OK. I did what you asked and it wouldn't help. So I researched and here is the short answer If you need more, let me know.

TINY answer: I used your GETVER on the new one (my one) and I get version 4.10.0.2226

VERY short answer: If your error check gives the existing file newer message when it discovers that the existing file is identical to the file AP will use to replace it, the problem is solved! (Sorry, I couldn't find where those file message reports are generated, but I am sure you know ) Basically, AP is finding that my file is the same date as the AP file even though the message says that the exisiting file is newer than the AP file.

SOMEWHAT LONGER answer with some details assumes that the message solution above is not the answer:

My version of ESDI_506.PDR is extracted from:
Enable4 8BitLBA | Break the 137Gb barrier!, Who said it couldn't be done? Enjoy your huge disks Post #1
Attached File(s)
[indent]4102226F.ZIP ( 14.1k ) Number of downloads: 1172
Manually inserted the extracted ESDI_506.PDR into the CAB file on the Win98SE disk before installation.

VERSIONS/DATES/SIZES GETVER gives version 4.10.0.2226. So I looked to see where your fix was coming from to compare. I found two files in the Hotfixes directory:

• 48bitlba.exe
• 48bitlb2.exe

which from the batchfile tells me are the two versions for normal and IBM laptops. I opened them and extracted the ESDI_506.PDR files to the bin directory and renamed them ESDI_506.LBA and ESDI_506.LB2 resepctively. Then using GETVER ESDI_506.* provides this result:

• 4.10.0.2226 Esdi_506.lb2 - AP file from 48bitlb2.exe
• 4.10.0.2225 Esdi_506.lba - AP file from 48bitlba.exe
• 4.10.0.2226 ESDI_506.PDR - extract from 4102226F.ZIP (the one I used)

Just to check that my version and the lb2 version match and the lba version doesn't in other respects, I checked file dates/sizes:

• Esdi_506.lb2 - Saturday, July 29, 2006, 02:02:18 - 28,526 bytes
• Esdi_506.lba - Thursday, July 20, 2006, 12:38:32 - 24,431 bytes
• ESDI_506.PDR - Saturday, July 29, 2006, 02:02:00 - 28,526 bytes

Same match/mismatch. Conclusion if the newer file message answer above is not correct? Although I am CERTAIN that I disabled the IBM laptop item and enabled only the normal enable48bitlba (after all, these were the default options weren't they? and I checked anyway!), AP is trying to use the laptop version anyway! I doubt this!

Hope this helps - let me know if you want more!

I doubt there's any way of checking if one's using/installing this on a laptop or desktop. Unless there's a CPU check... So maybe there should be an additional validation for mobile/desktop installation, which would then make the difference between 2225 and 2226. And if that would be done, then this should be a global check, so any other mobile/laptop upgrade within AP would take this setting into account.

Yo soporific! Check this out and see if I am an id***! (If I am, I'll delete it cos it will be in the way!)

Extracts from HFSystem.bat follow:



Shouldn't the 48BITLBA section SET CHEC2=4.10.0.2226 and the 48BITLB2 section SET CHEC2=4.10.0.2225 ? If you, you have the final digit of the version number wrong in each case. Just swap them and I can test it again (if I haven't changed that and tested myself lol)

Let me know!

Hmmm, i dunno how you missed it ... maybe i've misread the situation, but in all your post text explaining more about which update is installed there's no mention of the determining factor about which update to install:

:48BITLBA
:: this is the version for ALL PCs/portables EXCEPT IBM portables with removable disks
SET CHEC2=4.10.0.2225

:48BITLB2
:: this is the version for IBM portables with removable disks
SET CHEC2=4.10.0.2226

Now, either you have an IBM laptop with a removable disk and as such should have installed the 4.10.0.2226 version, or you don't and thus should have 4.10.0.2225 installed. My guess is you've somehow missed this extremely important piece of info and have assumed that the latest file version is the one to install. Or you actually have a laptop and just have neglected to tell us...

I just re-read your posts and i think this is all to do with the fact you have inserted the wrong file into your CAB files. Unless you actually have an IBM laptop, you should have inserted 2225. This totally explains why AP is giving you the messages you are seeing. I dearly hope you aren't using that on a computer with hard disks over 137 gb! Stop using immediately!

And i did include a little bit of text that explained which one was which in the module options... i think you've had a Homer moment, my friend! D'OH!

about the sneak preview of v1.96: this is not in anyway an official release, a sneak preview in my language is a Beta where the code changes are finished but there still may be update additions to come. What i'm trying to say is there will be an actual v1.96 upgrade official release that you should download and install to replace the sneak preview version, so don't go and think you have v1.96 cuz you don't!

OK. The reason I would have missed it is easy.

Years ago, I came to MSFN and checked out a thread which had started in which the idea of a Win98 Service Pack was being mooted. Not developed, mooted. So I went off and developed a purely Microsoft SP for my own uses with no other fixes that weren't available on the Update Site.

This year, I was pointed here by someone on another forum regarding the >137GB problem. I first read the thread in which its development was first mooted and then discussed (and argued especially with regard to a commercial version which already existed). That thread seems to have died when the final result was produced. When I understood THAT thread, I then went to the thread from which I could download the end result. I searched to see why the different versions/version numbers were not explained at the point of the download links. I then took the latest version and used it. It worked. I also compared it with the earlier version whose version number matched my Win98SE version number.

I posted a question on that thread asking which version number I should use (and should I match my Windows version number) as I hadn't found anything very clear. There hasn't been an answer. Maybe I should have reposted, but as the file was working, I didn't chase it. Then when I used auto-patcher, my Windows version number changed so I made the logical assumption that latest version was the one to use and only to revert to an earlier version if there was some reason not to.

Now it seems I was supposed to read some other thread (or this one?) to find out which file to download from the sticky post which held the download links.

So you are saying I should have been using the SECOND TO LAST download version? Hmmm! Wonder why my PC is alive considering my Win98SE partition is entirely above 137GB lol

Thanks for pointing it out. Any chance of someone doing something in that sticky post to point out which file to download for which use e.g. "this latest version is for IBM compatible laptops only and NOT for PCs"? I mean people who want that file don't necessarily read other threads!

Sorry to have reported incorrectly. Still very puzzled but thanks for the pointer!

soporific there is something odd going on here.

My Win98SE version starts by installing KERNEL32.DLL version 4.10.0.2222 which is in the WIN98_31.CAB file on the CD and I copied to my windows\options\cabs folder from where I instal Win98SE.

ESDI_506.PDR comes from the same CAB file and was originally presumably the same version as the kernel. That is why I wasn't sure which Enable48bitLBA zipfile to download - the .2222 version zipfile or the latest.

Now according to the acquired wisdom from both this thread and that download thread I should be having startup problems because this is DEFINITELY not any kind of laptop - I ought to know, I built it lol

Now if I understand the (not very apparent) guidance on the other thread, one should ONLY download the 2226 version if your ESDI_506.PDR file has that version number - which the average mortal will only know if they find that their KERNEL32.DLL or Windows 98SE version number ends 2226.

Now come the problems. I manually replace the 2222 version of ESDI_506.PDR with the 2226 version and, luckily, have no problem with startup so I can finish the installation. Later on, I discover that Autopatcher is worth a try so I use it and include the 98->Me upgrade.

Now I find that sitting in my Windows\Options\Cabs directory is a KERNEL32.DLL version 4.10.0.2224 which I didn't put there and couldn't have come from my Win98SE CD. If that were being used, I should still NOT be using the 2226 version of the ESDI_506.DLL file. BUT in my Windows\System directory, the KERNEL32.DLL has version 4.10.0.2226. This of course means that in using the version 2226 version of ESDI_506.PDR, I am KIND OF following LLXX's advice (before she got banned) to use that version of the file .......

Question - how on earth did something somewhere decide to make my Windows 98SE version 4.10.0.2226 instead of 2224 ot 2222 and somewhere maybe even skipping 2225?

And if this is what happens when using the autopatcher and 98->Me, then the advice about IBM laptops is not correct but rather should use the Windows version number as identifier.

Any ideas what is going on here and what I should do? I am prepared to do a clean reinstallation, but I am not going to move the partition which means I need to replace the ESDI_506.PDR file during the windows installation. Presumably I should use 2225 for that even though the system will be 2222. And I can stop at each stage and check versions of kernel32.dll and esdi_506.pdr (the latter using getver.exe). If I need to test like that, should I disable 98->Me when I autopatch the first time so I can check the versions before and after?

Any thoughts!

The kernel version and the IDE driver version do not necessarily have to match.
The kernel may be (and most likely has been, through Auto-Patcher) patched/replaced by certain (un)official updates/upgrades, according to some versioning schema that follows MS' style, but that doesn't imply that any and all other files should be upgraded to the very same version number, if available.

In this case, the 2226 version of the pdr driver is clearly only for IBM laptops, so desktop users should stay away from it always.

Also, the official 2225 version of the pdr driver is coming from MS and is an upgraded/fixed version of 2222, meant to officially replace the latter. The patched 2225 version from LLXX is the very same official 2225, patched to support 48bit LBA. So it's safe to install LLXX' 2225 version over a 2222 pdr driver, on a desktop installation.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...

I entirely agree with you, it sounds like crazy stuff ... !


OK, i think the warning to not use 2226 if you have a standard desktop is a theoretical warning - ie its possible something could go wrong, not that it will always go wrong. So just because you are using it without a meltdown of some sort doesn't mean its safe. I wish I knew more precisely but that is how i currently understand it. I remember people reporting that 2226 worked on their machines without a fuss.


Why go to the bother of re-installing if this is your only issue currently? It seems like you know how to boot into command prompt safe mode. Put the 2225 file somewhere easy ( eg c:\ ) and copy 2225 to %windir%\SYSTEM\IOSUBSYS\ eg c:\windows\system\iosubsys overwriting the 2222 file. All done. Am i missing something here?


OTHER NEWS

I have had a report of a problem in the Essential 3rd Party Apps module with the latest Flash update (i said i wouldn't include, i lied!) ... has anybody else downloaded the 1.96 preview and tried to run the above module? Did you by-pass Flash? If not, did you get the result below? Thanks in advance for any help tracking this down...


This update DOES use a new routine i dreamed up just recently ... it uses the registry to determine the program version. Lots of programs actually have a registry key that is used for advising on the program version --- Flash 9.0.45.0 installs a key called "FlashPlayerVersion" in HKCU\software\Macromedia\FlashPlayer and so the code simply uses that as the comparison version and the normal file version routine is then called to make the decision about whether Flash needs to be installed or not. The strategy is a bit iffy, especially if during a program's historical development a different method is used to store the program version - but it should work for Flash AFAIK ... so please report if you have seen something like the above ...

OTHER NEWS

I have had a report of a problem in the Essential 3rd Party Apps module with the latest Flash update (i said i wouldn't include, i lied!) ... has anybody else downloaded the 1.96 preview and tried to run the above module? Did you by-pass Flash? If not, did you get the result below? Thanks in advance for any help tracking this down...




Yes--got the same thing--charlie

OK thanks very much Drugwash and soporific. You both made it very clear.

I knew the warning about the IBM laptop version was theoretical - as in "it MAY cause problems".

However, there is still a problem with the way in which the files are provided. The Enable48BitLBA Download Thread simply states:

2006-07-29 20:05 Win98SE version (4.10.2226) released - only for replacing an existing v4.10.2226 file

As that is a sticky post and the thread is only sporadically posted to, this means that there will be users like me who, finding they have version 4.10.2226 will get stuck wondering. Many of them will NOT know how to find out the version of the .pdr file but WILL know how to find their version number.

Can't change the sticky. Not much point burying the advice in a quiet thread. My point is that it would probably be a good idea for a Moderator to amend LLXX's sticky post to explain that the 2226 version should ONLY be used if the PDR file has that version number regardless of what the kernel/windows version is and maybe a pointer to how to use GETVER to find out (I notice that GETVERS doesn't work either). Remember that LLXX cannot amend that post for obvious reasons so could someone else please? (You might also want to make it more obvious which files to download - like put the type of windows against the file link - the number of downloads suggests that many like me downloaded 2226 thinking it was simply the latest version - in fact EVERYONE seems now to be downloading that version and I doubt there are that many IBM laptops around lol)

For me, that's it - I am back on track thanks!

QUOTE
Now searching through the Essential 3rd Party Apps module...

ASET: Warning: syntax error!

*** program code error ***

Track: Flash4ie
Title: Flash 9.0.45 player & plugin for Internet Explorer
TvarB1: 9 0 45 0
TvarA1:
TvarB2: 9
TvarA2:
TvarR1:
TvarR2: ?

You are at the CantDetr label.
Please report this.




I got the same error, everything else was good.

<text snipped>

does the Flash update work for anybody at all or is it just me?

I got a better idea, if you don't mind... Here's the install log for Flash 9: link. Check the registry keys...

Oh, forgot to mention: this is from a manual install, not from Auto-Patcher.

thanks man, i was looking at the wrong key, and in the wrong place. Cheers.

Please find attached the fix for the flash problem.

and due to some information from this post, the official version of 1.96 is going to be a bit different.

feed me back... v1.96 ... is it ... is it not ... only a short post away ... go to it!

I keep having probs with nod32 and a coupla files.

I will disable it in the morning and try again.

Auto-Patcher for Windows 98 SE (English)

(hopefully the) very last preview is now available, get it here:
upgrade 1.95 PR2 to 1.96.50
16.7MB

If nothing is wrong with this release, it will simply be re-branded to Auto-Patcher for Windows 98se May 2007 and released as full & lite versions. The full version will also include Net Framework 1.1. So if there are no major bugs reported, you can think of this as the proper release described above. The only thing is you will have some obsolete files inside the program directory - so if you don't have access to broadband, just stick with 1.95 PR2 and this upgrade to 1.96.

Soporific. I've Upgraded from AP 1.95 PR2 to 1.96.50 - the bad news is that the problem still persists in AP 1.96.50. In addition, debugging cannot be turned on from the shortcut folder in the Start Menu.

The good news is that there appears to be a very simple workaround to the problem of insufficient environment space that I am experiencing.

Once I realised that using AP to patch a vanilla SE system that has no applications installed on it is very different to using AP to patch a SE system that has several applications installed on it, a workaround to the problem became readily apparent.

In brief, all that was necessary was for me to "configure" my SE system in such a way as to make it appear to AP that it is a vanilla system without any applications installed on it. There are two ways to do this:

1) Boot SE into Safe Mode and then run AP
2) Use Msconfig to change SE's bootup configuration from "Normal startup - load all device drivers and software" to "Selective startup" in which the "Config.sys", "Autoexec.bat" and "Load startup group items" options are disabled, followed by a reboot and then running AP.

I've tested AP's reporting system (including the debugging option which I ran from AP's install folder) using both methods without experiencing any problems.

Once you release the full version of AP 1.96.50, I will download it and test AP further by installing some of the other patches that remain to be installed on my SE system. I would not expect any further problems related to environment space when I install the patches, provided I use the Msconfig workaround and reboot prior to using AP to install the patches.

I think the new AP user interface is a big improvement on the previous one, and the addition of the "Help" system also gets a big thumbs up!

Fair enough, i'll re-investigate.

Everyone: for the latest news, please see the first post.

RE: those having problems even getting AP to run under normal conditions...

i'm going to improve the environment space functioning by adding a test at the very start that will warn about systems that don't provide enough for the program to work properly. It's not good enough (it seems) to wait for users to see 'Out of environment space' (OES) warnings - i suspect that the messages aren't always appearing when OES is the problem. So the code will at least rule this out. I will release a new version of Autopach.bat based upon the 1.96.50 upgrade that was released.

OK, v1.96.51 is out now!! ...... don't get too excited, all this is for is for people who are experiencing problems with Auto-Patcher even starting. Everyone can install it, but you won't notice much if everything is OK. I have included a newer version of START_DEBUG.bat but that was only because i forgot to update it for the earlier release. Doh. The release is an installer that does all the work for you, just run it and choose the install directory for AP.

WHAT is in the update?

The change is that the very first thing the program does after locating the program directory and running AutoPach.bat, is an environment space test to check that enough space is available and that all the code-checking variables will be able to be set properly. I'm not actually that confident that this addition to the program is going to solve most problems, but its good to have in there to rule out the possibility.

Technically speaking, lots of text is assigned to each of the module choice variables, which mimics what the program is going to do but is designed to catch any errors (unlike the previous method which was a "wait for error to appear and not handle it at all" method). It is possible to trip the space warning and for it to be a false alarm but i've coded for this situation so its still fine to use.

grab it here:
http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/Au...6.51_update.exe
file size: 226kb

you MUST have v1.96.50 already installed.

Sorry

Hi to all

I am trying to make a unattenden cd for win98 whit all in it so i need autopatcher .
Now my question i use a dutch version on win98 can i use this auto patcher or is it only for the english version and if so is there a dutch version availibe or can someone tell me how to get the files for the dutch version

Thanks Scorp

1) like the title of the homepage thread sticky says, unfortunately it is only for English systems. And ...
2) there isn't a dutch version available. But ...
3) you can help create a version that is compatible for Dutch local systems by downloading the full version of Auto-Patcher for Windows 98se (English) and trying to install each update manually, and see what happens!! All updates are inside the \FILES folder. IF you want to help, when you do this, please take as many notes as possible. I think you will find lots of the updates are international, but some will turn your system into half English / half Dutch. If this is not a problem, then do it. The best thing is to try on a newly formatted system. Best NOT to try on your main computer.

I tried v1.96.51, and the only result was the following pretty picture:

nathanson1947, this is good news in one respect -- i expected the people who were having problems running AP to fail the environment space (ES) test. If you DIDN'T fail, then i am completely at a loss of how to help --- at least i have something to work with now. I am working on v1.96.52 to see if i can't extend the function. Can someone else who ISN'T having problems with AP install v1.96.51 and see if you trip the ES limit? Thanks in advance...

For those who really want this to work and its not, you can also do the following:

* we need to know exactly where the code is branching off to places we don't want it to go. The Debug mode wasn't designed to be this precise in finding out where the code goes awry. So a trial and error method would be to do the following:

The problem resides inside AutoPach.bat --- it seems people are not getting past the processing inside this file. So we need to find out where its breaking down ... a very basic way of doing this is to insert break points with messages. ie

(code)
(code)
(code)

echo.
echo. You are here! (no 1)
PAUSE

(code)
(code)
(code)

echo.
echo. You are here! (no 2)
PAUSE

So what you can do is insert the above code anywhere inside the AutoPach.bat file -- its best to insert it right after a label (a label is any line that starts with a single colon) -- and see where the code gets to before exiting out ungracefully. The best places to put the above message code, is right after the RESTARTx labels (there are 8 labels that start with RESTART ie RESTART1, RESTART2 etc). A good one to do first is to insert one right before RESTART8 which is the last label before the code launches the next file. If you don't get to that message, then we know the problem is inside AutoPach.bat -- if you do get to it, then the problem is inside FULLUP.bat which is in the \modules directory. Do the same for that file (ie insert the break point messages).

This will help find the problem, so get to it! If i wasn't clear enough, please say something.

PS - nathanson1947, when you saw the above message, what happened after that? If its not clear, try adding the break points above and then try again. Be sure to tell me everything you see.

I don't know how to access and change the code, but I tried to run autopatcher again. This time, when I "pressed any key to continue", as instructed by the first error message, I actually got a second window which appeared as follows:

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6769/en...nt2finalun2.jpg

Following the instructions on this second window, I ran SYSEDIT. A whole bunch of windows appeared on the screen. Here are the two which mentioned the SHELL variable:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/9866/shell1finalwt9.jpg

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2079/shell2finalke2.jpg

1) OK, with SYSEDIT, this brings up all your configuration files --- the one you want is CONFIG.SYS --- it probably doesn't have much inside it. The ones you posted sshots of isn't the one you want. If you can, please post the text or the sshots of the contents of AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS -- they both should come up with SYSEDIT.

3) here's a custom version with breakpoints all the way thru the code. You will have to press the spacebar a few times and watch a few messages go by but at least we will know the exact point it goes dead. Please let me know the order of the messages as well as the last one you saw.

changes from v1.96.51 to v1.96.52:
* the ES test is slightly easier to pass - i was testing on a system with not much installed, and i would expect a few more bytes used up with a few apps installed as well.
* there are breakpoints all over the place which you have to press a key to get thru each time. So you aren't going to like installing this UNLESS you haven't been able to get AP to work or want to help out.

grab it here:
http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/Au...6.52_update.exe
file size: 227kb

you MUST have v1.96.50 already installed. If you have v1.96.51 installed, its fine to simply install the newer version over the old one.

here's 3 screenshots about 'Improving Readability'

the first shot was buried in the help section for 1.96.50 so here it is in case you've never seen it:


+++



+++



The choice is pretty clear from where i'm sitting. Make the change today! - you will need to change the setting from Auto to your desired setting 2 or 3 times (for different files that are used) but your computer will remember your choices for future uses. It is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to spend the required 30 seconds playing around with all the options to get the optimal setting.

Here are the screenshots:

I had a particular problem with both v1.96.51 and v1.96.52. Whenever I got a DOS window, and tried to press a key to continue, all the keys were deactivated, and pressing them had no effect. I finally got around the problem by the following method:

1. I tried to close the window by clicking on the x in the upper right hand corner. This caused a second window to appear:



2. I then clicked on "NO" on the second window, and the second window would disappear. But I then found that the keys were now active and I could continue on to the next window.

In any case, here are all the windows I got, in the order in which I received them. After the last window, everything disappeared from the screen.

Ah ha! It IS due to environment space! Notice the 'Out of environment space' messages .... i will attempt to overcome this by allocating more space for the processes. New version will be available soon ...

EDIT: i think i can see the problem -- you have your AUTOEXEC.BAT file adding very long strings to the PATH and CLASS PATH variables. To check if this is the case, adjust your AUTOEXEC.BAT file to REM out each line that starts with SET ie

SET PATH=(blah blah blah)
SET CLASSPATH=(blah blah blah)

becomes

REM -- SET PATH=(blah blah blah)
REM -- SET CLASSPATH = (blah blah blah)

(only the REM word is important)

then reboot your computer and see if AP works without errors. After we have determined if this is the problem, you can un REM the lines to return to the original state.

Regarding the point where no keys would work, this is probably due to the ES problem but i must admit i've never come across that particular issue.

New version:
changes from v1.96.52 to v1.96.53:
* the ES test is slightly harder to pass - its now back to the test version inside v196.51.
* the breakpoints have been removed
* the space allocation has been increased by 1024 --- this should solve the problems.

grab it here:
http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/Au...update.exe
file size: 227kb

you MUST have v1.96.50 already installed. If you have v1.96.51 or v1.96.52 installed, its fine to simply install the newer version over the old one.

EDIT 3: can someone say something so i can reply ... i want to post my 500th message! ..... not that i'm counting or anything ... and it's not because i want to "level up" which is what's going to happen at 500. Really, truly!

edit 4: i suppose i could just cheat ...

I just ran version v1.96.53. It passed the environment space test, and the keys all worked. However, it only remained on for a second before everything disappeared. I managed to find a couple of logs. The question: Did my computer not need any updates, or did the program abort for some reason???

This log file for Auto-Patcher 1.96.53
was generated on Monday, 28 May 2007 at 12:07pm.
- the most recent log is at the end of this log file.
- only titles that installed or were blocked from installing will be logged.

Report for Auto-Patcher 1.96.53 generated on Monday, 28 May 2007
- the time is now: 12:09pm
- the most recent report is at the end of this log file.

The following list of updates were not found on this computer:

no the report text is normal for a session that exits out ungracefully. ... Nathan my son, the fix was always only a stop gap, it doesn't help us explain what's going on with your system. If you could do that REMming out in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file as i described in the previous post that would actually help us determine one way or they other. This stabbing in the dark is quite time consuming for us both. Although. i should have just lashed out and given you an extra 2048 bytes of space instead of a measly 1024 and the taking out of the breakpoints was a bit premature! So i'll do another one but only after you report back how you went with the REM stuff. Ask if you need more clarification ...

Edit: 'Senior' sooooooo gives the wrong impression about me

Actually, I do need some clarification. I need to know how to convert the AUTOEXEC.BAT file into a form that I can edit and replace. If it needs to be done in DOS, I need to know the DOS commands to do so, and if going into DOS is not necessary, I still need instructions on how to access and replace the code. Presumably. the REMming of the appropriate lines is the same as editing text or HTML, but I have to know how to get there before doing it. I took some courses in BASIC in the mid 1980's, but even if I remembered it all, even the DOS commands may have changed completely between 1986 and 1999 (when Windows 98SE came out).

Nah, its much easier than having to employ your BASIC skills, it really is dead easy otherwise i wouldn't have suggested it ...

when you use SYSEDIT to bring up your configuration files, they are loaded into a notpad style window which you can edit. If you want to make a back-up first, just open notepad, navigate to the root of the c: drive, make sure you select all file types, and you should be able to open AUTOEXEC.BAT and then save a copy as you would a normal text file.

REMming out a line simply means putting REM at the start of the line ... i added the two dashes just for aesthetic reasons. Don't think of the AUTOEXEC.BAT file as anything else other than a text file with some text inside it.

But if you needed to make a backup of your autoexec.bat file i would have said. REMming out your PATH statements simply means you can't use those programs until you put them back in. Just use SYSEDIT to adjust your file. Reboot. Test AP. Use SYSEDIT again to unREM the lines. and reboot. Your computer is back to normal.

Three lines in Autoexec.bat were REMmed, AP was tested, and then the three lines were unREMmed. AP appeared to work properly, and the log file is an attachment to this message.

Excellent! We have worked out what was wrong and I suspect others are in the same boat. So, it looks like i'm upping the space allocation. nathanson, we haven't finished yet. We want to get it working without you REMming stuff out but i think i know what is going to work. Back soon ...

EDIT: Ok the next version will have 2 changes:
* the space allocation has been doubled in 2 places
- START_ME.bat and RUN-MOD.bat which are the 2 files that dole out the memory.

grab it here:
http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/Au...update.exe
file size: 227kb

you must have v1.96.50 already installed. If you have v1.96.51, v1.96.52, or v1.96.53 installed, its fine to simply install the newer version over the old one.

Just a note from a non-techny who's becoming increasingly confused by the multiplicity of patches, upgrades, and previews and by the difficulty in finding clear download links for this, that, and the other!
- It's becoming increasingly difficult to see the wood for the trees. How about clearing out all the deadwood from the topic pages and just having a straightforward thread with all the links and explanation in the one place?
- postscriptum - when I visited your website I was tizzied further to find that the links there referred to WinXP and the like... HEEELLLPPPPPP!!!!
- post-postscriptum - I have now tracked down what seem to be the three main files i.eand have installed them in what appears to be chronological sequence and am attaching the three report files for your interest
- I got a lot of error messages including some implicating explorer and kernel32 and I notice that all the DOS windows were headed 'out of environmental space' whatever that means. (BTW, the installs knocked out my recycle bin ico and reinstated the old-style icon)
- However AP now seems to be installed and we shall see how it goes!

With the latest update, Autopatcher aborted shortly after the following screen:

far out. i just can't win. OK, what you need to do is send me the actual text of the contents of the AutoExec.bat file. I want to know just how long those path statements are ... i was so sure this was the last one.... just PM me ... no need to tell the world what you have ...

EDIT:

great news: I am replicating your problem right in front of my eyes.. so there's no more stabbing in the dark.
bad news: well, it seems your autoexec.bat file is screwed up. I'll suggest the changes soon, but do something for me can you. Reboot your machine, and when its rebooting, if you have your boot logo still turned on, press ESC to see the boot messages, and tell me if you see the following:



notice the "too many parameters" message

did you get that on your machine? If not, please double-check the text of the autoexc.bat file you sent ... cheers.

EDIT 2: i can see the problem in AP. There is a command to run Run-Mod.bat with no extra space allocated at all. It didn't matter until the path of the program location was long enough to trip the ES warning on systems that were using lots of ES space to start with. Wow, i've just made the adjustments, and it all works. This was a bona fide bug !! The next version is the winner! Coming soon ...

here it is: http://soporific.dsleague.com/downloads/Au...6.55_update.exe

by the way, you still had a problem with your Autoexec.bat file ... the reason is due to the order of installation .. the fix is to move the entire line with diskeeper lite in it below the one with gtk in it. When you reboot, you will see there's no parameter error. The reason is due to the long path name for diskeeper. As you can see, it is added to your path statement fine, but when some more text is added to the path the second time the diskeeper path is missing the quotes, hence the errors. IF you swap them around, this problem doesn't appear.

I've only just installed the 6.54 update - is it worthwhile to install the 6.55 update or will there be a lot of duplication?
postscriptum - please see my post earlier today which includes the log files on the three earlier version I installed
Post-postscriptum - I went ahead and installed the 6.55 and got a bundle of problems including 'explorer' error messages, 'cannot find drive C' as well as the usual 'out of environmental space' message at the head of every DOS window

jeepers. can you do the same as nathanson1947 and run SYSEDIT from the run dialog box and post me the text inside AUTOEXEC.BAT (post as a PM). Thanks.

NEWS: it seems i still have some work to do to solve these ES errors. I didn't have much time to test 1.96.55 out last night and its still bringing up errors. Even Just trying to set DEBUG=Y inside START_ME.bat brings up an ES message - I have to trap the Out of environment space messages everywhere, and not just where i have so far. So please bear with me.

Please only install the latest updates if you want to help solve these ES problems.

OK, the main problem is now this: if the user has used up all of the normal ES space, unless the first file (START_ME.bat) is started with its own space allocation, there is no more space to assign the necessary variables for the program to work normally. Using nathanson1947's AUTOEXEC.BAT file (with some very long PATH statements) the program can't even set DEBUG=N and so things immediately stuff up. The entire point of START_ME.bat was to give enough space to AUTOPACH.bat so all the variables would be set properly. Now the problem is I have to do this for START_ME.bat which is going to be tricky. That or i just save the path statement to a text file and reset it for the autopatch session and then reassign it at the end. Yep, i''l try that out first ... back soon ...

Well, it works ... so this is now what happens:

START_ME.bat is started and it tries to assign DEBUG=N --- the very next line it tries to find that variable and if fails, goes to the fix section. Your PATH statement is reset to the bare minimum (ie SET PATH=%windir%\command) and then the process is tried again. If you fail twice you get a message and are invited to quit. It seems to work! But i'm testing some more before posting ...

EDIT: its looking good ... -- i'm quite proud of this fix actually. It doesn't matter what sort of system you throw at me, my AP will work if its the last thing i ever do !!

Greetings.

Firstly, thank you, Soporific, for the new AUTOEXEC.BAT text . The "too many parameters" message has been around for at least a year. The gtk was installed so that I could run the Gimp, and somehow it got installed incorrectly. I don't know if there is a connection, but I have noticed that my computer has had a tendency to crash any time I tried to view three dimensional images. Of course, that particular problem could also be due to the fact that I only have 224 MB of RAM.

In any case, after fixing AUTOEXEC.BAT, I installed and tried version 1.96.55. It worked for a while until it eventually aborted. I have attached the log file.

Jack

Jack, glad to be of help. Re: v1.96.55 i know why it doesn't work ... i'm just testing out the ultimate ES error proof version now ... its way cool !! Back soon ...

Herewith (sorry, can't find PM sender)Keep up the good work, you're a genius at work!

what is it with people and their humungous PATH statements in their AUTOEXEC.BAT files ? No offense Plonk me mate ... OK this advice is the definite way to temporarily solve most AP problems where it just exits out ungracefully.

If the following is true:

1) When you use AP, especially the 1.96 upgrade, it doesn't reach the end, or it doesn't even start, or you see "Out of environment space" messages.
2) Inside your AUTOEXEC.BAT file you have a "SET PATH= ...." or "SET CLASSPATH= ..." that is quite a long string of text.

You can by-pass this problem by doing the following:

1) go to START - RUN and in the Run dialog box type SYSEDIT and hit return (enter)
-- this brings up all your configuration files into like notepad type windows
2) choose the AUTOEXEC.BAT window, and any line that starts with "SET PATH= ...." or "SET CLASSPATH= ..." put the word "REM" at the start of the line.

eg

if your AUTOEXEC.BAT looks like the following:


you would then add REM words like this:



you don't have to REM out all the lines, just do the really big one that is causing all the fuss !! After you use AP, just return your AUTOEXEC.BAT file to the way it was by taking out the REMs. What is the effect of adding REMs? What will happen? You were wondering weren't you... it just means that the particular program that 'installed' that PATH statement (or whichever variable it is) won't be able to run normally while that REM word is there. SO this means that if a anti-virus program has added a line then maybe keep that unREMmed. Again, the easiest thing is just to REM out one line --- which line? The longest line! That's right, you there at the back.

I am writing a function that will do this as a menu option and or if you fail the ES test but until then, everybody in this situation, this is what you do!

@ soporificAn auto like that would certainly be useful but I've recently had a lot of grief with autoexec.bat - it periodically wipes itself clean meaning that when next rebooting the machine just flounders. See this topic at http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...st&p=659718 . A respondent wrote me a .vbs file which would reinstate its contents from autoexec.bak if it blanked out again. It must be working because this particular problem hasn't arisen since. Would the .vbs file be compatible with your proposed fix in AP? And what if AP floundered during install and left the autoexec.bat in its 'REM' state? (Sounds convoluted I know but d'you understand what I'm saying?)
(BTW, what does 'ES' mean??)

Soporific. Last night I spent some time working with AP 1.96.52 because this version contains the "debugging" code you inserted for Nathanson1947, I think it was, saving me the trouble of having to insert the code myself.

In running my tests I made use of "Strings.com" as well as the "Set" command which I used to list the environment variables that were defined at the time I invoked the Set command, the output of which was redirected to a text file.

The results of the limited testing I did were very interesting and showed that the "Start.exe" command that you use to launch some of your batch files does not function in the way one would expect. The use of Start.exe is (was?) in fact one of the reasons that AP unexpectedly runs out of ES.

Here's an extract of some of the code from AP 1.95.55 AutoPatch.bat =>

Because Start.exe does make use of the environment space available to AutoPatch.bat, nor the variables defined within AutoPatch.bat, nor those defined within the Batch files that launched AutoPatch.bat, clearing the environment variables using the FOR loops shown above does not make additional ES space available to Run-Mod.bat prior to it being launched. In other words, had you left your code the way you had it in versions of AP prior to 1.96.55, you would have achieved exactly the same result as you do with AP 1.96.55. So AP 1.96.55's code would be just as effective written this way =>

Before I get into any explanations, I think it best to describe the tests I set up.

First test

I modified the code in AutoPatch.bat as follows:

In Run-Mod.bat, after the CLS command I inserted the following code:

2nd Test

I modified the code in AutoPatch.bat as follows:

In Run-Mod.bat, after the CLS command I inserted the following code:

Results of 1st Test

Run-Mod.bat gave two "out of environment space" warnings

Envsize in AutoPatch.bat was 4112 bytes
Envfree in AutoPatch.bat was 2330 bytes

Envpatch.txt listed all the environment variables that had been defined by AP prior to Run-Mod.bat being invoked

Envsize in Run-Mod.bat was 1456 bytes
Envfree in Run-Mod.bat was 1008 bytes

Envmod.txt did not list any of the environment variables that had been defined by AP prior to Run-Mod being invoked.

This was a very suprising result to me because I had expected Envsize to be the same in both AutoPatch.bat and Run-Mod.bat. I had also expected the contents of Envmod.txt to be exactly the same as those in Envpatch.txt which they were not.

Results of 2nd Test

Run-Mod.bat did not give any "out of environment space" warnings

Envsize in AutoPatch.bat was 4112 bytes
Envfree in AutoPatch.bat was 2330 bytes

Envpatch.txt listed all the environment variables that had been defined by AP prior to Run-Mod.bat being invoked

Envsize in Run-Mod.bat was 4112 bytes
Envfree in Run-Mod.bat was 2330 bytes

Envmod.txt listed exactly the same set of environment variables as those listed Envpatch.txt

This result was in line with what I had expected. It was also the result I had expected from the 1st test.

Also you can see that using CALL instead of START to launch Run-Mod.bat resolved the "out of environment space" warnings previously output by Run-Mod.bat in the 1st test.

Ok, so what's going on here?

Before I can answer that I need to provide another piece of information.

In the first test the values of Envsize and Envfree in Run-Mod.bat as well as the contents of Envmod.txt were strangely familiar to me. After some time puzzling over the familiarity, I realised that the values of Envsize and Envfree were exactly the same values I would get if I used Strings.com to check my environment space immediately after booting up SE. In addition, the environment variables listed in Envmod.txt were exactly same as those that would be listed if I used the Set command to list the environment variables defined immediately after booting up SE.

Taking cognisance of everthing I described above, here's what I conclude from my tests =>

1. Start.exe actually spawns Run-mod.bat off as a separate process that is totally independent of AutoPatch.bat
   
2. Because Run-mod.bat is spawned off as a separate process, SE has to allocate it an initial amount of ES space. By default the amount of space allocated is exactly the same as that allocated at the time SE boots up.
   
3. Because Run-mod.bat is spawned off as a separate process, the environment variables defined in AP are not available to Run-mod.bat as global variables. The only environment variables available to Run-Mod.bat are those defined at the time SE boots up, and those passed as parameters to Run-Mod.bat.
   
4. A command such as
   
   
   CODE
   START %COMSPEC% /E:2048 /K "%LOC8%\code\Run-Mod.bat" Fullup %WINDRIVE%
   
   
   can only be used in situations where the batch file being launched does not need to make use of more than 8 (or is it 9?) environment variables defined by AP prior to launching the batch file. The values of the environment variables can of course be passed as parameters to the batch file as happens in this particular command, but then no more than 8 (9?) values can be passed in this way
   
5. If on being launched the batch file needs to make use of more than 8 (9?) environment variables, then the CALL command must be used instead of the START command. If the CALL command is used, then the amount of free environment space available to the batch file being launched will be the same or similar to that available in the batch file that initiated the launch

man CODE TAGS!!!

That's excellent investigation ... i was trying lots of things all over the place without pausing to think it through ... eg clearing the variables before running the next bat file ... as you noticed i only recently did that to try to solve the problems. I never did quite get a complete handle on everything to do with environment space (ES) so this post is a wealth of information. I completely buggered up my current version of code last night as i was trying to fix this problem so i'm going to totally junk last nights work and start again using the above info. Maybe another version later today...

PS - please trim your posts a little before posting. --- and these are some useful tags to use: [ quote ] & [ /quote ] and [ code ] & [ /code ] but without the spaces.

eg




it helps navigation and readability! Thanks again for such an awesome post!