[HardDriv'n]

modicr, on Aug 26 2009, 04:56 AM, said:

Great! Using your installer v2.1 and Mulder's Chromium Updater ( http://mulder.dummwi...ojects#chromium ) I was able to post this message from Chromium 4.0.204.0 (Developer Build 24436)
( http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/snapsho...m-rel-xp/24436/ )

Thanks, Roman

Does installing Google Chrome as specified above require the KDW package, and does anyone have an English tutorial on how to get programs like Chrome running on Win2k?

[Crash&Burn]

HardDriv'n, on Sep 24 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

Does installing Google Chrome as specified above require the KDW package, and does anyone have an English tutorial on how to get programs like Chrome running on Win2k?

Looks like it's here on Black Winged Cat's page. Scroll to about mid-page for downloads.

[Ninho]

Hi, B.W.Cat! You're the champ !

win2000, on Aug 19 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

note: v3.0 and 4.0 require Win2000-KB915985-v2

Would that be the fix described at : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915985 ?

I can't see any mention of "v2" there, alright ?

[Edited by Ninho] Ah, I see now, that is the fix from YOUR page http://blog.livedoor...ves/360097.html


Now, the MS kb article says their (non-v2) fix is for Win 2k Server. Can we/must we install your fixed ntdll to Win 2k Pro Workstation, too, before installing your Chrome package ?

This post has been edited by Ninho: 08 October 2009 - 05:03 AM

[marxo]

Is there anyway to get the GetLayeredWindowAttributes in user32.dll?

[Syclone0044]

win2000, on Aug 19 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

Hi, Syclone0044.

I fixed Chrome Installer for Windows 2000 v2.0b.
You also can use chrome version 3.0.190.1～4.0.201.1 on Windows 2000 in this version
note: v3.0 and 4.0 require Win2000-KB915985-v2

I am posting this from a fresh Windows 2000 VM with SP4, URP1, the user32, kernel32, and shell32 security updates, and Chrome 4.0.220.1 (Oct 2009) installed with crm2k30.

I did not install KB915985-v2. Why is this necessary? It seems to function OK without it?

I am concerned about replacing my critical NTDLL.DLL with a hacked/patched version. No offense to you Mr. BlackWingCat, you seem to know what you're doing, but NTDLL.DLL is used by every process on my system and I can't afford to risk system stability.

[cluberti]

Syclone0044, on Oct 7 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

I did not install KB915985-v2. Why is this necessary? It seems to function OK without it?

you would only need 915985 if you're:

• Running Windows 2000 Server
  
• Using File Replication Services (FRS)
  
• Replicating a large number of small files to another FRS member
  
• Have compression enabled on the FRS volume(s) containing said small files
  
• Want to run Google Chrome 3.x or 4.x

Unless you fit that list, you don't actually NEED 915985. As to system stability, I'd probably be as paranoid about it as you are, however, given that there hasn't been a new version of ntdll since March 2006 (915985), changes have had time to be fairly well tested.

[Syclone0044]

cluberti, on Oct 7 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

Syclone0044, on Oct 7 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

I did not install KB915985-v2. Why is this necessary? It seems to function OK without it?

you would only need 915985 if you're:

• Running Windows 2000 Server
  
• Using File Replication Services (FRS)
  
• Replicating a large number of small files to another FRS member
  
• Have compression enabled on the FRS volume(s) containing said small files
  
• Want to run Google Chrome 3.x or 4.x

Unless you fit that list, you don't actually NEED 915985. As to system stability, I'd probably be as paranoid about it as you are, however, given that there hasn't been a new version of ntdll since March 2006 (915985), changes have had time to be fairly well tested.

I think you're confusing KB915985 with BlackWingCat's custom patched KB915982-v2.

I am running Google Chrome 4.0 and I do not have either version of 915985. So why do I need it? That is the question. What consequence do I face if I opt not to update it?

[cluberti]

Syclone0044, on Oct 8 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

I think you're confusing KB915985 with BlackWingCat's custom patched KB915982-v2.

I am running Google Chrome 4.0 and I do not have either version of 915985. So why do I need it? That is the question. What consequence do I face if I opt not to update it?

Indeed I was. Revised my list:
you would only need 915985 if you're:

• Running Windows 2000 Server
  
• Using File Replication Services (FRS)
  
• Replicating a large number of small files to another FRS member
  
• Have compression enabled on the FRS volume(s) containing said small files

Unless you see the above as a need for your box, you don't "need" it at all.

[blackwingcat]

Syclone0044, on Oct 9 2009, 08:05 AM, said:

I think you're confusing KB915985 with BlackWingCat's custom patched KB915982-v2.

I am running Google Chrome 4.0 and I do not have either version of 915985. So why do I need it? That is the question. What consequence do I face if I opt not to update it?

Hi Syclone0044.
I found there is a bug in RtlCaptureStackBackTrace.

RtlCaptureStackBackTrace bug apears with the Google Chrome 3.0. and SRWare Iron.
KB915985-v2 is fixed RtlCaptureStackBackTrace bug from KB915985.

Perhaps Chrome 4.0 banished this bug.

This post has been edited by blackwingcat: 13 October 2009 - 07:05 PM

[blackwingcat]

marxo, on Oct 7 2009, 02:46 AM, said:

Is there anyway to get the GetLayeredWindowAttributes in user32.dll?

What application is it used ?
KDW user32.dll supported this function.

[erpdude8]

Happy new year 2010.

Latest KDW / FCWIN2K is now 0.81b (just released today)!

I wonder if that will work with latest Google Chrome dev build browser which is 4.0.288.1, along with Apple Quicktime 7.6.5 and Apple Safari 4.0.4 (aka. 531.21.10). I like to try those under my relative's Win2k SP4 computer.

This post has been edited by erpdude8: 08 January 2010 - 08:14 PM

[Dave-H]

There are several utilities available to extract the files from installers.
I use Universal Extractor, which I've always found works pretty well.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Compression-t...Extractor.shtml
Download this, and open the QuickTime installer file with it.
It will extract all the component files into a folder, including the msi installer files.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 09 January 2010 - 06:37 PM

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Oct 15 2008, 06:40 AM, said:

milan475, on Oct 15 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

I've one other question.
Sorry
Is someone who knows why wmp10 shows up in black/gray instead of blue witch is normal in winxp?
Grtz,
Milan

I seem to remember that it looked like that when I installed it too.
(I've uninstalled it again now and gone back to WMP9 as WMP10 didn't give me any advantage that I could use.)
I just assumed that was the default skin for WMP10.
Have you tried the different skins available to see if the look you expected is in fact available?

Windows Media Player 9 was available for Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Windows Media Player 9 setup is the same for Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

There officially were two installers, one for Windows 98SE/ME/2000 and the other for Windows XP. The files used for setup of Windows Media Player 9 for Windows 2000/XP were identical (the Windows 98SE/ME/2000 installer could be used on Windows XP ti install Windows Media Player 9) in both installers, but the colors and features were different.

The different colors of Windows Media Player 10 on Windows 2000 and Windows XP maybe similar to why colors (and features) were different for Windows Media Player 9 on Windows 2000 and Windows XP. The colors and features for the different operating systems may be defined in the Windows Media Player 10 binaries.

[blackwingcat]

Hi, Ascii2.

Ascii2, on Jan 10 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

Windows Media Player 9 was available for Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

Windows Media Player 9 setup is the same for Windows 2000 and Windows XP.

There officially were two installers, one for Windows 98SE/ME/2000 and the other for Windows XP. The files used for setup of Windows Media Player 9 for Windows 2000/XP were identical (the Windows 98SE/ME/2000 installer could be used on Windows XP ti install Windows Media Player 9) in both installers, but the colors and features were different.

The different colors of Windows Media Player 10 on Windows 2000 and Windows XP maybe similar to why colors (and features) were different for Windows Media Player 9 on Windows 2000 and Windows XP. The colors and features for the different operating systems may be defined in the Windows Media Player 10 binaries.

Because I patched dll in WMP10.

Microsoft made kicke code by os version.
I patched wmp 9,too.

Please see this article

[Browncoat]

Dave-H, on Jan 9 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

There are several utilities available to extract the files from installers.
I use Universal Extractor, which I've always found works pretty well.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Compression-t...Extractor.shtml
Download this, and open the QuickTime installer file with it.
It will extract all the component files into a folder, including the msi installer files.

I did what you said but still no .msi file from the installer exe .

[Browncoat]

Is there a way of reading BWC's site in English without google?
Or how do you do it with an online translator?
It would make it easier to understand the use of his utilities.

This post has been edited by Browncoat: 22 February 2010 - 05:56 AM

[Dave-H]

Browncoat, on 22 February 2010 - 04:20 AM, said:

I almost got it installed, found GdiPlus.dll and how do i make it usable? Just plunk it into system32? note; I couldn't get into EZ install for some reason.
Therefore i used the dynamic button. Any bloody way to read his website in English without going through google? @#$%&^%$$@!

IIRC just put the dll in the system32 folder, but you may need to then register it.
What was the problem with ezinstall?
It always worked fine for me.

[Browncoat]

Dave-H, on 22 February 2010 - 05:48 AM, said:

[
IIRC just put the dll in the system32 folder, but you may need to then register it.
What was the problem with ezinstall?

Dunno, button is greyed out,that's why i could wish i could read his site better.
May give up since I'm moving to Linux soon, too much effort just to hear my radio
station with windoze Firefox.

[blackwingcat]

Browncoat, on 22 February 2010 - 06:16 AM, said:

Dunno, button is greyed out,that's why i could wish i could read his site better.
May give up since I'm moving to Linux soon, too much effort just to hear my radio
station with windoze Firefox.

What is it written in button caption ?
I think your system dll is old.

[WildBill]

I tried writing a program that could extend the Windows API *on the fly* instead of by replacing DLL's. It basically does two things:

- It intercepts calls to LoadLibraryA/W to redirect API calls
- It intercepts calls to CreateProcessXXX so it can patch the DLL imports table when the process is starting (but before the Windows PE loader can process the header).

Unfortunately, it doesn't always work, and I'm sort of stumped. Like everything else, it's written in Delphi, and it's actually a pretty small program. Would anyone be interested in taking a look at it?

http://www.mediafire...php?nynukoyl5lm

From what I'm seeing, the part that patches the DLL imports table might have a problem somewhere, because when I run some programs that look for a non-2k API call they sometimes hang.

The only API call I have it adding so far is TraceMessage, and the problem that I see is when I try to run the game Overlord. If I patch Overlord's DLL to redirect TraceMessage it works fine, but if I use ExtendAPI instead it doesn't. So I'm stumped.

This post has been edited by WildBill: 18 March 2010 - 10:10 PM