so i have to clear some things before somebody do something stupid...

to mods:

ad legality
If we are talking about collecting official updaters from Microsoft and create one updater (similar to unattended installations, which includes also service packs) it is absolutely legal unless we claim any autorship of the code. and really i dont want to see that anybody here is going to claim authorship of software which has been developed by M$ or be paid for it.

for me personally it took months to find all updates for my windows which were created by microsoft and learn how to install them in correct order. the installation of all updates can take hours and i must be on PC. if i create some kind of scripts which do this automatically, It can be done without modifying of the packages.

When it comes to unofficial fixes it is as i said before. anybody can fix errors of his own system. this just cannot be prohibited by law. if somebody asks me how to fix same problem on different system (anybody can ask, including M$) i can give him the solution, but only for free.

when it comes to creating of new software based on microsofts apis then the situation is quite clear i hope.

but when it comes to creating new software using microsofts files... hard to say where is the border line between creating new app based on MS Visual C++, and between system patch which was created unoficially. I worked for newspapers so i know laws about authorship in my country. If i use some parts of any material which has been distributed previously i have to mention it in final product. (for example if i create new core file for ms system it must contain information what it was based on). If the final product produces profit, then the author of the original work has right for part of it.

so if i create new fixed version of any ms file there must be mentioned that the file/package is still protected by M$ licensing and eula(as is mentioned in certain unofficial updates)

honestly, there are quite a lot of commercial software which modifies microsoft's products in many different ways, more than we will ever be able to modify. for example some codecs, renderers, freeware apis and so on. if here in this part of forum is approximately 10-15 people able to build up a team, they will surely do their jobs for the feeling of good work. i dont believe that these people represent any threat to M$.

please tell me your idea about how win9x can be consolidated, sorted (removed obsolete, used only those which will avail) ... i really dont want that such work may cause trouble...

to people here:
i think that some people here will lost their breath, but i believe that Tihiy is right in many things he said. Right now i see that tests with various dlls may broke certain system processes (for example MDAC is completelely screwed up on my system now and i have to restore backup).

the things have to be done more carefully as it will be done with such enthusiasm i see.

to Tihiy:
i started to perform analysis of the files available here and on MDGX's webpage. i found certain bugfixes but also things that may cause serious version conflicts (see io.sys problem in forum upward). unskilled user which has seen number of possible updates was so confused that he even didnt know from where to begin...

but on other hand, i found solutions which i was pursuing for months without knowing that they are currently available, also some updates caused version downgrade so i have to restore some patches again... and thats also the reason why i beliieve that consolidation is needed...

As long if you can download the packs you made from Microsoft it would be legal, however, Microsoft would never let you do that so it´s against the Microsoft EULA... I think you see the problem there...

Wow. Quite a lot has been going on.

To Offler: Nobody says you can't make scripts to install all M$ updates, that's what the unofficial service packs available here do. But that's pretty much ALL you can do without breaking any EULAs. See, even Tihiy's RP7 breaks some EULAs by including modified ME system DLLs into 98SE - it's not the inclusion of DLLs that breaks it if you have a ME license, it's the modifications done to them. What he does is almost reverse engineering, which is explicitly forbidden in the M$ EULA. This is the biggest problem that we hit here. As we start implementing more stuff, it gets more and more to reverse engineering than to updating.

On the other hand, we are working on implementing functions on unsupported legacy software. There's no need to worry about the license agreements of win9x. But by patching code from XP DLLs, we're still breaking the XP EULA, and there's where most of the problem lies.

But on the other other hand, we still haven't actually decided on who will do what, IF we will do anything. So why don't we clarify that first? And when you'll need that domain, it'll be there for you.

Sorry, I got interrupted in the office, so I’ll continue…

But you need permission first...

To write How-To´s would be the best way, hacked and recoded stuff will not do indeed...

Ahem... I would revise that if I was you, as you stated it here you say that unsupported software can be modified?

And by the way, IF we can work this out together then there is no need to move from MSFN.org. I would like to remind you that the staff isn´t against the activity here, but needs to protect the people and thus the forum with it. I can´t repeat my self enough times...

I was saying that we have a much more delicate situation with using XP code than applying it to 9x. And btw, RP7 does break the 9x license agreement, as it installs modified system files. Or of course, RP7 does not count as a modification while what we want to implement does.



I, for one, figured out all the stuff here by myself. I greatly appreciate the work the independent devs here do, and i don't need a separate project to be happy with ME on my laptop. Besides, the team here would focus on 98SE, which has a number of issues with the hardware in my lappy.

And i'm referring to this post again: http://www.msfn.org/board/A-Humble-Request...802#entry750802



That's all i have to say. I don't need anything more than is available here, and if i do, i try to do it myself. About the "howto" stuff, it's the same crap as actually making a script to do all that. Just that it won't be you (the script writer) breaking the EULA, only the people that use the script.

Agreed. Some of us have never stopped using it. Just because MS stopped supporting it and other big money businesses want it dead doesn't mean we have to let it happen. I see nothing in their EULA that says we have to let it die after 8 or 10 years.

The Open Source community is far more responsive to the needs and wants of the user and the software they maintain shows it. How long did it take MS to add tabbed browsing? Microsoft doesn't respond to the wishes of the user unless it hurts their bottom line. Maybe we can't actually "Open Source" 98 but we can have Open Source improvements for 98.
Rick

This post reminds me of some of the posts by someone from another forum (tapland.com) that goes by "Nerys"... He always has some long, legal statement to make without a single capital at the front of a sentence :-)

Really informative post though!

If we make something out of our own code than i don't think it is against microsoft eula

We can add new code to system. just as we can add new driver to system we can add new modules (just as tihiy does in uberskin) and we can collect existing updates which were released by MS. all this software can be redistributed to people who legally own licensed Win9x. this is completely clear to me.

but when it comes to modifying of existing files the situation is not so clear. laws, eulas and licenses may contain some things that does not allow us to modify the code, but it is not so strict as some people believe... i shall take a look again and maybe i found something interesting.

I readed the licence agreement the Polish Windows 98 displayed during install procedure. There was a clausule at the end of the text referring to the Polish law act. The conclusion is, it is legal to do reverse engineering, if it is necesary to find and remove bugs in the software.

It is possible, other language versions of the licence agreement are very different from the Polish one.

But I think that microsoft is strictly against reverse engineering?

But thing is, we aren't removing bugs, we are adding features.

@ specialbao1: Microsoft doesn't give a crap about what we do on 9x as they don't support it anymore. But that doesn't make it less illegal.

removing bugs:
can be done with using of reverse engeneering without breaking the eula. MS have to be informed about the activity and has to receive the fixed file. some bugfixes have already been done.

adding features:
can be done by adding new dlls, which are based on completely new code.


Xenos kernel patcher ideed adds new features, but the way how it works is quite masterpiece when we are looking from law point. xenos kernelex is a patcher. completely new code which is being added to existing kernel files. program indeed adds new code. but new code add every new application and application connects itself with system.

again - there things which are well known about windows and every good programmer know about them and use them to connect his application with system. dll exports belongs to this category of knowledge and really, i didnt read in any eula how application can add new features to system

You mean to say that reverse engineering is legal?

It depends on the purpose of the reverse engineering.

- If a decompiled code is put in some other application, it is a theft.
- If the decompilation is used to find and remove bugs, it is not a theft.

I'm not good enough in english language to dig in the law related matters. Still, an action can both legal and not legal, depending on the purpose the action was taken for.

I am once again asking who will be the leader and it will be his duty to recruit members and to develop the project

Didn't you realize yet that there is no project?

You mean to say that no one will work out this project
So can't we just join official and unofficial patches and bug fixes

to Sfor:
i really dont know how are dll exports of XP kernel made in source code. If completely new code is created to emulate XP kernel and being added to existing 98's kernel... i believe it is very similar to Wine under linux, but i cannot be sure...

I hate when legal issues intervene in good things. One more thing: is Microsoft affiliated with this forum? If so, MS should give a **** that people still think about Windows 98 (It's bad for business, I know).

Better icons, bitmaps and animations (remake) - this we can offer, for free of course.

Just like here:

http://www.softmania.pl/program-1252-nieof...ws_98_se.html#m

But we are not a developers.

As far as i know Microsoft is not affiliated in any way with this forum.

at the bottom of every page:


yeah they know about us but they arent affiliated at all.

But I assure provide you, that Microsoft is here. Of course anonymously for monitoring and spying for some special news...

Sorry

Why is this thread turning into spam? Copyrighted to WHO, may i ask?

Software patents and intellectual property only benefit the company that owns them. They interfere with competition and make good software development difficult for everyone else. Sadly, we live in a world where big companies like M$ can purchase influence and get laws written that benefit them at the expense of the people and small companies. They're wrong and should be outlawed, but lawmakers don't have the moral backbone to change it. If we managed to produce code worth patenting, doing so would only make the situation worse.

Rick

...yet software patenting and intellectual property, as well as implicit copyright, are the backbone of private development. This is the frontline defense against anyone - large or small - being able to outright steal another's work. In fact, its true of all publishing.

Implicit copyright is held by all software developers. If, for instance, MS decided to 'borrow' uberskin, Tihiy could sue their pants off. They can make a facimile that does the same thing albeit using a different method (which incidentally you could say about uberskin, a skinning engine that hooks differently than XP's), but they can't pirate code.

I didn't mean to offend anyone.This is not a spam I just said that we should do the same with Microsoft.They are making the most protected patents as far as I know.I just was making fun about it and you got serious for that.Ok i am removing the post.Sorry for that

I am sorry for that post

Hey, no need to be sorry. This thread isn't going anywhere, with or without your post.

@ other posts above: If we're getting into corporate copyright BS already, then we won't be able to do a darn thing. I propose the following:

1. We actually start discussing useful stuff, get in touch with the developers here and ask their opinion on this.

or

2. We request deletion of this thread by the mods and just leave things as they are.

@Th3_uN1Qu3 (or whatever): Great idea~

I just hope it doesn't turn out to be option 2.

We should ask someone who can make project for all 9x series not just windows98.
@Th3_uN1Qu3 Is windows millennium working good.A friend of mine said that windows millennium is a lot better than windows98se

I want anyone who has experience to answer the following question
1.Will ordinary setup creators and patch makers work for a pack intended for updating process for windows9x series.

As it comes out of the box it is worse. Tweaked, it is indeed better. More stable and better underlying architecture - i used to get severe network issues in 98 on my laptop (when i used the network/internet everything would stutter, from sound to HDD activity to mouse cursor), i don't get that in ME. Basically ME is a mix of 98SE and 2000.

It has two major downsides though - you can't get pure DOS in ME (there is an unofficial DOS patch but that messes other things up), so you won't be able to play all old games. And there's that stupid memory leak. ME has to be rebooted once every few days, if ran 24/7 for extended periods it'll eventually slow down to a crawl then crash.



Yes.

so i believe that the law stuff and some other things have been cleared so we can focus on work.

Advantages of current state:
a) people who made the updates are doing the best job they can when each of them is focused on single thing
this way can be created more updates
c) people are free in things they do

Disatvantages of current state:
a) no complete localization possible
updates may be incompatibile one with each other
c) too many updates and people just dont know how to handle with them
d) harder implementation of some features (it is hard to add features when some things in system are missing)
e) missing/not public documentation

so i dont want to pust to anybody, but i think that some disadvantages must be removed. the goals of for the any developing are clear to any user who will continue to use Win9x system further and improve its stability and functionality. many parts of this have been already archieved bat they are spreaded all over and it tooks hours to pick them all up...

Excellent post. What we should do first from that plan of yours is creating some proper documentation. The developers themselves can write the docs, and you don't need team work to document what you did yourself.

What do you say? Please ask the devs around here for more thorough documentation of their work, and we'll set it up nicely.

But in my book it is written to prepare documentation is last step.

Well, dirtribution and translation to other languages is the last step indeed.

It is not necesary to make any first step in the development, I believe.

We have quite some developments out already, and some of them really need more thorough documentation. Anyway, i'm pretty sure the docs about current developments should come first.

They say first
define a problem,
then make an algorithm,
code the program,
then test it for errors
and then prepare a documentation.

We have unofficial service packs, kernel enhancements and GUI modifications. Some of them don't have proper documentation, or it's scattered all over the place. We should compile the documentation for the existing enhancements first.

How can we create a documentation when the authors of these stuff are not helping us?

Well, the main idea was to ask them about that, but i don't know if anyone did this already. Anyway, the packs have readme files and such, KernelEx's "Notes" are enough documentation, what we have to do is get it all in one place, let's say, a dedicated site or a wiki page. For other undocumented packs, we have to browse around the forum for any clues and ask the authors for more docs.

Does anyone know how to combine those packs in a single pack.And a superior compression technology should be used
Gzip,Bzip2,7Zip

wow. that actually sounds really excellent!


i typically use .rar, but since my WinRAR program has started popping up the "buy me" message, I'm probably going to move to .7z, pretty soon. so maybe use 7z? most people do have 7zip, on this forum.

7-Zip LZMA. Period.

PS. Let's get our asses to work, grab all documentation on what has been done on win9x in this forum, format it nicely and post it on the domain i mentioned above. A couple step-by-step tutorials with pictures would be very helpful too. Like what to install in what order, and what to do if something goes wrong.

Now lets start work.

Alright. School's almost out here, so i'll soon (in a few days) start working on compiling documentation for what's been already developed. Tutorials, pictures and everything.

I am also free now a days.My exams are over.

Any news on the project? How is it going?


By the way, it seems that some are working hard on the project in a negative way to send useless PMs to moderators...