[Tommy]

I'm interested too.

[My2GirlsDad]

I'm happy to help in testing. I appreciate all your work in this.

M2GD

[acus]

Hi Tomasz,

I'm interested in testing.

Regards

[submix8c]

In process of burning "stuff" off of my HDD to make "room". Willing to test in a VM/VPC as soon as finished.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Me Tooooooooooooooooo..................

[tomasz86]

Wow! I want to thank everyone for your support

I've been still analyzing the .NET Framework related stuff. I need to make sure there are no compatibility problems, etc. I'm going to make .NET 1.0 & 1.1 optional and 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 & 4.0 always installed. There are three scenarios regarding .NET 1.0 & 1.1:

1) .NET 1.0 (1.1) is already installed -> USP 5.2 will install .NET 1.0 (1.1), i.e. the existing installation will be updated.
2) .NET 1.0 (1.1) is not installed -> USP 5.2 will not install them but they will be available to install from Control Panel on user's request later.
3) In case of integration (/integrate) it's the same situation as in 2).

I've also updated M$ hotfix installer to the newest version, i.e. 6.3.13.0. It's required in order to be able to set some more advanced conditional sections in the update.inf.

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 16 May 2012 - 02:17 AM

[jimmsta]

I primarily use your patches for testing anyways, so include me with the testers of USP5.2

[tomasz86]

There are more people willing to test than I thought there would be. Thank you very much once again.

I've been still fighting with the .NET related content. These .NET Frameworks install directly from CABs so installation & uninstallation process is very different from the normal M$ hotfix style. I need to make sure there are no issues, ex.

1) You've got .NET Framework 2.0 installed in your system before installing USP 5.2.
2) You install USP 5.2 so .NET Framework 2.0 is updated too.
3 You decide to uninstall USP 5.2... so what should happen to .NET 2.0? In this case it should be left untouched because it had been already present in the system before installing the USP.

It shall be different when:

1) You've got no .NET 2.0 in your system.
2) You install USP 5.2 so .NET 2.0 is installed with it.
3) You uninstall USP5.2... and in this case .NET 2.0 should also be uninstalled because there had been no .NET 2.0 in the system before installing the USP.

Everything is repeated for all the other Frameworks, i.e. 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. In case of .NET 1.0 and 1.1 the situation is different though. They are not installed with USP 5.2 by default but rather available to install on user's request from the Control Panel. There's one exception - if you've already got them in your system then they will be installed (and not uninstalled if you remove the USP).

I hope everything is clear. This is some crazy stuff actually because there's absolutely NO documentation about all these functions I'm using. That's why I've been analysing the update.inf file from SP2 for Windows Server 2003 because it's much much more advanced than the one from W2K's SP4/USP5 and most of the things needed are there. Still, due to the fact that nothing is documented, it's a trial and error game.

For example, this is what I managed to do for .NET Framework 1.1 and 2.0.

Spoiler

[ProductInstall.ExtendedConditional]
 
 ConditionInstall = Extended.Conditional.NETFX11.Install
 ConditionInstall = Extended.Conditional.NETFX20.Install


[ExtendedConditional.Declare]

 DeclareSection = Declare.NETFX11.Add.Reg
 DeclareSection = Declare.NETFX11.ProcessesToRun
 DeclareSection = Declare.NETFX20.UninstallSections


[Extended.Conditional.NETFX11.Install]

 Condition=SingleOp,Condition.NETFX11.Installed
 ConditionalOperations=NETFX11.Install.Operations


[Extended.Conditional.NETFX20.Install]

 Condition=SingleOp,Condition.NETFX20.NotInstalled
 ConditionalOperations=NETFX20.Install.Operations
 

[Declare.NETFX11.Add.Reg]

 InstallSection=NETFX11.Add.Reg
 OperationType=CONDITIONAL_REG
 Flags=PROCESS_FLAG_HIDEUI


[Declare.NETFX11.ProcessesToRun]

 InstallSection=NETFX11.ProcessesToRun
 OperationType=CONDITIONAL_PROCESS
 Flags=PROCESS_FLAG_HIDEUI
 ExecuteStage=EXECUTE_AFTERINSTALL

 
[Declare.NETFX20.UninstallSections]

 InstallSection=NETFX20.UninstallSections
 OperationType=CONDITIONAL_SECTION
 Flags=PROCESS_FLAG_HIDEUI


[Condition.NETFX11.Installed]

 PresentOp = CheckReg,HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\NET Framework Setup\NDP\v1.1.4322"


[Condition.NETFX20.NotInstalled]

 NotPresentOp = CheckReg,HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\NET Framework Setup\NDP\v2.0.50727"


[NETFX11.Install.Operations]

 RegOperation = NETFX11.Install.Registry
 ProcessOperation = NETFX11.Install.Processes
 ; ArchiveSections = NETFX11.UninstallSections


[NETFX20.Install.Operations]

 ArchiveOperation = NETFX20.Install.Backup


[NETFX11.Install.Registry]

 AddReg = NETFX11.Add.Reg
 
 
[NETFX11.Add.Reg]

 HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup\Oc Manager\Subcomponents","NETFX11",0x00010001,1


[NETFX11.Install.Processes]

 RunProcesses = NETFX11.ProcessesToRun


[NETFX11.ProcessesToRun]

 %systemroot%\system32\rundll32.exe setupapi,InstallHinfSection NETFX11 132+0 %sourcepath%\netfx11.inf


[NETFX20.Install.Backup]

 ArchiveSections = NETFX20.UninstallSections
 

[NETFX20.UninstallSections]

 NETFX20.ProcessesToRunAfterUninstall


[NETFX20.ProcessesToRunAfterUninstall]

 %systemroot%\system32\rundll32.exe advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %17%\netfx20.inf,NETFX20.CleanUp,,N,4

and all of this is only to make installation and uninstallation of these two Framework work and I'm still not sure if everything works correctly.

[tomasz86]

I wonder what you think about re-using this icon:



It was used by Gurgelmeyer in his signature linking to "http://www.willsdown...og/win2ksp5.php" which is not online anymore. The icon itself seems to be made originally by a person called Aegis. He was banned here long time ago so unfortunately it's not possible to ask for his opinion on it.

Do you think it would be (in)appropriate to use it for USP 5.2?

[Tommy]

I like it myself. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to add the little windows logo in it as well?

[bphlpt]

You're welcome to use this lame attempt at a small edit of that image if everyone agrees that it is appropriate.



Cheers and Regards

[tomasz86]

Thanks bphlpt. It looks very nice. If there's no objection I'll use it for the USP 5.2.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I can use a test build right about now, if you have one ready.

[tomasz86]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 06 June 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I can use a test build right about now, if you have one ready.

Unfortunately not yet

I'll let you know if I manage to prepare something.

[Tommy]

I appreciate all your hard work! I'm eager to test it too, but take your time.

[tomasz86]

I've managed to set up a website:

http://www.windows2000.tk

I want to store there all information, details and links related to USP 5.2 and other packages. Of course I'll update this topic too

Any comments or critique is welcomed. Please tell me if there is something missing, something more to add or if there are any errors. I've added the URL together with the icon (thanks bphlpt!) to my signature.

[tomasz86]

There is a bug in HFSLIP. If you use HFSLIP to slipstream USP5 or if you use HFSLIP to process a source with USP5 integrated then (until HFSLIP is fixed) you must add this line to "SOURCESS\I386\SVCPACK.INF" after using HFSLIP:

SETUPUSP.EXE /Q /N /Z

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 18 June 2012 - 04:07 AM

[xpclient]

Hey I'm interested in testing too. I forgot where we left off our discussion on all the post SP5 hotfixes but I have collected ALL post SP5 hotfixes-by-request updates for Windows 2000 and would like to share them if it helps. Did I upload them or not I don't remember. Anyways, I uploaded them here: http://sdrv.ms/NdoUGA Long overdue.

This post has been edited by xpclient: 19 June 2012 - 03:44 AM

[tomasz86]

I'm thinking about making test versions public. I want to do it because (after a few weeks of testing) I've got a feeling that this project is much more difficult than than all the previous packages I've prepared up to now. Preparing and testing single updates or even update rollups is extremely easy compared to this thing... What's important is that testing a service pack takes a lot more time and I'm just unable to do it all myself. I'm very thankful to all of people already involved in testing but I think we need more people and more input. If we don't do it then it will take forever to finish the USP

First of all, I think the current testing process must be simplified. At the moment HFSLIP must be used to slipstream UURollup in order to have the USP integrate and install properly. I'd like to avoid this as it just takes too much time to process the package through HFSLIP. Starting from the next test version I'll make it possible to slipstream the USP using the "/integrate" switch and prepare an ISO directly from it without using other tools (HFSLIP, nLite, etc.). I've already prepared a script which will automatically create the ISO after slipstreaming. Maybe later Qemu could be also used so the whole procedure will be simplified as much as possible.

As soon as possible I'll provide an URL where all test versions of USP will be located. Everyone will be able to download and test them. I'm going to upload new versions very often (being realistic it'll be probably one version every few days). All changes done in each build will be also described in details.

What's your opinion about it?

[jimmsta]

I say make 'em public. It seems stable enough to me for people to test it outside of the select few current testers. Besides, I only test on virtual machines - making it public should allow for more types of hardware to test on.