• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gurgelmeyer

Windows 2000 "Hotstream" Project

614 posts in this topic

Maybe you should try integrating IE from XP SP2 into Windows 2000.

Not possible. If it was, then MS would have done it long ago.

IE6SP2 involves huge changes to the core.

Moreover, if security is what you want, then why bother with IE, use an alternative instead!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should try integrating IE from XP SP2 into Windows 2000.

Not possible. If it was, then MS would have done it long ago.

IE6SP2 involves huge changes to the core.

Moreover, if security is what you want, then why bother with IE, use an alternative instead!

Bah...if Security was the issue you'd remove the blasted thing altogether...

and figure out a way to replace\repair the bits that 'need' IE to work...what

I need a #### web browser for user administrator or for downloading updates

to the OS is beyond me though...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for asking this at page 57 :blushing: , maybe it's been covered a few times already, but, just to sum up...

1) Using your USP will i get the same result as installing W2K SP4 plus IE6 SP1 plus every hotfix found by Windows Update... or somehow better?

2) What's the advantage in building this USP instead of using Runonceex to apply "official" hotfixes after a plain SP4 installation?

3) Since i'm italian ;) can this all be localized? Maybe i could help somehow...

Thanks a lot, and sorry again for these probably dull questions :whistle:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for asking this at page 57  :blushing: , maybe it's been covered a few times already, but, just to sum up...

2) What's the advantage in building this USP instead of using Runonceex to apply "official" hotfixes after a plain SP4 installation?

Runonce is nowhere near as good. win2k would be installed up until the Runonce stage then it would install each update separately one after the other and we're talking hundreds of fixes - it could take hours. With Gurgelmeyer's pack, you could actually update your installation files in the i386 folder and have a proper updated windows 2000 disk. Just install Windows and you have the latest updates (as apposed to an old out of date disk with updates in a separate folder which Runonce installs).

This project Gurgelmeyer is undertaking is such a good solution for all users of windows 2000. I take my hat off to the guy. Excellent work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Runonce is nowhere near as good. win2k would be installed up until the Runonce stage then it would install each update separately one after the other and we're talking hundreds of fixes - it could take hours. With Gurgelmeyer's pack, you could actually update your installation files in the i386 folder and have a proper updated windows 2000 disk. Just install Windows and you have the latest updates (as apposed to an old out of date disk with updates in a separate folder which Runonce installs).

This project Gurgelmeyer is undertaking is such a good solution for all users of windows 2000. I take my hat off to the guy. Excellent work.

Ok :) Just two extra questions then:

1) You're talking about hundreds of patches, but WU shows about maybe 20 of them after the rollup... where do these "hundreds" come from?

2) Any hope for non-english users? :}

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok :) Just two extra questions then:

1) You're talking about hundreds of patches, but WU shows about maybe 20 of them after the rollup... where do these "hundreds" come from?

That's what is special about the USP 5 - it contains >300 bugfixes which cannot be dl'ed directly.  Some are cumulative, so roughly 5-700 bugs are fixed (probably closer to 700 than to 500).  It also contains the publicly available fixes of course.  :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the Catroot folder for and is it safe to delete?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CatRoot stores all the digitally signed .cat files which contain the MD5/SHA1 checksums of most unsigned files. Here's an example:

c:\winnt\system32\ie4uinit.exe does not contain a digital signature - actually very few files in Windows do. The checksum (MD5 or SHA1) of this file is listed inside NT5.CAT. Generally, .cat files are - roughly speaking - nothing more than lists of checksums! The NT5.CAT file is however digitally signed by Microsoft. So: when Windows needs to verify if ie4uinit.exe is authentic, it computes the checksum of ie4uinit.exe, and searches all .cat files for this checksum. If the checksum appears in ANY installed .cat file, AND that .cat file has a valid digital signature from Microsoft, Windows will consider ie4uinit.exe to be authentic ("signed"). That's basically how it works :)

NT5INF.CAT and NT5.CAT are mirrored in the dllcache btw. Another important thing is, that just copying .cat files to the CatRoot will not install them.

If you want to really lose the CatRoot you'll have to be very sure that all signature checking in Windows is effectively disabled. Also you should be aware of "exception packages". An exception package is a set of files which includes a .cat file and an .inf file which does the installation. They are called exception packages because they use the device driver installer to install files which are not device drivers at all. Installation will fail if the .cat file cannot be installed. Most hotfixes for 9x and NT4 are exception packages, usually wrapped up as a Type2 hotfix. Generally, most Type2 hotfixes contain exception packages, so those won't install without a CatRoot unless you unpack them and remove all references to .cat's from the .inf files.

Gurgelmeyer B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it going, Gurgelmeyer? :)

Don't mean to bother anyone, just seems like this thread as sort of senesced in the last week or so. :blushing:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - don't worry :lol: - I'm just behind schedule as usual :}

USP 5.0 SR-1 now has all August and September hotfixes plus a few rebuilt ones, and a few very old ones that I'd missed completely - a total of >40 new fixes! I finally got so fed up with .msi files that I decided to read everything I could find about them - now I'm extending my service pack builder so it updates MSI embedded media streams and all file version tables. Hope to finish it today - I've been doing nothing else for a week or two now, but now I actually understand MSI's.

Also I fixed some registry bugs in HIVECLS.INF, which caused the Active Directory typelib not to register properly or not to register at all during setup. MS even repeated this bug in SP4 and URP1. But it's fixed now.

My messenger is FULL :wacko: - I should sign in more often, but the MSI thing took all my time lately - plus I've been sick for some time too. Nothing serious - just annoying.

Best regards

Gurgelmeyer B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats great news Gurgelmeyer I'm glad to hear everythings coming along ok.

Thanks for your information on Catroot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you are not feeling bad. Hope you get well soon. I miss your emails about the project I got going. I put it away for now and will go back to it soon.

I have a touch of Adult Onset ADHD I guess.

Get well soon :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys :)

I'm still not well so I guess it's back to bed soon, however I did finish the USP 5.0 SR1 last night. I then tested some SP4 and USP5 integrated installs on NTFS (which I dont use very often). The SP4 default file permissions are all wrong or inadequate - I'm chocked! Had to use cacls to even make ARP work for the built in system components!! Should I attempt do something about it?

Best regards

G B)

Edit: might not be as bad as I thought - sorry, MS - I should get some rest and clear my mind :wacko:

Edited by Gurgelmeyer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dirtwarrior - Thanks. I'd love to help you when I feel better - it's a cool project you started :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a question about 2k the following files seem to be the same

ntoskrnl

ntkrpamp

ntkrnlmp

ntkrnlpa

They each have a different function but are all needed? Does windpws 2000 have acpi support?

Gurgelmeyer I had the flu like systoms about 2 weeks ago. It wasnt pretty, so I kind of know what you are going through. Nothing seems to rid of it all you can do is try to stay hydrated while it works its way out on its own.

Edited by dirtwarrior
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - still got a fever - but staying in bed is too boring :}

@dirtwarrior - the NTKRPAMP and NTKRNLMP are for the multiprocessor HAL's and P4 HT. Unlike XP/2k3, W2k sees a HT CPU as two CPU's if HT is enabled. The NTKRNLPA and NTOSKRNL are for singleprocessor HAL's. (These files are not the HAL's - but they implement some OS functionality which depends on the HAL). The NTKRPAMP and NTKRNLPA are for ACPI HAL's, and the NTKRNLMP and NTOSKRNL are for non-ACPI HAL's. To complicate things a bit further, the installed SYSTEM32\NTKRNLPA.EXE is a copy of either NTKRPAMP (multiprocessor acpi) or NTKRNLPA (uniprocessor acpi), and the installed SYSTEM32\NTOSKRNL.EXE is a copy of either NTKRNLMP (multiprocessor non-acpi) or NTOSKRNL (uniprocessor non-acpi). Hope that clears it up.

Anyway, found out what caused the NTFS permission problem: me :blushing: . I had made a minor typo in the winnt.sif that I use for testing, which caused setup to trash it's own memory and - as a side effect - not properly set the permissions. Fragile stuff - be very sure that you got everything 1000% correct if you ever configure your network settings from winnt.sif!!

Best regards,

Gurgelmeyer B)

PS - I'm planning to release USP 5.1 BETA 1 (not quite done) and USP 5.0 SR-1 (completely done) when I get better. I'm hoping to the last minute that a fix for the CPU HALT problem emerges, which is why I haven't released USP 5.0 SR-1 yet (but I really have finished it :lol:).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Gurgelmeyer, long time no see. A bunch of us are comin' over with chicken soup, beer, and hookers. :thumbup

I'm wondering, since you dig up info on nonpublic fixes, does Microsoft even _know_ about the HALT bug? As in, do they even pay attention to what's going on outside their walls, that you have seen? Wondering if there is any hope on this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing all this up for me :blushing:

I installed USP 5.0 slipstreamed into 2k

hardly any problems :thumbup

I typed in msconfig(missing) hmmmm

Can I intergrate this into the install cd?

To my surprise the source was about 6 mb smaller with your SP

This is cool

Hope you feel better soon

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows 2000 doesn't have an msconfig. Here's an idea, go get your XP CD and rip the msconfig from that or better yet an XP beta. If you don't want msconfig from XP, just run startup.exe instead. It's somewhere on that XP disc. o_O

Edited by Daemonforce
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have installed windows 2000 - NL - SP4 + MSRP-1_NL v2

i realy must tell U is HELL :o. so what im goin to try is,

using my original CD (2k-SP4) and look at that one.

But i realy MUST tell you guys, - I allready rather use the English version myself.

BTW: - When is the USP5. RC1 comming up. and do they include,

the IE / DA / and DX components.

(and if not, when is the best time to run them - UA - CMDLINES.TXT - sounds best to me,

but will they be able to run already at that stage of setup?).

Edited by -I-
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daemonforce

MSCONFIG was talked about being added to the USP near the start of the project. Seems like you have an attitude problem. I have seen your answer to other post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daemonforce

MSCONFIG was talked about being added to the USP near the start of the project. Seems like you have an attitude problem. I have seen your answer to other post.

Yeah I have a problem and its name is Dxdiag. o_O

Also missing pieces from the would-be-broken Windows 2000 OS. :(

I'm assuming you use msconfig just for startup services instead of boot commands, driver assignment, system services, 16-bit support... :P

I'm not going to argue. I'm too lazy. =/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sneeked out of bed (don't tell my girlfriend, plz)

@fdv - Thanks (door is open :) ) . I've heard an unsubstantiated rumour that something will be done about the CPU HALT problem - but I'm trying to get some more info.

@dirtwarrior - Yes, the image is smaller with USP 5 because all unreferenced drivers have been removed from the driver.cab file.

I guess what most of you are looking forward to is USP 5.1 - so I'll probably release a beta soon. It will only be beta in the sense that ONLY integrated install is offered (but you can live with that, can't you? :lol: )

Best regards

Gurgelmeyer

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this has been answered before but, what will the difference between USP 5.0 and 5.1 be? I am very impressed beyond mere words. This is a very perfession product you have put out. I just wish in my 2k install

it would say "USP ___ by Gurgelmeyer" somewhere on it.

Hey buddy I wish I could give you a pat on the back.

Any chance of making 2k look and sound and act like xp or vista by default?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.