). So it's not an installer. It will hardly use more space on your cd/dvd.
Since it integrates and updates your DX files, it's not meant for Windows2000 since 2000 doesn't have DX.
So the installers in this topic are good for Windows2000. And Sereby's integration pack is good for XP.
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 23 2006, 03:56 AM)
QUOTE (Ver Greeneyes)
If the PM wasn't too private, let us know what you find
I'm sorry, I can't do that ......... the information is classified TOP SECRET. KiKi's 'people' would hunt me down like dog if I talked.
EDIT: btw, i don't know if this could be a possibility (as the "find" by Tux was for XP ... he uses HFSLIP then nLite for reducing his source) but you might want to consider (topic is about d3dx* files):
QUOTE (Camarade_Tux @ Dec 23 2006, 04:01 PM)
I tried again and checked whether the files were present after HFSLIP and before nlite. And yes they are.
I can also confirm nlite removed them. Now, the question is why ?
still needs confirmation ...
I can also confirm nlite removed them. Now, the question is why ?
QUOTE (Jeremy @ Dec 23 2006, 05:22 AM)
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 22 2006, 12:10 PM)
The error happens during the text mode part of Windows 2000 setup
Ah, there it is. I missed it. My apologies.
and "USP5.2 " was the first hint.
QUOTE (Ponch @ Dec 23 2006, 08:51 PM)
and "USP5.2 " was the first hint.
Wow, well spotted Ponch! We have a sleuth in our midst.
Even I hadn't noticed that particular clue (and I was the one who wrote it!)
OK folks, thanks to every one for their comments. Here is an update:
I have now managed (for the very first time) to install DX9 unattended
Yes, after spending more than 75 hours over the last week trying to sort this problem out, I am finally getting somewhere.
I used RyanVM's DX pack with a manually edited txtsetup.sif file (with Ver Greeneyes' corrections added) and not only did this install DX9, but it also allowed me to slipstream my ATI Radeon drivers for my PowerColor X1950 Pro.
However, none of this would have been verifiable or testable had I not also solved the 55% hang issue because I was totally unable to complete any installation of Windows 2000. But now this problem has also been resolved
(yes, I'm on a roll!)@ Speeddymon - Thanks for the kind offer to help me find a fix. A link to the 55% Hang bug was posted in my earlier post (message number 17 of this thread). I'll include another link here (see the green "55%" text above). I've coloured the link this time, to make the it a bit more noticeable.
I'll update that 55% thread with my solution after I've finished writing this post.
There were a couple of minor issues though (but nothing in comparison to the grief I've been enduring over the last week).
1. DX9 appears to be fully installed, allowing ATI Radeon drivers to work and all tests in DXDiag to complete successfully. However, the version number on the first tab of DXDiag is still showing as version 7 (i.e. the original Windows 2000 version of DirectX).
2. Drivers for the RealTek onboard HD audio (Azalia) were also integrated. These did get copied to the system, but the drivers don't actually get successfully installed. Closer investigation showed that a requirement for the installation of these sound drivers is that a minimum of DX8.1 be installed. So I am wondering if these 2 issues are related (perhaps the RealTek drivers just look at the DX version number and then refuse to install).
I was going to post back here to seek assistance with these two issues, but having read the more recent comments in this thread, it seems that I was lucky to get this working at all! (because it seems the DX update packs are really not intended for Windows 2000 use).
So, I think I should make another install with a more appropriate DX pack and see how that works instead.
I'm just wondering which method (and which actual DX pack) would be the best to use in this circumstance. Although I really like the idea of the code being slipstreamed, I wonder what the downside would be to having it done as a silent install instead of a slipstream?
Any comments or advice on this would be very much appreciated.
Thanks again everyone
QUOTE (Quisquose @ Dec 23 2006, 05:40 PM)
QUOTE (Ponch @ Dec 23 2006, 08:51 PM)
and "USP5.2 " was the first hint.
Wow, well spotted Ponch! We have a sleuth in our midst.
Even I hadn't noticed that particular clue (and I was the one who wrote it!)
OK folks, thanks to every one for their comments. Here is an update:
I have now managed (for the very first time) to install DX9 unattended
Yes, after spending more than 75 hours over the last week trying to sort this problem out, I am finally getting somewhere.
I used RyanVM's DX pack with a manually edited txtsetup.sif file (with Ver Greeneyes' corrections added) and not only did this install DX9, but it also allowed me to slipstream my ATI Radeon drivers for my PowerColor X1950 Pro.
However, none of this would have been verifiable or testable had I not also solved the 55% hang issue because I was totally unable to complete any installation of Windows 2000. But now this problem has also been resolved
(yes, I'm on a roll!)@ Speeddymon - Thanks for the kind offer to help me find a fix. A link to the 55% Hang bug was posted in my earlier post (message number 17 of this thread). I'll include another link here (see the green "55%" text above). I've coloured the link this time, to make the it a bit more noticeable.
I'll update that 55% thread with my solution after I've finished writing this post.
There were a couple of minor issues though (but nothing in comparison to the grief I've been enduring over the last week).
1. DX9 appears to be fully installed, allowing ATI Radeon drivers to work and all tests in DXDiag to complete successfully. However, the version number on the first tab of DXDiag is still showing as version 7 (i.e. the original Windows 2000 version of DirectX).
2. Drivers for the RealTek onboard HD audio (Azalia) were also integrated. These did get copied to the system, but the drivers don't actually get successfully installed. Closer investigation showed that a requirement for the installation of these sound drivers is that a minimum of DX8.1 be installed. So I am wondering if these 2 issues are related (perhaps the RealTek drivers just look at the DX version number and then refuse to install).
I was going to post back here to seek assistance with these two issues, but having read the more recent comments in this thread, it seems that I was lucky to get this working at all! (because it seems the DX update packs are really not intended for Windows 2000 use).
So, I think I should make another install with a more appropriate DX pack and see how that works instead.
I'm just wondering which method (and which actual DX pack) would be the best to use in this circumstance. Although I really like the idea of the code being slipstreamed, I wonder what the downside would be to having it done as a silent install instead of a slipstream?
Any comments or advice on this would be very much appreciated.
Thanks again everyone
Ok, this one is a doozie! :-P
Microsoft only made one release of DirectX for December. This release covers all versions of Windows that are still supported by Microsoft (including 2000). So technically speaking, this release of DirectX should work fine (and is in fact designed for) 2000.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\DirectX is the key that stores your installed DirectX version, so if it doesnt mention 4.09 somewhere in there, then that is why your Sound drivers wouldnt install. Try importing this Click to view attachment file.
As far as silent insall vs slipstream, there is technically no difference, except that silent installs typically take up a little more space on the CD, and cause your total time to install windows (TTI) to go up some. If you want to do that, I would suggest getting this file: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download2924.html and then extracting it to somewhere on your CD like (cdroot)\$OEM$\$1\Install\DX9Dec06
Then setup runonceex or guirunonce to call the installer with the /silent switch like this:
C:\Install\DX9Dec06\DXSetup.exe /silent
That will install the whole thing the proper way for Windows 2000.
Like I said a lot of people prefer slipstreamed just due to the decrease in time to setup windows, however in cases like this where you are using Windows 2000, I think that the installer from MS would be the safer bet.
Of course, the other option is to use the pack you modified and just put the 2 entries in the attached file into the proper INF file, or import the reg file at guirunonce, your call.
Hope that helps
Speeddymon
Hi!
Thanks for the very informative and helpful comments Speed.
You've really helped clarify the various options available (as well as helping me understand the pros and cons of each).
The version of RyanVM's DX pack that I was using was 1.0, and not the new 1.1 that he has out now (which is dated December - so I'm guessing that it's based on the Microsoft December release that you mentioned).
I only used the 1.0 version because it was the one that I'd already downloaded from a few weeks ago when I'd just got my new PC up and running. When I encountered the wrong DX version being displayed, I thought I'd check for an update and that's when I saw that the 1.1 version had not long been released. So I downloaded that one as well.
I did wonder why there was such a difference in file size between the 2 versions.
So basically, (just to confirm I've understood this correctly) are you saying that I can just use RyanVM's DX pack 1.1 with NLite (as I did before) and because the new DX 1.1 pack is for all versions of Windows, it should be fine on Windows 2000?
Thanks for the very informative and helpful comments Speed.
You've really helped clarify the various options available (as well as helping me understand the pros and cons of each).
The version of RyanVM's DX pack that I was using was 1.0, and not the new 1.1 that he has out now (which is dated December - so I'm guessing that it's based on the Microsoft December release that you mentioned).
I only used the 1.0 version because it was the one that I'd already downloaded from a few weeks ago when I'd just got my new PC up and running. When I encountered the wrong DX version being displayed, I thought I'd check for an update and that's when I saw that the 1.1 version had not long been released. So I downloaded that one as well.
I did wonder why there was such a difference in file size between the 2 versions.
So basically, (just to confirm I've understood this correctly) are you saying that I can just use RyanVM's DX pack 1.1 with NLite (as I did before) and because the new DX 1.1 pack is for all versions of Windows, it should be fine on Windows 2000?
The previous version of Ryan's pack, which should be based on the October release, should work on Windows 2000 as well. So far as I know these updates are just for managed code, which is (as I understand it) specifically updated SDK-related code that certain (very) new games use. However, since there have been so many updates and fixes to DirectX, it seems that you can completely integrate DirectX 9.0c with this update. Either that or it's easier to make the update with the whole thing and that's just what Ryan released. Either way, that's probably why your version number didn't change.
About the size difference, try extracting the two versions. I don't have them here so I can't test it, but I read over at RyanVM's forum that 7-zip does a phenominal job of compressing this particular pack. It's quite possible that it has more difficulty with the newer version.
Edit: By the way, cheers on solving the 55% hang problem ^_^
About the size difference, try extracting the two versions. I don't have them here so I can't test it, but I read over at RyanVM's forum that 7-zip does a phenominal job of compressing this particular pack. It's quite possible that it has more difficulty with the newer version.
Edit: By the way, cheers on solving the 55% hang problem ^_^
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.