PCBONEZ

Member
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About PCBONEZ

Profile Information

  • OS
    none specified
  • Country
  1. Thanks 5eraph. By "integrated" I mean if you use a bone-stock unaltered (SP1 or SP2) install media you end up with (none/which) .NET installed. I wasn't asking about R2. The info doesn't hurt but W2k3x64(R2) doesn't seem to be in locked-step with XP64 like W2k3x64(R1) seems to be so I didn't even think about R2 as a mirror (so to speak) of XP64. I would expect W2k3x64(R1) and XP64 to be the same in regard to .NET, but, while the lack of .NET in W2k3x64(R1) is mentioned in several places, none seem to mention what goes on with .NET and XP64. Here is an example. https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/astebner/2007/03/14/mailbag-what-version-of-the-net-framework-is-included-in-what-version-of-the-os/ -- They don't mention XP64 at all. Same every place I looked. The reason I'm asking has to do with making the package Modular. If I strip all the (provided) .NET files out for the .NET-None idea (in Kurt's 1st post) and there is a .NET in the install media then it's not really .NET-None and any security fixes for the integrated .NET version/level would need to be put back in. (Something similar happens with the IE and WMP Modules but those were easy to figure out what version comes integrated in XP64.) You answered what I was asking except for one minor detail. - SP1 vs SP2. - I think I know the answer but I'm not an expert like some of you folks so I'll ask. Am I correct that -both- XP64 SP1 & SP2 (with original/unaltered media) lack any version of .NET. (Same as with W2k3x64(R1) SP1 & SP2.) Thank you again. .
  2. Also an XP64 question. I've looked online and found no definite answer. Someone in the knowledge pool here probably knows this off the top of their head. Am I correct that XP64 SP1 and SP2 are like W2k3x64 and come as original with no .NET integrated in the OS? Thanks in advance.
  3. Thank you for getting right back. It still doesn't make sense that 7 (the middle one) is different from 6 & 8 but I'll take your word for it. I would have expected to see 6 & 7 (older set) different from 8 -or- 7 & 8 (newer set) different from 6, not the middle one different. I've been rearranging your XP64 package into prebuilt drop-in Modules for some of the optional configurations. In the course of doing that I manually assemble a file set and directory structure for each option. I noticed the difference when building the three IE Modules.
  4. Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I haven't been able to find a reason. Why is 940-WindowsServer2003.WindowsXP-KB2900986-x64-ENU.exe in \Hotfix for IE6 and IE8 but in \XP64\RunOnce for IE7? (This is all in the "XP x64 hotfix lists" page.)
  5. Back to what Tommy meant by HD, I'm not much of a fan of HD-TV. Before it all the designated "hot chicks" (weather girls, leading roles in movies/TV and such) WERE hot. Now you can see so well that you can see their makeup -and- the blemishes underneath it. Some things are better left unseen. I compensate by not wearing my glasses when I watch TV. The gals are cuter that way. .
  6. A few years ago the "hot word" was "Turbo". As for HD in some cases it actually means "Heavy Duty" so it makes sense for things like Oxi-Clean. Bacon, not so much. Hope I never need "HD" toothpaste.
  7. No worries. - Peace. FYI, I don't do it anymore but I launched my first website and forum back in the 90's. I have done a Board Software transition and they are NOT fun. Now I see your point about the editor being the root of the problem. - It annoys me too. - Rather surprised a modern forum software has an editor that can't be changed or customized in the Admin interface. I see many today that can do it right in the user interface. Regardless the cause, I think the poor choice will obsolete the MFSN Forum as a "Go To" place for such projects. - Kurt_Aust's decision to move his projects elsewhere exists as a case in point. I've not seen inside the "Invision Power Services" forum software but I'll learn from MSFN's problems and not chose it should I get back into running a forum in the future. . Ah, We're getting a little OT here. We should drop it and go to PM if we want to continue. I don't particularly. Said my piece.
  8. Then why are you WHINING about what I wrote? As was OBVIOUS, I understand the issue. - I expressed an opinion about it - AND I offered suggestions to work around it - primarily to Kurt_Aust. You OTOH seem to be just whining.
  9. This is a shame. And IMHO horribly short sighted of MSFN's "powers that be". - In a way of thinking MSFN has deliberately "obsoleted itself" for the very thing that made them unique and valuable. MANY Member Contributed Projects here on MSFN -RELY- (or did) on the ability to keep the first post updated and current. If that is no longer possible here then MSFN content will largely be dated and obsolete projects and MSFN will soon no longer be such a valuable asset. MSFN staff should consider creating a limited Admin type of account that allows the authors of such projects to edit (just their own) project threads. Such permissions would obviously need to be handed out on a one-on-one basis after a review of the project, but that shouldn't be THAT much of a burden to the "powers that be" given the vast improvement in the quality of the content here. Not many other forums have that capability/feature and many that do are so afraid of copyright issues (without actually understanding them) that they simply won't let you post something like this there. - Kurt, you may have to suck it up and launch your own site for these projects. (Not meaning to host the files, just providing the instructions and links as you do here.) Of course going that route finding a server host that isn't a copyright wuss might be a problem. If you don't post it then please PM me the new home(s) of your OS projects once you have them moved. I don't often speak up but I'm an avid follower of your OS update projects because IMHO you do it better than anyone else. And just FYI. Someone else thinks so too. Your torrents are supported by a/some 3rd party seed(s) with substantial bandwidth. None of your torrents took more than 45 minutes this time. That was also true back last Dec-Jan-Feb the last time I refreshed/updated/added new projects to my local files for all your projects. - Just my luck I updated some just before you did major updates so I ended up doing some of the torrents twice about then. None of them were slow back then either. I'm not enough of a programmer to understand what a zero bytes file does. (Or if they even matter.) - The thing I was trying to get across is that it's not getting to your end users by way of the torrent. (Least not using uTorrent which apparently doesn't pass zero-byte files.) - Thus the file-sets don't 100% match between the torrent and your other download methods. So using the torrent to double-check the file-sets from the other DL's (as you say to do) is off by file count but not by bytes. A little confusing until I figured it out. Thus, perhaps a note is in order explaining the discrepancy. .............. Though I rarely post and I'm not a frequent visitor at MSFN, I've been a huge fan of your work for a few years now. - Kurt_Aust, you do an awesome job and I suspect you have many many more "silent fans" than you know. .
  10. @ Kurt_Aust The file ATICCC.ins seems to be corrupt/broken (or -something-). The ATICCC.ins file contained in your WinXP-SP4 torrent shows up in the downloading files list while the torrent is running but it says "0 bytes". When the torrent completes the file is not present in the download at all. The ATICCC.ins contained in "Files_WinXP-SP4_A_Feb16.7z" downloads and shows up but it is 0 bytes and has a CRC32 of "00000000". I don't know what that file is/does, if it's needed at all or if 0 bytes is correct, but at the very least you should know it's not getting to people through the torrent.
  11. SP4 Update and link fixes needed. x SP4 v3.1a has been obsolete since at least April 2016, if not before. The current (and supposedly last) version is 3.1b. Your link to the Google Drive is dead. The link in Ryan's page to the Google Drive works but once there the DL's didn't work for me. (They start downloading but never finish. - Weird.) The only way I found that worked for me to get SP4 v3.1b is to use the magnet link in Ryan's page. [Edit] I finally got the Google Drive to work from Ryan's page. After about 750Mb I had to restart it repeatedly (every 25-50 Mb or so) to get the complete file. x Regarding line == ''Google Earth use version 7.1.2.2041 (6.2.2.6613 on VirtualBox without D3D)'' ......... There is no longer any way to get to version 7.1.2.2041 using either of the first two links you give. If you fiddle around you can still find version 6.2.2.6613 available, but that could go *poof* any day now. The oldest 7.x.x.xxxx sequence "old version" available on Google Earth's site is newer than 7.1.2.2041. .. Anything I found on the web that appeared to be a link to a version 7.1.2.2041 full installer actually went to the general online-installer file (usually on Google Earth's server) which presumably DL's the latest version only. (Like most web-installers it doesn't tell you anything useful about what it's doing.) .. So, I poked around on Google Earth's site... I found the direct links to some full installers on this page. "https://support.google.com/earth/answer/168344?hl=en" (That's where 6.2.2.6613 is found.) .. Then I -guessed- what the link would be to 7.1.2.2041 full install file based on what the link to 7.1.5.1557 is. -- -- *and it worked*!! It is at: https://dl.google.com/dl/earth/client/GE7/release_7_1_2/googleearth-win-bundle-7.1.2.2041.exe And since I'm there, the link for 6.2.2.6613 is: https://dl.google.com/earth/client/GE6/release_6_2_2/googleearth-win-bundle-6.2.2.6613.exe Note the /dl/ in the url string. It is apparently only *not* present for newest file in each major version. You can see the correct file names in the links. - "GoogleEarthSetup.exe" is the web installer. Not what you want. @Anyone: Might wanna archive the full installers while they can still be found at all. .
  12. Hi Kurt FYI: MediaFire is reporting Hotfix_2000sp5_B_Feb16.7z as a "dangerous file" and won't allow downloading it. Additionally your torrent link is not working. Just thought you should know. .
  13. . Please define "latest version" - because such things are subject to change with time. (By date) When you wrote that the "latest" was version 7-something. Currently your link on page 1 of this thread goes to version 8-something. Which are confirmed to work in W2k? . Thanks. .
  14. Anomaly? Problem? Bug? . I don't have the skills (or time) to figure out what happened, just reporting something I saw during an install on actual hardware. Build was W2k Advanced Server without any non-MS add-ons beyond 3Ware RAID drivers. [is for a temp file server to store 3TB of data on while I rebuild the 'real' one.] I wasn't paying THAT much attention (fully automated install) but at one point I looked up and saw errors in a dos-box window. For each of the following: NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-x86.exe NDP1.1sp1-KB971108-x86.exe NDP1.1sp1-KB2742597-X86.exe It said something to the effect that they aren't ?programs? or batch files and would not be installed.... (Was kind of fast.... 'programs' may have been a different word but it did say 'or batch files' after that.) . Might be nothing but I don't even know how to determine that. (I am NOT a programmer.) Just reporting to the experts that actually know what they are doing... . . And thanks for all your work! (All of you.) For the most part I dunno what I'm doing but with your directions I can create up-to-date custom builds that actually work!! (I prefer W2k because it doesn't commit suicide for too many changes when I'm in the middle of something.) Thanks! .
  15. It only lists 4 files to move.... Also there's an update to Flash Player 11 out. - It's 1024 more bits/bytes (or whatever they are) which makes the total wrong. . And BTW: Thanks! .