Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Windows 2000 unofficial updates


  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

Poll: Windows 2000 unofficial updates (43 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want SP6?

  1. Voted Yes. (43 votes [100.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 100.00%

  2. No. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. UR2 is enough. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#26
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
Yes :)

but it will take some time as it's around 130 HBRs to merge. First I want to finish UR2. I also want to make UR2.1 which apart from the official updates will include also unofficial ones (not only WildBill's, MDGx's and mine which are available here at MSFN but also some from BlackWingCat... especially kernel32 v5 or newer if possible). The other difference will be that UR2, when finished, won't be updated anymore (unless bugs are found) while UR2.1 will be updated when new unofficial updates are available.

Edited by tomasz86, 17 June 2011 - 04:54 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I think I'll have to change my mind about UR2. I wanted to make a one big Rollup will all of the available updates but HFSLIP is an obstacle to do it.

The problem is that HFSLIP treats UR1 (891861) differently from the rest of updates. It is being unpacked before processing other components (DX, IE, etc.) and there are some strings related specifically to it (HFSLIP adds some reg entries, copies & deletes several files, etc.). For this reason I changed the filename of UR2 to 891861-UR2.

What's the main problem?

It's impossible to add DX9 updates for example. Because the update numbered 891861 is processeded before everything else, DX9 files are not copied (because at that moment DX9 is not YET slipstreamed...). On the other hand, other updates are processed later, after all other components have been slipstreamed which means that DX files are copied correctly.

I'm thinking about making a new version of UR2 without UR1 which means that in order to have everything slipstreamed you will have to slipstream both UR1 and UR2. The advantage of doing so is that I have much more freedom when preparing the Rollup. Also, the package itself will be much simpler which is a + here as it'll be much easier to edit / fix / add components.

I'm sorry for this confusion :( I belive this is the only way to be able to slipstream everything what is necessary and keep compatibility with HFSLIP at the same time.

PS Update Rollup RC2 still works 99% (can't say 100% as I haven't done all necessary tests...) correctly so feel free to use it if you wish :)

Edited by tomasz86, 19 June 2011 - 07:48 AM.


#28
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
IE / OE Mini Rollup is ready B)

http://www.msfn.org/...post__p__969148

#29
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I uploaded DirectX 9.0c Full Pack today

and I've been slowly analyzing Service Pack's update.inf. It's much more complicated than an update.inf of a normal update or even an update rollup. But before I start doing anything about SP6 I'm going to finish the new Update Rollup 2 - as I already said, this time not cumulative, i.e. it will not include UR1.

If I really decide to make an SP6 it will be much easier to add update rollups to it instead of single updates :)

Edited by tomasz86, 23 June 2011 - 08:17 AM.


#30
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I've prepared a special folder on MediaFire where I'll upload alpha/beta/RC versions of my projects. Files are password ("msfn") protected.

I placed the old UR2-RC2 there and also uploaded the newly-made IE6 Installer for W2K (alpha ver.). Please remember that these files are not finished and (may be) buggy/instable and please read their description before downloading :)

Edited by tomasz86, 25 June 2011 - 06:28 AM.


#31
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
There is a bug in the IE6 alpha installer that I mentioned above (perhaps that's why it's still alpha)... it seems it work O.K but can't be properly uninstalled :lol:

so if you use it to install IE6 then IE5 is gone forever :P

Edited by tomasz86, 30 June 2011 - 01:38 AM.


#32
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I haven't written about UR2 for some time but it doesn't mean that I forgot about it or changed my plans ;)

Lately I've been a little busy so I don't have that much time to spend on this project and believe, it's time consuming :ph34r: but I'm trying hard to make it ready and eliminate all bugs before releasing the final version. I found some new things when preparing the IE / OE Mini Rollup and they will surely help me in making the UR2.

In this post I want to clarify my final plans for the Rollup as they've changed a bit since last time. First of all, there will be two editions - 2.0 and 2.1. Update Rollup 2.0 will include only official and public updates, Update Rollup 2.1 will include also unofficial ones and also some other components (see list below). In one word, UR2.0 will be just a basic Rollup of official updates - something that M$ should have done. UR2.1 is different in two aspects. First - unofficial updates and second - it will be updated in the future when new unofficial updates are available. By official and public updates I mean the updates that were publicly released after having been thoroughly tested. It means that HBRs will not be included in the Rollup.

Here you can see a detailed list of components that I want to include in UR2.

UR2.0

- (almost) all public official updates from Windows Updates list
- all public official updates from IE Updates list (both IE5/OE5.5 and IE6/OE6; mechanism is the same as in IE / OE MR)
- DX7 updates
- Script 5.1 updates
- MDAC 2.53 updates*
- WMP6.4 updates (not codecs)*
- 48-bit LBA support (hard disks larger than 137 GB properly detected in text setup)
* probably won't be included in the first release, planned to be added later on

UR2.1

- all public official & unofficial updates from Windows Updates list
- IE6/OE6 & all IE6/OE6 official & unofficial updates
- DX9 (Standard) & all DX9 official & unofficial updates
- MDAC 2.8 & all MDAC 2.8 updates
- Script 5.7 & all Script 5.7 updates
- all MSXMLs (2,4,6) & all MSXML updates
- WMP6.4 updates (not codecs)
- 48-bit LBA support
- Roots update
- User Profile Hive Cleanup (not sure about this one)

As you can see there are many differences between UR2.0 and UR2.1. If everything goes well, UR2.0 will be finished in short time and only after that I'm going to start working on UR2.1 so I can't say when it will be available yet. Also by having such a distinction between the two editions of the Rollup I'm able to include UR1 in it and still slipstream it correctly in HFSLIP.

The other thing you've probably seen is than WMP9 is absent from these lists. I don't think many people use it so I don't want to integrate it inside the Rollup. Instead I want to prepare a WMP9 Mini Rollup which would include WMP9+all updates+WMP6/9 codecs. Such a mini rollup could be slipstreamed together with UR2 from HF folder.

I hope everything is clear now :)

And one more thing... UR2.0 (not 2.1) can be very easilty localised. If you are interested in having UR2.0 in your language, please send me a pack of updates which are listed in this post.

Edited by tomasz86, 01 July 2011 - 08:14 AM.


#33
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
UR2.0 is almost ready. I did it once again from scratch and this time was much more careful when editing update.inf. I focused especially on sorting the registry entries to eliminate all duplicates and also be sure that nothing was skipped during the process of combining the updates. I also added UR1's contents to it but this time did it manually as it's quite complicated and I wanted to have 100% control over this process.

I need a few more days to finish everything and slim down the update.inf (i.e. remove unused strings) and to prepare localised versions. As I said before, if you want to have UR2.0 in your language, the only thing to do is to send me a pack of updates and I'll be able to prepare it very quickly :)

New thing about UR2.1 - it will include MDGx's True Type Fonts (TTF) Pack.

Edited by tomasz86, 04 July 2011 - 06:05 AM.


#34
Molecule

Molecule

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 185 posts
hi tomasz86

you and bristols are doing some totally awesome mighty work!

huge kuddos and much much appreciated as well

a quick thought (and I have no idea if it might be possible) but I don't imagine too many people are running 2K with IE5, script 51, mdac253, dx7, mp6, etc. (although I prefer classic 6 with 9 codecs) ... if you're worried about serving them, why not do a simple R2preinstall (or whatever) to update their core components to a sensible system (?IE6sp1; runtimes (script 57, mdac 28sp1, VB6sp6, VC++05sp1, ... ); mp9, dx9c(std), codecs9) then ... maintain ONE patch list.

that alone will be hard enough work ... I have huge respect for that ... otherwise you burn out when you open up list management to hairball territory

back when, just to prove how thick I was, I did a manual frogwalk through "the Vast Hairball" i.e. MS patch domain (endless rabbit holes everywhere ... and then some ... and nowhere a mushroom to rest my head on ... alas!)

what I found was that no two expert system builders and listkeepers, building nearly identical systems, will come up with the same patch list. It's the very definition of impossible hairball. I compared them all including Microsoft itself, and Shivlik, and and and

it was amazing ... here's my 2009 comparison, posted on this forum Windows 2000 update lists compared. it's was such a hoot ... that it took months to frogwalk (I'm on dialup) and twice as long for my brain to fully recover! harhar!! (I haven't figured out smilies yet, but I'm sure there's a good one for that ... I'm still looking). In fact, I gave up on building a 2k system because of MS exhaustion, and went back to my old standard ... 98se ... it's still the greatest!! but there is some newer software ... sooo here I am building a 2k system ... I'm going to use terabyte's Image as my antivirus (in fact, I'd like to automate shutdown ... prehaps someone could help me ... on shutdown execute a script that gives me the option to defrag and shutdown, or shutdown and reboot to cd, whereupon terabyte linux would restore boot partition and then shutdown. terabyte will restore off of a batch, so the restore code would need to have the usual warnings ... is this the image file you want to restore? the hdd partition 1 to be restored? or do a test to see if a 40-char random filename for the image file matches a system file in root of the partition, with the same 40-char random filename, to uniquely match the image sourcefile with the target partition, etc.) and then shutdown.)

R2coreup would bring us user-consumers up to a set of core components that you think is the most manageable, from your perspective, listwise and patchbuildingwise, as regards your available energy, time and focus. The rest of us will follow your lead. The last thing we want is for you or bristols to try to satisfy the world (an empty set that), and then burn out. The two of you (and lots of others on msfn team) are listkeeping and patchbuilding a path through the MS security hariball that is beyond the talents and abilities of most of us. Focus will make the project stronger.

you and bristols have pretty much already started towards that end anyway ... on bristols list, who's going to HFSLIP a hairball of patches for script 51 when there's a link to 57 sitting right there? .. you with your rollups for ie6 and dx9 (MS made a mistake when they merged dx9 x86 with x64). Pack a rollup (easy huh? haha) for a few runtimes, script 57, vb6, c++, mdac, and you've already got R2coreup put to bed.

then you and bristols, and the rest of us, have just one list to look after. That will be hard enough. As shown by my 09 work above!! That was 11 listkeepers! Most pros, and I mean, pro as in earning their living that way ... all hugely different list results.

after R2coreup gets put to bed, its cousin, R2patchup, gets put to bed ... R2patchup would update the standardized core system, as defined by you and bristols, using MS-only patches ... (you are right to separate out .net and xml even ... daht net's a whole 'nuther hairball dar boiz).

once R2coreup and R2patchup are patted down, they become a standard 2K platform upon which to build the R2patchplus rollups. In your mindsets, you and bristols, and the rest of us, are already working towards that anyway.

For stability, and reputation, you could then add an R2hbrup. In fact, you've already done that! so that's put to bed already. Just a few pieces to go.

I think this is the important part ... don't commingle your or wildbill's work, et al, with MS ... when a stability issue pops up, if MS is separated, the issue can be quickly isolated ... was it an unofficial by wildbill, or you or bristols, or whoever, ... or was MS again, by patch or HFR, which can be isolated in a separate rollup? you and others on the msfn team don't need to totally commingle your reputations with MS. in fact, msfn contributors are preserving MS's reputation.

the R2patchplus rollups could then plugin the hugely helpful unofficials ... if a stability issue should crop up, it can be quickly isolated as MS or HBR ... or as unofficial and quickly fixed (IMHO the former is more likely).

It's just a thought ... I have such HUGE respect and admiration for the hard work that you and bristols (and everyone else on msfn) are doing.

Major kudos to you all ... just one molecule here ... harhar

edit add

I may be able to help with testing but I need more experience with hfslip (files in right dirs) ... I have an ASUS CUV4X (P3socket 370, 512M) with Matrox g400 AGP, AHA2940AU (cd's scanner), VIA642 controller card (for 48-bit HDD bios), a NIC, a USRobotics 5610, and a USB20 card ... I cold swap HDDs and 98se gives me no problem ... (my first builds of 2k are puking when I swap my data HDDs ... that'll have to be another post ... I'm just not quite there yet.) and I have a MSI P43neo-f3, core2 duo 7200, P43 northbridge, ICH10 southbridge (sata), with Intel drivers for 2k (and XP), MSI video 7300g-256meg, Realtec LAN and Audio (with Intel 2k drivers (and XP drivers), 2 gig ram, aha2940, pci modem, cold swappable data HDDs, ... blah blah

Edited by Molecule, 04 July 2011 - 09:06 AM.


#35
Molecule

Molecule

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 185 posts
In the database I made of the patch bulletins, I couldn't find where the MS bulletins says these were superseded.

some of them are pretty old ... not that I didn't miss something, or that the MS bulletin listkeepers are perfect either ...

any harm if I go ahead and include these in HFSLIP?

also, the .mis to install the VB6 runtime ... it doesn't go into /HF?

(does HFSLIP make a record of slip or install atttempts that fail or return errors? -- I guess that all happens at the install?)

sbk/b   kb      filenum  released ?HF/ folder?   filename
------  ------  ------   --------  ------------  -----------------------------
05-024  894320  894320   05/09/05  HF/           Windows2000-KB894320-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k webview
05-027  896422  896422   06/13/05  HF/           Windows2000-KB896422-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k msg blk
05-032  890046  890046   06/13/05  HF/           Windows2000-KB890046-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k agent
08-032  950760  950760   06/10/08  HF/           Windows2000-KB950760-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k killbits
08-037  951748  951748   07/07/08  HF/           Windows2000-KB951748-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k dns
08-052  957337  975337   10/13/09  HF/           WindowsXP-KB975337-x86-ENU.exe     - w2k gdi+
09-044  958471  958471   08/10/09  HF/           Windows2000-KB958471-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k rdp
04-028  833989  833989   09/20/04  HF/           IE6.0sp1-KB833989-x86-ENU.exe      - ie6 vgx.dll
07-028  931906  931906.2 05/08/07  HF/           CAPICOM-KB931906-v2102.exe         - runtime
08-070  926857  926857   12/09/08  HFSVCPACL_SW1 VB60SP6-KB926857-x86-ENU.msi       - runtime
08-053  954156  954156   09/08/08  HF/           WindowsMedia9-KB954156-x86-ENU.exe - encoder 9
10-033  979332  979332   06/07/10  HF/           WindowsMedia9-KB979332-x86-ENU.exe - encoder 9

04-028  867460  867460   08/30/04  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe         - .net1.1
09-062  971108  971108   10/12/09  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB971108-X86.exe         - .net1.1
10-041  979906  979906   06/01/10  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB979906-X86.exe         - .net1.1
10-070 2416447 2416447   09/27/10  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB2416447-X86.exe        - .net1.1
09-062  971111  971111   10/12/09  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB971111-x86.exe          - .net2.0
10-041  979909  979909   06/01/10  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB979909-x86.exe          - .net2.0
10-070 2418241 2418241   09/27/10  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB2418241-x86.exe         - .net2.0
959209  958481  958481   12/17/08  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB958481-x86.exe          - .net2.0
982167  982167  982167   06/01/10  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB982167-x86.exe          - .net2.0

also for msxml4sp3, MS put up the usual link to install .msi, plus they added a link to a small cab file for distribution installs
msXML4 sp3 download page

the msi install is 2.32M while the cab install is only 695K -- wonder if the cab works in HFSLIP

also, in Bristols list for media players, there's a group of files for WMP6&WMP9, and another group for WMP9 only. If I'm installing WMP9, do I install both groups? If WMP6 is not uninstalled or overwritten (9 is a separate program) then I should do both anyway?

thanks for your help ...

#36
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
WOW! That's a long post :w00t:

I'll try to reply to the second one first:

any harm if I go ahead and include these in HFSLIP?

If newer files are already included in other updates then HFSLIP will use only them so the older ones don't matter at all.


also, the .mis to install the VB6 runtime ... it doesn't go into /HF?

Well, first of all this update is not for Windows 2000 system per se. You must have VB6.0 installed. If you do use it then I beliveve it should go to HFSVCPACK_SW1 (most of .msi installers go to this folder, except those that are supported, ex. MSXMLs go to HF).


(does HFSLIP make a record of slip or install atttempts that fail or return errors? -- I guess that all happens at the install?)

HFSLIP is not a very complicated thing ;) in case of M$ updates, it just replaces the original files with the updated ones and sets the .inf files from these updates to be run when installing the system. If you want to be sure that all updates are slipstreamed correctly, you should just watch the whole process carefully and check if files are copied.


05-024  894320  894320   05/09/05  HF/           Windows2000-K894320-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k webview
Obsolete. Newer version is already in another update.


05-027  896422  896422   06/13/05  HF/           Windows2000-KB896422-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k msg blk
Obsolete. Newer version is already in another update.


05-032  890046  890046   06/13/05  HF/           Windows2000-KB890046-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k agent
Obsolete. Newer version is already in another update.


08-032  950760  950760   06/10/08  HF/           Windows2000-KB950760-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k killbits
Obsolete. Replaced by KB980195.


08-037  951748  951748   07/07/08  HF/           Windows2000-KB951748-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k dns
Obsolete. Replaced by KB951748-v2.


08-052  957337  975337   10/13/09  HF/           WindowsXP-KB975337-x86-ENU.exe     - w2k gdi+
This one is new for me :o It says WindowsXP but in the KB article you can see that it's for Win2k too. Anyway, it can't be slipstreamed because it doesn't include any installer. If you try to run the file it just asks where to extract. I think I'll have to make a slipstreamable version of this one :) At this moment you can't use if with HFSLIP.


09-044  958471  958471   08/10/09  HF/           Windows2000-KB958471-x86-ENU.EXE   - w2k rdp
It's not present at bristols. I believe it's an update for KB958470 (Remote Desktop Client Version 5.1). The files installed by this update are normally not present in Windows 2000 so I believe you should use it only if you use Remote Desktop.


04-028  833989  833989   09/20/04  HF/           IE6.0sp1-KB833989-x86-ENU.exe      - ie6 vgx.dll
Obsolete. Replaced by KB958869.


07-028  931906  931906.2 05/08/07  HF/           CAPICOM-KB931906-v2102.exe         - runtime
I don't know anything about this one as I don't use CAPICOM. I've checked it and believe that in order to use it with HFSLIP you have to unpack it (there is an .msi installer inside) and put the .msi file to HFSVCPACK_SW1.


08-070  926857  926857   12/09/08  HFSVCPACL_SW1 VB60SP6-KB926857-x86-ENU.msi       - runtime
Obsolete. Replaced by VB60SP6-KB957924-v2-x86-ENU.msi. I haven't tried it but probably should go to HFSVPACK_SW1.


08-053  954156  954156   09/08/08  HF/           WindowsMedia9-KB954156-x86-ENU.exe - encoder 9
10-033  979332  979332   06/07/10  HF/           WindowsMedia9-KB979332-x86-ENU.exe - encoder 9
These two should only be used if you have WMP9 Encoder installed. If I remember correctly, bristols' removed them from his site for this reason. If you just use WMP9 for playing audio/video files, you shouldn't install these updates.


04-028  867460  867460   08/30/04  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe         - .net1.1
09-062  971108  971108   10/12/09  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB971108-X86.exe         - .net1.1
10-041  979906  979906   06/01/10  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB979906-X86.exe         - .net1.1
10-070 2416447 2416447   09/27/10  HF/           NDP1.1sp1-KB2416447-X86.exe        - .net1.1
09-062  971111  971111   10/12/09  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB971111-x86.exe          - .net2.0
10-041  979909  979909   06/01/10  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB979909-x86.exe          - .net2.0
10-070 2418241 2418241   09/27/10  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB2418241-x86.exe         - .net2.0
959209  958481  958481   12/17/08  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB958481-x86.exe          - .net2.0
982167  982167  982167   06/01/10  HF/           NDP20SP2-KB982167-x86.exe          - .net2.0
These are .NET Framework updates. You can't use them with HFSLIP. If you want to slipstream .NET 1.1 & 2.0 with updates then I recommend using my switchless installers which go to HFSVCPACK folder. If you want to include both .NET 1.1 & 2.0 you can use just 2KDNF11SP120SP2(110615).exe (installers and all updates are included in it).


also for msxml4sp3, MS put up the usual link to install .msi, plus they added a link to a small cab file for distribution installs
msXML4 sp3 download page

the msi install is 2.32M while the cab install is only 695K -- wonder if the cab works in HFSLIP

Obsolete. It's replaced by msxml4-KB973685-enu.exe which goes straight to HF :)


also, in Bristols list for media players, there's a group of files for WMP6&WMP9, and another group for WMP9 only. If I'm installing WMP9, do I install both groups? If WMP6 is not uninstalled or overwritten (9 is a separate program) then I should do both anyway?

Yes :yes: WMP6 updates are absolutely necessary regardless of whether you have WMP7.1 or WMP9 installed. They should be installed even if you don't use WMP at all because WMP6 files are always present in the system.


thanks for your help ...

You're welcome :)

I'll try to write a reply to the first post later today. I hope everything is clear for you now.

If you wait just a few days until I finish the UR2.0, I'll post a full list of my HFSLIP folders' contents so you can compare yours with mine.

Edited by tomasz86, 04 July 2011 - 07:41 PM.


#37
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

a quick thought (and I have no idea if it might be possible) but I don't imagine too many people are running 2K with IE5, script 51, mdac253, dx7, mp6, etc. (although I prefer classic 6 with 9 codecs) ... if you're worried about serving them, why not do a simple R2preinstall (or whatever) to update their core components to a sensible system (?IE6sp1; runtimes (script 57, mdac 28sp1, VB6sp6, VC++05sp1, ... ); mp9, dx9c(std), codecs9) then ... maintain ONE patch list.

Actually the point of the Update Rollup 2 is like this - UR2.0 for people who want to stick only to the official M$ stuff and UR2.1 for those who do not hesitate to use the unofficial updates. UR2.0 is a set of critical updates for system components - system updates, IE/OE (5/6) updates, DX7 updates, Script, MDAC, etc. The important thing is that if you use newer versions, ex. DX9 and Script 5.7, the older ones just will NOT be installed with the Rollup. Everything is set automatically. UR2 installer detects whether you have DX9 installed and skips DX7 files. The same thing with MDAC, Script, etc. It also means that UR2.0 can be used together with Script 5.7, WMP9, DX9, etc. as the older files are just ignored in this case. It applies to HFSLIP too. As for IE/OE updates - UR2.0 automatically detects whether you're using IE5 or IE6 and installs only the appropriate versions of the updates. Please check IE / OE Mini Rollup for details as IEOEMR1 (not 1.1!) is included in UR2.0. Actually I wanted to include DX9 updates (not DX9 itself) in UR2.0 but gave up because it was not working with HFSLIP.

UR2.1, on the other hand, is not something created separately. It's based on UR2.0. I just add additional components/updates to it. It means that I don't have to make two separate Rollups. It's just UR2.0 + other things. The other important point is that UR2.0 is going to be a final product - no updates when completed (as M$ support is over). UR2.1 will be updated constantly - I plan add new unofficial updates regularly.

As for WMP6 updates, they are necessary even if you don't use it so I will include them in both UR2.0 and 2.1 (please remember that I'm talking only about security updates and not the codecs!). WMP9 with all updates & codecs will be available through WMP9 Mini Rollup which I want to make later on.


R2coreup would bring us user-consumers up to a set of core components that you think is the most manageable, from your perspective, listwise and patchbuildingwise, as regards your available energy, time and focus. The rest of us will follow your lead. The last thing we want is for you or bristols to try to satisfy the world (an empty set that), and then burn out. The two of you (and lots of others on msfn team) are listkeeping and patchbuilding a path through the MS security hariball that is beyond the talents and abilities of most of us. Focus will make the project stronger.

I keep everything stored at my HDD and plan to make it available for everyone later on, so other people could use these tools to make custom udpates too. Don't worry ;) I also keep bristols' site's copy here just in case. I also plan to prepare my own short list of updates for those who decide to use UR2, i.e. "which updates should I include together with UR2?".


you and bristols have pretty much already started towards that end anyway ... on bristols list, who's going to HFSLIP a hairball of patches for script 51 when there's a link to 57 sitting right there? .. you with your rollups for ie6 and dx9 (MS made a mistake when they merged dx9 x86 with x64). Pack a rollup (easy huh? haha) for a few runtimes, script 57, vb6, c++, mdac, and you've already got R2coreup put to bed.

Actually bristols himself slipstreams IE5 only and uses FDV fileset to get rid of IE related components. As I said above, Script 5.1 is already in the system and I just replaced the file with a newer version from KB917344. If you decide to use ver. 5.7, the older file will be overwritten by the new ones from Script 5.7.

DirecX9.0c Full Pack doesn't contain any x64 archives :)


For stability, and reputation, you could then add an R2hbrup. In fact, you've already done that! so that's put to bed already. Just a few pieces to go.

Actually HBRs seem to be instable :( I decided not to use them myself. I still plan to make a new version of the HBR Rollup but I personally advice against using them if you want a 100% stable system.


I think this is the important part ... don't commingle your or wildbill's work, et al, with MS ... when a stability issue pops up, if MS is separated, the issue can be quickly isolated ... was it an unofficial by wildbill, or you or bristols, or whoever, ... or was MS again, by patch or HFR, which can be isolated in a separate rollup? you and others on the msfn team don't need to totally commingle your reputations with MS. in fact, msfn contributors are preserving MS's reputation.

I know what you're talking about but I'm not sure about making a separate "add-on" rollup only with the unofficial updates. The point is that they replace the official ones (i.e. system files are replaced by those from the unofficial updates). I believe unofficial updates are actually stabler than HBRs as they are modified XP's updates which were thoroughly tested by M$. On the other hand, HBRs while official and coming directly from M$ were not tested ;)

In my opinion you just have to use unofficial updates if you want to keep using Win2000 today, especially concerning the security holes. But I understand that there are some people who would like to stick to the official ones only. That's why there will be two versions of UR2 - 2.0 (only official updates) and 2.1 (official + unoffocial updates).

As for MSFN contributors, please don't forget BlackWingCat! Even though he's not very active here, I've been heavily analising his updates and using some of his solutions when preparing the UR2 and also other unofficial stuff.

BlackWingCat has also made a few very important unofficial updates:
- kernel32 v5 (I strongly advise using it; will be included in UR2.1)
- Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 v3

I may be able to help with testing but I need more experience with hfslip (files in right dirs) ...

Of course I appreciate all help and input :) feel free to test and post comments here. As for HFSLIP, you can check Mim0's site for detailed information about it. It's for XP but the basic guide is the same (folders, etc.).

Thanks for mentioning other components such as MS C++. I didn't think about them but I'll have to see if it's possible to add them to the Rollup 2.1 too.

Edited by tomasz86, 04 July 2011 - 10:56 PM.


#38
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
By the way, last month MS released a corrected versions of Visual Studio and Visual C++ which fixes an issue connected with Windows 2000.

http://www.microsoft...n/ms11-025.mspx

#39
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
Update Rollup 2.0 RTM :whistle:

Windows2000-KB891861-UR2-RTM-x86-ENU.exe (49.06 MB, pass: msfn)

UR2.0 will be officially available in a very short time.

UR2.1 will include .NET 1.1,2.0 & 3.5. It'll also include MS VC++ 2005, 2008 & 2010.

Edited by tomasz86, 05 July 2011 - 03:17 AM.


#40
NothingMuchHereToSay

NothingMuchHereToSay

    Junior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 57 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Someone ought to sticky this and/or move this to the Windows 2k board. This is amazing work! Once I get Windows 2000 to test, I'd love to try out these updates!

#41
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
UR2 is practically ready to be 'distributed'. The only work that must be finished is translating the readme files (being done now) for localised versions. There will be three - English, Polish and Italian.

As for the topic and Win2k board - I think this is the best sub-forum for this kind of project :) It's closely connected with the work that Gurgelmeyer did a few years ago, and everything can be kept in one place.

To 'kill the time' (not really but I as I've been focused only on UR2 for some time I wanted to try sth different) I tried to unpack the official .NET Framework 3.5 installer and see what the problem with Win2k is. So far it seems that everything is Windows 2000 compatible but MS blocked Win2k intentionally.

There is sth like this in it

AllowLaunchOnWin2k=0

After changing it to 1 the installer seems to work normally... Anyway, I need to do more tests.

edit

It seems to be more complicated than I thought initially. I think I know what must be done but it shall take a lot of time... I'll just leave it for now.

Edited by tomasz86, 06 July 2011 - 06:21 PM.


#42
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
As you've already seen, UR2 is already available to download and I'm working now on the "v2" version of it. The point of it is to add WMP6.4 security updates (they MUST be installed regardless of whether you use WMP or not), a GDI+ update and MDAC 2.53. I had to do some nasty work modyfing the 'date' of MDAC related DLLs in order to make it compatible with HFSLIP.

HFSLIP uses xcopy when it copies files which means that only newer files get copied. Newer means 'newer date', not 'file version'. The problem with MDAC is that some of the 2.53 files are newer than those from 2.8... so if both MDAC 2.53 updates and MDAC 2.8 files are present in HF at the same time, HFSLIP will copy those from 2.53. I had to change the date of those files from 2.53 to 'make' them older than the files from 2.8 :lol:

Of course this problem is related only to a situation when you want to slipstream UR2-v2 (with MDAC2.53 update included) and MDAC 2.8 at the same time. Anyway, I think I managed to fix it - all files of MDAC 2.8 are slipstreamed correctly after having fixed the dates of the 2.53's DLLs.

On the other hand, when installing the update normally the date doesn't matter at all because MS update mechanism checks file versions and copies only newer files (generally this is true... although it can be changed in update.inf to force copying specific files even if they are older).

Edited by tomasz86, 09 July 2011 - 10:46 AM.


#43
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
There won't be other language version for UR2.0 than the existing ones - English, Polish and Italian. I'm getting ready with the v2 version of it and in order to have everything working with HFSLIP some .DLL date and version changing was necessary which means a lot of manual work to do. It has to be done to each language version separately. I just don't have to time to apply these fixes to all of them :(

Still I'm going to support the three languages that are already available.

EDIT

UR2.1 will probably be available only in English and Polish. Today I also had a look at Service Pack's update.inf but it's a HELL - there are a lot of sections which are used when integrating it (/integrate)... and NO documentation related to them. I guess I'll have to stick to making rollups as they are much simpler and I'm sure how the update.inf of a rollup works.

Edited by tomasz86, 14 July 2011 - 11:53 AM.


#44
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I managed to get over the WU issue. There was a problem that WU asked for updates even though files were already installed. Some additional registry entries were required to stop it. Unfortunately more manual work is required to achieve this :(

I'm going to implement this fix in future versions of my rollups.

#45
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
The Windows Update issue in Update Rollup 2 is solved. I still need to do more tests but it seems that there was a bug in the original UR1. One file responsible for executing commands (spupdsvc.exe) was not copied and because of that the installation was incomplete. WU would not see the updates as installed.

Now everything seems to be O.K. I remade UR2 once again using jaclaz's script. Most of the 'dirty work' is done automatically so there is less place for human (read: my) mistakes ;)

I want to do more tests first before uploading the new version (v3). It should be available in a few days.

EDIT

More info: Windows Update works perfectly but Automatic Updates don't. I don't want to waste time to investigate this thing as it has very little use after EOL. Especially if you use unofficial updates you MUST NOT use Windows Updates at all. At this point I just decided to remove Automatic Updates service. Windows Update (accessed through IE) still works.

Edited by tomasz86, 23 July 2011 - 10:07 AM.


#46
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I think I found a solution to add Server-only updates to UR2.

The problem here is not the Rollup itself but HFSLIP which slipstreams all files even though some of them may be only for Server. I'm thinking about some kind of bypassing, i.e. Sever-only files would be removed after slipstreaming if the OS is Win2k Pro.

#47
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
I added a poll to the topic. The more people vote, the better :whistle:

Edited by tomasz86, 30 July 2011 - 08:43 AM.


#48
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,629 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
For people to be willing to continue to use Win2K it needs to be stable and to run as much of today's software as possible so people can run their favorite apps and do what they need to do with the minimum amount of trouble, and to be stable. Did I mention that it should be stable? LOL This implies that it needs to be up to date, both from a capability and a safety standpoint. That being said, people will always want different things in their OS. To most easily provide that, and not get into a situation where people are asking you to add this or that, or remove this or that, I think it would be ideal if there could be 3 different levels of builds easily accomplished:

Standard - out of the box, just up to date
Minimum - strip it lean and mean for speed using fdv's files etc
Ultimate - add/update anything and everything MS related to the latest version that can run on Win2K and be stable - latest versions of IE, MP, ,NET, VB & VC runtimes, MDAC, Silverlight etc

I hope logic can be added so that server related options are only applied if appropriate, so separate packs are not required.

Whether your tools themselves provide these options directly, or you just give a How-To tutorial of how to do it, or you work with someone else who puts those together using your tools is obviously up to you. This would not only provide flexibility and ease of use for the user, which should help promote its use, but by testing the work you do under those three situations I would think that it would help ferret out potential bugs more rapidly. I've always liked HFSLIP and it's ability to integrate updates to speed up the installation process and make the build smaller, but if, as you've lately implied, you are reaching the limits of what it can do, since it's no longer being updated, I guess the choices would be to update it, since the source is available, or move over to either nLite (also not being updated any more) or RyanVM's Integrator which IS still being worked on, at least sporadically.

No matter what you decide, a very big THANK YOU! for all the work you've done regarding Win2K lately. It really is appreciated, even if those feelings are not expressed as often as they should.

Cheers and Regards

Edited by bphlpt, 30 July 2011 - 10:03 AM.


#49
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,497 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag
bphlpt,

Thank you for the input. The three options you mention seem interesting. I am however a little dubious about the Minimum option. Including FDV would make using nLite impossible which I want to avoid. Standard and Ultimate seem interesting. By

out of the box, just up to date

do you mean that unofficial updates should also be included in the standard installation? I'm asking regarding the "up to date" thing as without UUs (unofficial updates) W2K stopped in July 2010. I do agree that including all the other components (WMP, .NET, etc.) should be avoided in the basic installation as not everyone needs them (especially if it's an older computer). I disagree in case of IE - if safety is a priority then IE6 is a much better choice than IE5.

HFSLIP is nice but as I already said before it has too many limitations. I managed to work out how the /integrate switch works and I believe it will be the best way to slipstream everything to the W2K source without using any other tools. /integrate when used in the update mode doesn't slipstream any files - it just sets the update to be installed at T-13. However, there is also the other mode for it - called SP mode. When run in SP mode /integrate slipstreams files directly into the source. It has many advantages:

- no need for 3rd party tools (HFSLIP, nLite, etc.)
- Professional and Server files are added accordingly to the edition of W2K which is used
- full control of the process of slipstreaming
- simplicity (easy to use for other people)

This is what I am aiming at - use /integrate to slipstream everything directly. No HFSLIP, no nLite, no other programs. The only problem is that preparing a Service Pack is much more time consuming and difficult than an update rollup. I haven't decided yet - that's why I opened this poll :)

#50
PROBLEMCHYLD

PROBLEMCHYLD

    The Resurrector for old Windows OS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

This is what I am aiming at - use /integrate to slipstream everything directly. No HFSLIP, no nLite, no other programs. The only problem is that preparing a Service Pack is much more time consuming and difficult than an update rollup. I haven't decided yet - that's why I opened this poll :)

Probably the best solution. HFSLIP with not be updated any more, I'm sure the bugs it has won't be fixed so why waste anytime on it. It was a great project but its time to move on.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD, 30 July 2011 - 04:44 PM.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)


How to remove advertisement from MSFN