LoneCrusader

Modified SYSDM.CPL 4.90.3001 for 98SE

116 posts in this topic

I have not even attempted to install Open Watcom because an 80+MB of an installer doesn't look good to me, while all my partitions are full up to the brim.

Here, the UPXed Open Watcom resource editors and their dependencies, ~600kb only: http://www.datafilehost.com/download-ea09e40b.html ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks but those tools won't recognize .cpl files. Will stick to those already known to work, caveats included.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just rename cpl as dll for editing and it'll work just fine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they fully supported CPL files, there would've been a choice in the dropdown to select *.cpl. Since it's not, I wouldn't hazard myself into editing and then distributing a system component which might fail on user's computer in unknown/untested circumstances. It's bad enough that MS' own tool can't correctly edit their own files. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporary attachment: - SYSDM.CPL

I went back to your previous version, rebuilt the problem icon so the resolutions were in the correct order, then changed the flag and the version strings. (I didn't use your last version because excessive movement in the Troubleshooting tab made it further rather than closer to fully adjusted.) Drugwash was right about only needing to remove just the WS_VISIBLE style.

We have Microsoft to thank for the non-standard icon that was incompatible with MS tools, and for neglecting to extend the sheet sizes for the first four tabs when they extended the group boxes--it wasn't my fault after all! :realmad: . . . :lol:

So this version only has two changes - remove the WS_VISIBLE style and rebuild the CDROM icon, right?

Now eXeScope is reporting bogus sizes and color depths for the CDROM icon. - all sizes reported are "rectangles" not "squares" and it claims they are all 4 or 8 colors. :blink::wacko:

I have frequently seen icon depths "out of order" on other 9x files, why would it be causing a problem now?

That said, after lots of crashes and failures I have succesfully rearranged statics on main tab, deleted System Restore-related controls, replaced bitmap resources with some home-made ones for a modern look and plan to replace icons as well.

Please no. :realmad: Why does someone always have to "personalize" these things? Not everyone wants their icons or their bitmaps changed. Why can't we just get a simple, plain version with no changes other than the ME specific tools and "styles" hidden and the 98SE "General" tab restored (all of which is already accomplished by my first linked version except hiding the "Disable System Restore" option) before someone starts personalizing it?

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy, don't get a heart attack! :)

I've considered users' wish to keep everything in its original form. If I put this out, it will be in two versions: one containing original resources (icons, bitmaps, avi etc) and one containing updated resources, for those who want modern look, possibly for use in conjunction with Revolutions Pack's themes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy, don't get a heart attack! :)

I've considered users' wish to keep everything in its original form. If I put this out, it will be in two versions: one containing original resources (icons, bitmaps, avi etc) and one containing updated resources, for those who want modern look, possibly for use in conjunction with Revolutions Pack's themes.

Ok, that's cool. :thumbup

I fully support "personalization" but I prefer it be left up to each user. Some Icons I update on my own 98SE, some I don't, etc etc.

As long as there is a "bare minimum" modification version in existence before other changes are made, I'm happy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 3 members working hard on this somewhat hybrid file. What version should I use and from whom? :thumbup:lol::yes::w00t::D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 3 members working hard on this somewhat hybrid file. What version should I use and from whom? :thumbup:lol::yes::w00t::D

My original linked version in my first post about SYSDM.CPL (timestamped 3:00:00 AM, it was my own internal 3rd version) has all of the modifications to make the file correct for 98SE with ONE exception - the "Disable System Restore" option is still present on the Troubleshooting dialog.

ONLY the bare minimum of modifications required to make the file correct for 98SE were made; I didn't even increase the version number (will leave that for when this is finalized.)

My goal is to get that one thing hidden, with the minimum amount of changes possible, and I will consider it to be "final." Any other modifications would be up to users.

{offtopic}

IIRC, PROBLEMCHYLD, you use a backported version of ME's System Restore on your own 98SE don't you?

If you like I will take one of my older builds and only modify the System/General Tab and the Strings so that you can have & use the System Restore controls on your own system. :)

{/offtopic}

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ONLY the bare minimum of modifications required to make the file correct for 98SE were made; I didn't even increase the version number (will leave that for when this is finalized.)

This will be the version I add to SP3.x once everything is finalized :thumbup

{offtopic}

IIRC, PROBLEMCHYLD, you use a backported version of ME's System Restore on your own 98SE don't you?

If you like I will take one of my older builds and only modify the System/General Tab and the Strings so that you can have & use the System Restore controls on your own system. :)

{/offtopic}

I'm not using it at the moment, but I will be once I kill all the bugs in SP3 :w00t:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm working on the final version right now. :w00t:

Thanks loblo, Open Watcom seems to do the trick with SYSDM.CPL renamed to .DLL :thumbup

I will edit this post with a link to the "Final" version for testing as soon as I'm done.

EDIT:

Here's a link to the Final version.

{Old link to Bugged File Removed}

File version number has been increased to 4.90.3002, but note that this file is customized for 98SE ONLY.

Do NOT use with Windows ME. It contains nothing useful for Windows ME and has ME-specific items removed.

All changes to this file have been cosmetic, but it should be tested in various situations, such as: removing and installing devices/drivers, and enabling/disabling items on the various "File System" dialogs to be sure there are no unseen side effects.

Report any and all bugs here.

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found New Hardware box is not centered, but is in the upper left corner. Other than that, its eligible for the SP. Thanks. I have tried the original version 4.90.3001 and did not find this bug. I have also tested another modded version and get the same results. The bug lies in version 4.90.3001 somewhere within the mod.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open Watcom looks like the winner! :w00t:

I produced a "final" at about the same time this afternoon using VC6. It's functionally identical to yours, but I was unhappy with the 19KB of bloat VC6 added.

Your "final" is actually 160 bytes smaller than two days ago and looks great! Well done. :thumbup

@PC: I count 14 dialogs with "New Hardware" in the caption. Which are you referring to and how can we reproduce it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open Watcom looks like the winner! :w00t:

I produced a "final" at about the same time this afternoon using VC6. It's functionally identical to yours, but I was unhappy with the 19KB of bloat VC6 added.

Your "final" is actually 160 bytes smaller than two days ago and looks great! Well done. :thumbup

@PC: I count 14 dialogs with "New Hardware" in the caption. Which are you referring to and how can we reproduce it?

When you remove all usb drivers etc... and let it re-detect on start up, the New Hardware is in the upper left corner instead of being centered.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "final" is actually 160 bytes smaller than two days ago and looks great! Well done. :thumbup

Thanks :)

I found New Hardware box is not centered, but is in the upper left corner. Other than that, its eligible for the SP. Thanks. I have tried the original version 4.90.3001 and did not find this bug. I have also tested another modded version and get the same results. The bug lies in version 4.90.3001 somewhere within the mod.

When you remove all usb drivers etc... and let it re-detect on start up, the New Hardware is in the upper left corner instead of being centered.

Strange.. I didn't touch any of the other dialogs. :unsure:

I will look into this, don't know whether I will have any results tonight though, I have some important things to do early in the morning.

Stay tuned! :lol:

EDIT:

Examined the 98SE, ME, and my "Final" versions in Open Watcom and eXeScope. No differences are apparent in the affected dialog between the three versions, and the "Test" mode for each file in both programs displays the dialog properly in the center of the screen. :}

The "Center" attribute is set for the dialog already in both programs. Disabling and reenabling it with Open Watcom results in a binary-identical file as the "Final" version and the same bug. Disabling and reenabling it with eXeScope results in a file with 2 bytes different from "Final" but a worse bugged dialog with the icon missing. :wacko: :wacko:

@PROBLEMCHYLD

I assume that the special version I sent you has this bug as well?

If that's the case then this bug is caused by changes back in my 1st or 3rd version and has been carried over to the later versions. No idea what is causing it, but I'm going to start completely over tomorrow using Open Watcom for all changes rather than eXeScope.

Edited by LoneCrusader
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.