MSFN Forum: Windows 2000 unofficial updates - MSFN Forum

Jump to content


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Windows 2000 unofficial updates UU Rollup, UR2, addons & updates

Poll: Windows 2000 unofficial updates (38 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want SP6?

  1. Voted Yes. (38 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

#41 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 06 July 2011 - 06:18 AM

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

Quote

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.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 06 July 2011 - 06:21 PM



#42 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 09 July 2011 - 10:18 AM

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).

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 09 July 2011 - 10:46 AM


#43 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 13 July 2011 - 12:33 AM

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.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 14 July 2011 - 11:53 AM


#44 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 15 July 2011 - 07:52 AM

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 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 22 July 2011 - 11:37 AM

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.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 23 July 2011 - 10:07 AM


#46 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 22 July 2011 - 09:20 PM

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 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 30 July 2011 - 06:46 AM

I added a poll to the topic. The more people vote, the better :whistle:

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 30 July 2011 - 08:43 AM


#48 User is offline   bphlpt 

  • MSFN Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 12-May 07

Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:02 AM

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

This post has been edited by bphlpt: 30 July 2011 - 10:03 AM


#49 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:42 AM

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

Quote

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 User is online   PROBLEMCHYLD 

  • The Resurrector for old Windows OS
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,464
  • Joined: 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 30 July 2011 - 01:19 PM

View Posttomasz86, on 30 July 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 30 July 2011 - 04:44 PM


#51 User is offline   bphlpt 

  • MSFN Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Joined: 12-May 07

Posted 30 July 2011 - 07:43 PM

By "out of the box, just up to date" my thought was that unofficial updates SHOULD be included, since they are the kind of updates that WOULD probably have been included if support had not stopped. Just don't add extra components that would not have been included in a basic, standard, run of the mill type install. Kind of like the difference between a home and a professional type of install. I know that there are many people who are not like me. They don't want to be at the cutting edge, they're just going to surf the web, do email, maybe office type stuff, and mild games like Solitare. The systems that you would set up for your mom, grandmother, aunt Sue, etc. They would want the standard setup.

I'm afraid I'm not the guy who can tell you what that is like since I've always been the guy who wants it all with all the options and nothing removed - ie the ultimate approach. I want to always be prepared so that I'm more likely to be able to run, play, install anything I run across that my hardware will support. The addon from Onepiece - http://www.ryanvm.ne...opic.php?t=5326 could be an example of the Ultimate type of content. Why he didn't include support to enable the LBA 48bit fix, I'm not sure. Could be a technical reason why he left it separate? With the sizes of todays disc drives I would have thought that feature would would be even more important now. If I remember right Gurgelmeyer included it in his pack? Kurt_Aust's guide could also be considered as an example of a build that includes it all, and then some.

The third group is those that would have used fdv's fileset. You're right - I had forgotten that Fred said that you shouldn't try to use nlite with his fileset. Good catch. Using two tools at the same time that do the same job, just in different ways, can cause problems. Like running two different real-time anti-virus programs at the same time. But that is a group that might still have an interest in what you do. The fdv threads still get the occasional post. So if you can meet their needs, whether you use the fdv fileset or not, that would get you another potential audience. They want things stripped dowm for speed and simplicity - all the garbage they're not going to use taken out - mostly IE. Again though, that's not me - maybe someone else can advise you on their needs.

I love the idea of the SP approach. That should speed things up and keep things cleaner. Both will be appreciated. Keep up the great work.

Cheers and Regards

#52 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 30 July 2011 - 10:37 PM

View Postbphlpt, on 30 July 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:

By "out of the box, just up to date" my thought was that unofficial updates SHOULD be included, since they are the kind of updates that WOULD probably have been included if support had not stopped. Just don't add extra components that would not have been included in a basic, standard, run of the mill type install.

I agree with you as for UUs but I know that there are people too who want to stick to the official updates only. I personally believe that at this moment (2011) it's been already a year since 2K went EOL and UUs are just a must if you keep using 2K today.

Quote

I'm afraid I'm not the guy who can tell you what that is like since I've always been the guy who wants it all with all the options and nothing removed - ie the ultimate approach. I want to always be prepared so that I'm more likely to be able to run, play, install anything I run across that my hardware will support.

Your approach is similar to mine ;) the solution may be to make two editions of USP6 -> basic & ultimate. Basic would be just an updated 2K with updated default components such as IE or MDAC. I wouldn't include WMP9 or DX9 in it as they are not really necessary in office environment. The ultimate one could include everything starting from DX9, WMP9, MSXMLs, .NET Framework, MS VC++ and several other small tools like msconfig, Profile Hive Cleanup, etc.

By the way, what do you think about Roots Updates? Should they be included in both versions of USP6? I'm asking because they are frequently updated and including them would require releasing an updated version of both USP's quite often.

The other way could be to make three editions - standard, enhanced and ultimate. The standard one would include ONLY official updates - like UR2 at this moment. Once finished, it would not be updated anymore. The enhanced one would have IE6, MDAC, DX, WMP9, etc. updated and unofficial updates would be included. The ultimate one would be Enhanced + other non-default components like .NET Framework, MSVC++, etc. The big disadvantage of such an approach is that a lot of work is required and it may be too much for a one person.

Sticking to just two editions of USP6 is probably the best solution.

Quote

The addon from Onepiece - http://www.ryanvm.ne...opic.php?t=5326 could be an example of the Ultimate type of content. Why he didn't include support to enable the LBA 48bit fix, I'm not sure. Could be a technical reason why he left it separate? With the sizes of todays disc drives I would have thought that feature would would be even more important now. If I remember right Gurgelmeyer included it in his pack? Kurt_Aust's guide could also be considered as an example of a build that includes it all, and then some.

The Onepiece addon is nice but it has one problem - HBRs are included which I don't want in USP6 as they may have negative impact on system stability. I probably know why the LBA fix is not inclujded in this addon and is included in Gurgelmeyer's USP5. The LBA fix is edition dependent - to enable 48-bit LBA support in text setup you must edit the setupreg.hiv file. This file is different in case of each 2K edition - Pro, Srv, AdvSrv, DataCtr, Embedded. 2K's SP4 has 5 versions of it for each edition respectively and Gurgelmeyer added the fix to each of them. It's impossible to do in an addon where you don't have such a controlling mechanism to distinguish between different editions of 2K.

Kurt Aust's guide is very good and I'm going to analyse it thoroughly when adding additional components to the USP6 in the future.

Quote

The third group is those that would have used fdv's fileset.

There is no reason why HFSLIP shouldn't be used after integrating (/integrate) the USP. The same thing was with Gurgelmeyer's USP5 - you could use HFSLIP/nLite with no problems after having it slipstreamed. People using FDV's fileset could just use it in the same way as they do now :)

#53 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 27 September 2011 - 06:21 AM

I haven't written anything in this topic for a while... but it doesn't mean that I've lost my interest in the topic ;)

I've been a little busy recently so I've been trying to focus more on the field of unofficial updates which require much less work than preparing a Service Pack. I also want to make a slipstreamable installation for .NET Framework (1.1-3.5) which could be put in HF folder. I also want to have a look at .NET 4.0 but I don't know yet if it's possible to make it work in 2K.

Before doing anything concerning SP6 I'd like to make a one more version (and it'd be the last one) of UR2 which would be slipstreamable using the /integrate switch. I'll probably have to remove IE6 updates from it to keep compatiblity with both IE5 and 6 as at this moment there are problems with catalog files (the ones from IE5 and IE6 overlap each other causes problems when using sfc /scannow). By using /integrate I could also avoid doing any manual date modifications to the system dll and still have only newer versions slipstreamed :)

I'm also looking forward to testing WildBill's new kernel patch which may fix a lot of compatiblity issues related with newer updates and applications.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 27 September 2011 - 06:24 AM


#54 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:32 PM

I'm considering stopping realisng single updates. I'd rather focus on a update rollup which would have all unofficial updates included. There are several benefits it:

1) Easy to manage and update.
2) Easy to test compatibility with different configurations of W2K (IE5, IE6, WB&BWC kernel, etc.).
3) Easy to install and slipstream (1 single package instead of tens/hundreds of single updates).
4) It's possible to add single files not belonging to any particular updates or files from XP SP3, etc.
5) Managing all these single updates is too time consuming.

Could anyone share his/her opinion on this idea?

Of course it'd be a temporary solution until I manage to finish the USP6 project (still LONG time to go...).

#55 User is online   PROBLEMCHYLD 

  • The Resurrector for old Windows OS
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,464
  • Joined: 07-October 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 25 February 2012 - 08:49 AM

View Posttomasz86, on 24 February 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

I'm considering stopping realisng single updates. I'd rather focus on a update rollup which would have all unofficial updates included. There are several benefits it:

1) Easy to manage and update.
2) Easy to test compatibility with different configurations of W2K (IE5, IE6, WB&BWC kernel, etc.).
3) Easy to install and slipstream (1 single package instead of tens/hundreds of single updates).
4) It's possible to add single files not belonging to any particular updates or files from XP SP3, etc.
5) Managing all these single updates is too time consuming.

Could anyone share his/her opinion on this idea?

Of course it'd be a temporary solution until I manage to finish the USP6 project (still LONG time to go...).
Its probably the best solution. Its a headache to have to download a hundred small packages
than to just have on big package. Thats what I have done with Win98 SP3. Its at 52mb, which is not bad compared to
some other packs.

#56 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 15 March 2012 - 09:25 PM

It's time to revive this topic :)

I've prepared the Unofficial Updates Rollup (see #1 post). It's available for ENU & Global (non-ENU) systems. The difference between the two is that there are more (English-only) updates included in the ENU version. I managed to merged the two kernels - WB kernel & BWC kernel meaning that I chose compatible files from both of them and added them to the Rollup (ENU). Now it's no longer necessary to choose between the two. You can use the Rollup as long as you've got SP4 & UR1 installed. Because both unofficial kernels are included you don't need to install any other unofficial updates or other packages before installing the UU Rollup. Of course you can also slipstream it as it's 100% compatible with HFSLIP.

The next two big packages I'm focused on are a new version of the HBR Rollup & a new version of UR2. After that I can focus on USP6.

Please tell me if there are any problems with the UU Rollup.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 15 March 2012 - 09:26 PM


#57 User is offline   Lucius 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 15-March 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:26 AM

Thanks, windows 2K server is still good for my old hardware, and can do a lot of things XP and windows 7 cant. Thanks for keeping it alive.

This post has been edited by Lucius: 16 March 2012 - 03:26 AM


#58 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:20 AM

It's always good to know that there's someone interested in these packages :w00t:


I've started working on a new version of Update Rollup 2. This is just a very first alpha. I'm sure there are some bugs in it. UR1 is not yet included.


Windows2000-UR2-ALPHA1-x86-ENU.exe (27 MB)

Details:
Spoiler


#59 User is offline   tomasz86 

  • http://www.windows2000.tk
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,220
  • Joined: 27-November 10
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:22 AM

I have uploaded UU Rollup v2. I've removed the custom update 2347290 because, after all, it's not a UU ;) I'll include it in the upcoming Unofficial Update Rollup 2.

#60 User is offline   Lucius 

  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 15-March 12
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Posted 19 March 2012 - 10:45 AM

Do you know if the LNK exploit is mitigated by any of these patches. I recall 2k support was dropped weeks before MS patched this on all current versions except for 2k.

edit nvm i found out it is covered Windows2000-UU-KBz2479628-v10-x86-ENU.exe

This post has been edited by Lucius: 19 March 2012 - 11:03 AM


Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



All trademarks mentioned on this page are the property of their respective owners
Copyright © 2001 - 2013 msfn.org
Privacy Policy