Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gape

New ideas for the next version

155 posts in this topic

I checked it again, I only missed Q323708 (NSCIRDA.SYS), and unofficial patches: KRNL386.EXE, VOLTRACK.VXD.

I'm not sure about these unofficial patches. I want to include them, but they should be optional at least.

Gape,

I'm using these 2 unofficial patches [KRNL386.EXE + VOLTRACK.VXD] since I got them [~ 4-5 weeks ago] on my PC and on another PC which is not mine, and had 0 problems so far.

Hope this helps.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gape,

one addition:

Q240896: opengl32.dll 4.1.1381.7035

(already sent by e-mail)

and maybe one thing to remove - unicows.dll seems to be not intended to be part of the operating system, but part of the user application. Therefore unicows.exe unzip the files only, does no installing. Quote from http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/handson...u_announce.mspx

MSLU actually consists of two parts. The first part is a dynamic-link library (DLL)— Unicows.dll—that is redistributed with the application that the user creates.

Also the features list at http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html should be reviewed and either corrected or added functionality to SESP - the statement what packages are included may be misledaing because you just add some updated files, noth the whole packages. I'm now reviewing this for FESP so I don't know exact differences.

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q240896: opengl32.dll 4.1.1381.7035

(already sent by e-mail)

Got it, thanks!
Also the features list at http://exuberant.ms11.net/98sesp.html should be reviewed and either corrected or added functionality to SESP - the statement what packages are included may be misledaing because you just add some updated files, noth the whole packages. I'm now reviewing this for FESP so I don't know exact differences.

Please, give me an example. Sometimes, we don't need whole package, but it doesn't mean that we don't have it. We don't have to add all files, because some of these files are already in the original Win98 SE.

Note that: I made my DCOM list with help a MVP. Please check this site.

Edited by Gape
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gape,

I know there were some discussins about it, but I think that adding Q282949 and Q314941 is absolutely harmless - it can only improve things if unpatched WBEM 1.5 or original XP ICS client is installed, and will does nothing if these are not installed. It could be implemented like this:

Q314941

In SPUPDATE.INF

[Copy.System]
; --- 314941
ssdpapi.dll,,,1056
ssdpsrv.exe,,,1056
upnp.dll,,,1056

Q282949

In RUNPOST.BAT

getver %winbootdir%\system\WBEM\WBEMPROX.DLL | find /i "1.50.1085.1">NUL
if not errorlevel 1 start /w rundll32 %winbootdir%\system\ADVPACK.DLL,LaunchINFSection 282949up.inf,DefaultInstall

New 282949up.inf

[Version]
Signature  = $CHICAGO$
LayoutFile = Slayout2.inf

[DefaultInstall]
SmartReboot = N
CopyFiles   = Copy.WBEM
AddReg      = AddReg.WBEM

[DestinationDirs]
Copy.WBEM  = 11,WBEM

[Copy.WBEM]
Wbemprox.dll

[AddReg.WBEM]
HKLM,Software\Microsoft\Updates\WMI\Q282949,"Description",,"wbemprox.dll"

All necessary files have 88 KB packed, it is 0,5% of the SESP2.0 size.

What do you think?

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gape,

one idea regarding the buld environment.

To enable easier work on different computers with different drives and directory structure, it would be good not to use absolute paths in DDF and SED files.

I propose this structure, description is based on existing sesp201en.exe package + SED+DDF files:

Main folder (any name on any drive) containing:

- 20sp2.ddf

- 20supp.ddf

- sesp201en.sed

- sesp201en.exe

- reports sub-folder (will contain *.rpt files)

- files sub-folder

files sub-folder containing:

- unpacked sesp201en.exe, i.e. all files

- sp2 and supp sub-folders, containig unpacked sp2.cab and supp.cab

Also I see no reason not to create SLAYOUT1.INF and SLAYOUT2.INF directly.

20sp2.ddf then may look like:

.Set CabinetNameTemplate=files\sp2.cab

.Set Compress=on

.Set CompressionType=LZX

.Set CompressionLevel=7

.Set CompressionMemory=21

.Set RptFileName=reports\sp2.rpt

.Set MaxDiskSize=CDROM

.Set ReservePerCabinetSize=0

.Set DiskDirectoryTemplate=

.Set Cabinet=ON

.Set MaxCabinetSize=999999999

.Set InfFileName=files\Slayout1.inf

.Set InfHeader=

.Set InfDiskHeader=";Auto generated file - do not edit!"

.Set InfDiskHeader1=[Version]

.Set InfDiskHeader2=Signature="$CHICAGO$"

.Set InfDiskHeader3=SetupClass=BASE

.Set InfDiskLineFormat=

.Set InfCabinetHeader=[sourceDisksNames]

.Set InfCabinetLineFormat=*cab#*="Unofficial Windows98E SP","SP2.CAB",0

.Set InfFileHeader=

.Set InfFileHeader1=[sourceDisksFiles]

.Set InfFileLineFormat=*file*=*cab#*,,*size*

.Set InfFooter=

.Set SourceDir=files\sp2

ACCWIZ.EXE

.........

XENROLL.DLL

This would have the following advantages:

- location anywhere on the computer

- files folder would contain only distribution files, no files used for package development only

- no need to edit slayout*.inf files

What do you think?

Petr

Edited by Petr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know there were some discussins about it, but I think that adding Q282949 and Q314941 is absolutely harmless - it can only improve things if unpatched WBEM 1.5 or original XP ICS client is installed, and will does nothing if these are not installed. It could be implemented like this:

...

All necessary files have 88 KB packed, it is 0,5% of the SESP2.0 size.

What do you think?

I agree!

one idea regarding the build environment.

...

What do you think?

I agree again. I explored most DDF, SED and INF details myself. So, they was not as useful as I hope.

I changed my environment. Thanks! :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know what is the problem with preserve mechanism in setupx.dll 4.10.2222? I have found the following:

Всего за 5 минут победил preserve (PreserveFilePath и PreserveCabName) !!!

Оказалось, что родной setupx.dll направильно обрабатывает эти параметры. Все решилось заменой на setupx.dll от милениума. Работает как часики. Кстати, а более cвежий чем 4.10.2222 родной setupx.dll в природе существует?

И еще подгони мне setupx.dll от английской версии Me.

but I don't know the context.

Petr

Edited by Petr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

context is: setupx.dll from WinMe works much better :yes:

however it shows also all messages from Me :} and should be edited in some way...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
context is: setupx.dll from WinMe works much better :yes:

however it shows also all messages from Me :}  and should be edited in some way...

OK, but what does exactly mean "better"? Are there any flaws in 4.10.2222 version?

I'm now working on FE SP and there is setupx.dll version 4.10.2000 in Service Pack 1, this SP uses preserve mechanism too so I'd like to know if it is necessary to test or to avoid something.

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, but what does exactly mean "better"? Are there any flaws in 4.10.2222 version?

as i know from the problem described by Maximus - setupx.dll from Win earlier than Me not allows using preserve as Folder - only cab-files. MDCU stores all its extracted files in folder Windows\Options, but not in the cab located there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, SETUPX.DLL is targeted specifically for each OS build.

98SE 4.10.2222 uses setupx.dll 4.10.2222, which allows to install 98SE OS from CABs the way MS wants, which is to first check [among other things] for previous OS compatibility and compliance. No previous WinOS, no go. :(

Example: if u have 98SE upgrade setup CD and want to install it onto an empty HD [without any previous MS OS], u can't, unless u mod SETUPPP.INF right after starting the install [example]:

[data]

OEMUP=1

and create a new MSBATCH.INF with this line:

[setup]

ProductType=1

This applies also but the other way around to 98FE/98SE OEM setup CDs.

And this "fix" also needs a hexed setupx.dll, which is pretty hard to do, because in each language edition and in each setup CD version [Full, Upgrade, Updates, OEM, MSDN subscriber, custom OEM/VAR, etc] setupx.dll is different.

This works great with 98 FE as far as I know, but might not work in 98 SE, if u don't hex setupx.dll from 98SE CD properly.

More info [OSR2]:

http://www.mdgx.com/osr2.htm#INSTAL

More info [98 FE]:

http://www.mdgx.com/98-1.htm#BLUES

IMHO it's best to keep original setupx.dll [from setup CD] for each OS, unless u want to hex it for extra power. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
High priority:

- 137 GB HDD limitation fix [with FDISK + FORMAT tools].

* Added free FIND.COM [thanks to MDGx].

* Replaced ATTRIB.EXE with better free ATTRIB.COM [thanks to MDGx].

Just few comments - as I already mentioned, the correct copyright and license should be included for all programs. I think attrib.exe can be removed now, but find has the following license and copyright:

FreeDOS Find, version 2.9

GNU GPL - copyright 1994-2002 Jim Hall <jhall@freedos.org>

copyright 2003 Eric Auer <eric@coli.uni-sb.de>

GNU GPL software has strict requirements regarding adding the license and distributing the source code.

You also propose to add FDISK and FORMAT from FreeDOS, it is the same with them. And I already wrote that it may not be the best idea to owerwrite original Microsoft tools - they have cosmetical bugs, but are rather complex.

Petr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
High priority:

- 137 GB HDD limitation fix [with FDISK + FORMAT tools].

* Added free FIND.COM [thanks to MDGx].

* Replaced ATTRIB.EXE with better free ATTRIB.COM [thanks to MDGx].

Just few comments - as I already mentioned, the correct copyright and license should be included for all programs. I think attrib.exe can be removed now, but find has the following license and copyright:

FreeDOS Find, version 2.9

GNU GPL - copyright 1994-2002 Jim Hall <jhall@freedos.org>

copyright 2003 Eric Auer <eric@coli.uni-sb.de>

GNU GPL software has strict requirements regarding adding the license and distributing the source code.

You also propose to add FDISK and FORMAT from FreeDOS, it is the same with them. And I already wrote that it may not be the best idea to owerwrite original Microsoft tools - they have cosmetical bugs, but are rather complex.

Petr

Yes, it's necessary to include the GPL 2 license for the find.com file. You need to show it to the user when installing the 98SE SP

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody know what exactly mean "KillBit"? There are several similar patches:

; 231452 (ie4)

HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{16E349E0-702C-11CF-A3A9-00A0C9034920}","Compatibility Flags",0x10001,00,04,00,00

; 240308

HKLM,"Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{06A7EC63-4E21-11D0-A112-00A0C90543AA}","Compatibility Flags",0x10001,00,04,00,00

; Windows Update - [AddRegKillBitWUV3IS] ??

HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{CEBC955E-58AF-11D2-A30A-00A0C903492B}","Compatibility Flags",0x00010001,0x00000400

;870669

HKLM,"SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{00000566-0000-0010-8000-00AA006D2EA4}","Compatibility Flags",0x00010001,0x400

It seems that KB870669 patch is just one key in the registry - therefore it could be easily added to the SESP. Plus appropriate entries to tell Windows Update that the patch was installed.

Could there be any problem with this?

I'm not sure, is "00,04,00,00", "0x00000400" and "0x400" the same value?

Petr

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.