[fdv]

tomasz86, I am not clear on the error you get with wintrust.dll, I did not see a specific description or screenshot of it.

This dll is involved with digital certificates on a running OS, it is not involved with setup.

To expand more on what acus said, do a global replace in both TXTSETUP and LAYOUT of ,_x, to ,, (comma underscore x comma ---> comma comma)

Hacking SFC is handy but doesn't relate to wintrust. This may be handy for you, it is buried in my site

edit: by "This dll is involved with digital certificates on a running OS, it is not involved with setup" I mean there is nothing you can do during setup to suppress errors from this dll later. An error thrown because of this means another dll that windows is attempting to verify is failing verification. So strictly speaking, another dll might be the actual problem.

This post has been edited by fdv: 28 September 2012 - 12:48 PM

[tomasz86]

@desertofunknown
Hmm, what do you mean exactly by using SVN?

@fdv
This is the exact error:

Spoiler

and I think that these are the catalogs which cannot be installed:

Spoiler

There are probably two easy ways to overcome it:

• Remove the catalogs from syssetup.inf so that setup will be able to continue with the current wintrust.dll. SFC must be disabled too.
  
• Use an official version of wintrust.dll in the first part of the setup and then replace it with the current one during T-13. This method can be implemented in a service pack but cannot in case of a rollup slipstreamed with HFSLIP.

Quote

To expand more on what acus said, do a global replace in both TXTSETUP and LAYOUT of ,_x, to ,, (comma underscore x comma ---> comma comma)

Don't you have to disable SFC when doing this too?

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 29 September 2012 - 12:50 AM

[fdv]

Ahhh! Okay, now I get you... catalogs.

Since you are replacing a lot of binaries in a SP (of your own making) and not installing the CAT files that come with each hotfix, you might as well delete all of the listed CATs except the first two, NT5INF and NT5. That's how I did what I did and it worked. IIRC SP4.CAT can go too. FYI, I know you know this but for other people reading, if you wanted to make an unofficial SP where each file actually passed a signature verification, you would need to copy all of the CAT files in each hotfix and list them ALL under [ProductCatalogsToInstall].

I honestly forget what happens when you install no CATs at all.

My hacked SETUPAPI.DLL turns off all signature checking and I use that in conjunction with the SFC.DLL hack. You can get both in my fileset. Since they are MSFT binaries permission is not mine to give, but if you wanted to use the ones from my fileset, I personally have no problem with that.

Some part of me thinks that even with all of this you might still get a problem with a different WINTRUST. Worth checking into if it eliminates your error.

[desertofunknown]

[quote name='tomasz86' timestamp='1348901074' post='1013128']
@desertofunknown
Hmm, what do you mean exactly by using SVN?

I mean using SVN via a place like Sourceforge would allow you to make revisions and undo them easily and also allow you to have other developers easily commit to your project SVN is more a newer tool for open source development and every time you commit to your project a version is made and all data is stored on the website database allowing you to reverse changes check threw all your progress ect in one easy to use area

[bphlpt]

That sounds like a good idea, but since, as fdv said, the binaries of many of the pieces of tomasz86's work come from MS, (even though they are no longer supported in any way by MS, just like a lot of the Win98 pieces that are discussed on this forum), MS might have a problem with them being posted on Sourceforge and then being worked on by multiple people. There might not be any issue, but...

Cheers and Regards

[desertofunknown]

bphlpt, on 30 September 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

That sounds like a good idea, but since, as fdv said, the binaries of many of the pieces of tomasz86's work come from MS, (even though they are no longer supported in any way by MS, just like a lot of the Win98 pieces that are discussed on this forum), MS might have a problem with them being posted on Sourceforge and then being worked on by multiple people. There might not be any issue, but...

Cheers and Regards

Perhaps then we should as Microsoft for permission to work on them.... I think if we explain the situation and we tell them our goals and describe to them and insure them that we will not edit the files in anway that would cause a problem with Microsoft as well make sure that Microsoft does not take blame for any security flaws that might happen because of our work on it and agree not to distribute any of the files to anyone that does not already own the system then im sure they would be willing to allow us to improve on there operating systems foundation

[bphlpt]

Your idealism and optimism knows no bounds! I totally agree that is the way it should be in a perfect world, but unfortunately their behavior and decisions around the world in their entire history say that will not happen. Some of the MS support team are members and contributors on this board and, to my knowledge, they have never made a single post in any of the threads having to do with extending or modifying any of the Win98 or Win2K files discussed in any of the threads here even though they would be aware of the work being done just by looking at the forum index. Some might argue that their silence implies consent, but somehow I doubt that. Again, I could be wrong, but...

Cheers and Regards

This post has been edited by bphlpt: 30 September 2012 - 11:10 PM

[desertofunknown]

bphlpt, on 30 September 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Your idealism and optimism knows no bounds! I totally agree that is the way it should be in a perfect world, but unfortunately their behavior and decisions around the world in their entire history say that will not happen. Some of the MS support team are members and contributors on this board and, to my knowledge, they have never made a single post in any of the threads having to do with extending or modifying any of the Win98 or Win2K files discussed in any of the threads here even though they would be aware of the work being done just by looking at the forum index. Some might argue that their silence implies consent, but somehow I doubt that. Again, I could be wrong, but...

Cheers and Regards

Hmm well I think if we give them a chance they will come around

[tomasz86]

@desertofunknown

Like bphlpt has already written, I don't think that this project belongs to SourceForge simple because almost all files included in it come from M$ being either the original ones or modified versions. Therefore it's not open source.


I have just uploaded a new daily version of UURollup-v11 (if it's not there yet then check again one hour later). All files have been updated to the newest available versions and I've also added several files from IE6 SP3 (they're installed only if IE6 is present in the system). The wintrust.dll problem still persists and there's also another issue with slipstreaming so at the moment this version can be only installed manually. Also starting from this version UURollup now officially requires Update Rollup 2 to be present in the system before installation.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 02 October 2012 - 01:27 AM

[charlieb001]

http://www.windows2000.tk/ has referenced this topic for discussion about UURolup.

I reinstalled my computer with
Windows 2000 SP3
installed SP4
installed Update Rollup 1
installed Update Rollup 2
then i installed UURollup and after the reboot, the computer reboots after the pause at startup that some installations have, you shouldnt say its 'complimentary' on the windows2000.tk site , but 'avoidable'....

also you need to remove the statements that update rollup 1 is in update rollup 2 in this topic: http://www.msfn.org/...r-windows-2000/ (because that is false, causes BSOD on boot up, when done without UR1)


BTW, how do you install the latest java? i can only get success with 6u29, and no further than 6u33 (original file needs downloading, Sun has updated all their old versions to use a new win2000-unfriendly installer). i ask because i get the occaisional web advertiser trying to put trojans on the computer. i use comodo and host files to defend against that but the latest java is best.

Charlie.

This post has been edited by charlieb001: 06 October 2012 - 12:20 AM

[tomasz86]

I'm not sure if I understand the comment about UURollup, Update Rollup 1 and Update Rollup 2 correctly. Which version of UURollup did you install? The last stable version of UURollup requires only SP4+UR1 (or USP5.1) to be present but the new daily versions require SP4+UR1+UR2 (or USP5.1+UR2) to work. Update Rollup 2 itself requires SP4+UR1 (or USP5.1).

The other topic about UR2 is about the old package which was completely different than the current one. That's why it says "suspended / discontinued" in the title so you should just ignore it.

The offline installer of the latest Java 6 just works on my system (with UURollup-v10c installed).

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 06 October 2012 - 12:54 AM

[tomasz86]

I've uploaded a new weekly version of UURollup-v11. It's very similar to the last daily. I just added some cosmetic fixes and tested it more thoroughly.

Important! It's impossible to slipstream it directly but you can put it in HFSVCPACK_SW1 while UURollup-v10c must be placed in HF at the same time.

[tomasz86]

I've uploaded a new daily version of UURollup. No big changes this time. I've just updated and added files from the newest version of the BWC kernel.

At the moment I'm working on the .NET Framework merged installer again. This time I want to have it done 100% automatically so I've been working on a script which would repack and merge the OnePiece's .NET Framework addons (and make changes / fix problems if necessary). It should be ready shortly because I want to reinstall Win2k on my computer as soon as possible (my current system has become very messy) and I actually need this .NET Framework merged installer for myself too

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 10 October 2012 - 04:48 AM

[Hackeronte]

@tomasz86

Hi tomasz,

I'm a fan of OnePiece's works on ENG2ITA site forum as OnePiece Windows 2000 Post-SP4 UpdatePack v5.0.2 FINAL ITA

Good luck with your project and...remeber our little job (ita version of your amazing UURollup)

cheer...

hackeronte

[tomasz86]

@Hackeronte

Hello again I was actually waiting for you

OnePiece's packages are indeed fantastic and very useful if you want to just integrate one big update pack and have your system updated. The problem is that at the moment that Update Pack hasn't been updated for a long timeand that it only covers official updates. The hundreds of HBRs included in UR2 and the unofficial updates from UURollup are not included there. Some of the other official updates released after EOL are also not included. Of course you can just use that pack and install the missing updates manually later.

As for the ITA version, I'd recommend that you download the latest weekly version of UURollup-v11 and check its structure. It's pretty stable and the basic structure shouldn't change a lot in the future too so you can just accustom yourself with it now.

[tomasz86]

A new daily of UURollup-v11 is ready. As usual, all the newest changes from BWC kernel have been implemented. I've also added CMD.EXE from XP SP3.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 12 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

[desertofunknown]

I have been using Windows 8 here recently and it seems to function very well I do not like the interface change so much but the OS its self actually runs quite a bit faster then both win7 and win2k I also have seen a gaming FPS improvement

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Just WHAT does any of that to do with the topic???

[desertofunknown]

Kelsenellenelvian, on 12 October 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

Just WHAT does any of that to do with the topic???

Nothing in particular but just wanted to give everyone on the topic a heads up to try Windows 8 for performance reasons I guess it could be considered advertising Microsofts latest OS as it seems to function well

This post has been edited by desertofunknown: 13 October 2012 - 05:05 PM

[tomasz86]

fdv, on 29 September 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Ahhh! Okay, now I get you... catalogs.

Since you are replacing a lot of binaries in a SP (of your own making) and not installing the CAT files that come with each hotfix, you might as well delete all of the listed CATs except the first two, NT5INF and NT5. That's how I did what I did and it worked. IIRC SP4.CAT can go too. FYI, I know you know this but for other people reading, if you wanted to make an unofficial SP where each file actually passed a signature verification, you would need to copy all of the CAT files in each hotfix and list them ALL under [ProductCatalogsToInstall].

I honestly forget what happens when you install no CATs at all.

My hacked SETUPAPI.DLL turns off all signature checking and I use that in conjunction with the SFC.DLL hack. You can get both in my fileset. Since they are MSFT binaries permission is not mine to give, but if you wanted to use the ones from my fileset, I personally have no problem with that.

Some part of me thinks that even with all of this you might still get a problem with a different WINTRUST. Worth checking into if it eliminates your error.

I think that the wintrust.dll problem can be called "fixed" now. It seems that adding wintrust.dll from XP prevented the system from registering ANY catalogs. BlackWingCat has just re-added the original wintrust.dll to his kernel and the XP version is now placed in a separate folder together with Cryptographic Services (which also come from BWC kernel).

It's still not possible to slipstream the current package but I'm sure that it will be possible shortly.

I've finished working on the new .NET Framework package but I still need to do the whole testing process. I can create it 100% automatically basing on the OnePiece's addons. It's going to be a one big package of all .NET Frameworks (because only this way it's possible to eliminate all duplicate files and therefore reduce its size) but I can create an installer selectively too, ex. only .NET 1.1+2.0 or only 2.0+3.0+3.5 or even only 1.1+4.0, etc. Any combination is possible.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 14 October 2012 - 09:01 AM