[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 18 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

It appears also when starting and stopping the second pass.

Never had that issue before. Thanks for the bug report.

rloew, on 18 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Doing Main Updates first separately from the rest worked, but there are no instructions to do so.
I know about the CHM because you told me. There is no reference to it that I can see.
The Installer goes to the selection menu without the user being able to read the CHM beforehand even if he knows about it.
Your target audience will mostly be NEWBIES. Experinced users will have less need for this SP.
The Instructions should be plainly displayed before the selection window.
Website instructions will quickly be separated from a downloaded package, so you can't depend on people reading the Website for Installation instructions.

It really depends on the individual system. Some users may have runtimes and the necessary files installed already, so there would not be a need for them to install Main Updates. They could just install the other options. I can't think of a solution ATM. This is why I suggest a clean install. SP covers almost everything except for Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Direct X and DotNET framework. Also, the SP doesn't target a specific audience, it targets anyone who wants to update their system. There is no one size fits all. There are other geeks, gurus, newbies, computer savvy techs who uses the SP besides the people on MSFN, we are not the only users. If users are too lazy to read the manual or instructions, then thats on them. I posted them, its up to them to follow.

rloew, on 18 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

You may want to add this to your documentation.

I will add your instructions in the next release..

rloew, on 18 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

I did not use DLLHOOK or WDMEX in these tests.
WDMEX replaces WDMSTUB, so the INF files would have to be purged of WDMSTUB references.
DLLHOOK issues were related to KernelEX not U98SESP3. I don't see any reason for problems with DLLHOOK or FILE64.

If you have some free time, I would appreciate if you could test those two app with SP3. Its good to see the SP is playing well with your software. Another plus for the pack. Thanks for your findings, which is going to help me improve SP.

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 19 May 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

rloew, on 18 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Doing Main Updates first separately from the rest worked, but there are no instructions to do so.
I know about the CHM because you told me. There is no reference to it that I can see.
The Installer goes to the selection menu without the user being able to read the CHM beforehand even if he knows about it.
Your target audience will mostly be NEWBIES. Experinced users will have less need for this SP.
The Instructions should be plainly displayed before the selection window.
Website instructions will quickly be separated from a downloaded package, so you can't depend on people reading the Website for Installation instructions.

It really depends on the individual system. Some users may have runtimes and the necessary files installed already, so there would not be a need for them to install Main Updates. They could just install the other options. I can't think of a solution ATM. This is why I suggest a clean install. SP covers almost everything except for Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Direct X and DotNET framework.

I did a clean install to avoid any questions.

Quote

Also, the SP doesn't target a specific audience, it targets anyone who wants to update their system. There is no one size fits all. There are other geeks, gurus, newbies, computer savvy techs who uses the SP besides the people on MSFN, we are not the only users.

Of course.

Quote

If users are too lazy to read the manual or instructions, then thats on them. I posted them, its up to them to follow.

Of course people should read instructions. The problem I saw was that it is not obvious when or where to find them. If the instructions are as well hidden as you have them, who is going to read them?

Quote

rloew, on 18 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

I did not use DLLHOOK or WDMEX in these tests.
WDMEX replaces WDMSTUB, so the INF files would have to be purged of WDMSTUB references.
DLLHOOK issues were related to KernelEX not U98SESP3. I don't see any reason for problems with DLLHOOK or FILE64.

If you have some free time, I would appreciate if you could test those two app with SP3. Its good to see the SP is playing well with your software. Another plus for the pack. Thanks for your findings, which is going to help me improve SP.

DLLHOOK and FILE64 were a distraction relating to KernelEx. I did not run tests to see if my Software is compatable with your SP except for the RAM Limitation Patch and the SATA Patch, which were needed to Boot my Computer. When I tested U98SESP3.9 I verified that WDMEX worked after removing the WDMSTUB references. The remaining tests were for the USB problems I identified with 3.9, and the results are in my post from last week.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 19 May 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

I did not run tests to see if my Software is compatable with your SP except for the RAM Limitation Patch and the SATA Patch, which were needed to Boot my Computer. When I tested U98SESP3.9 I verified that WDMEX worked after removing the WDMSTUB references. The remaining tests were for the USB problems I identified with 3.9, and the results are in my post from last week.

Thanks again for the confirmation I will eventually write up a full document explaining the goals of the SP. Here is a brief introduction, the SP is intended for users who don't have fast internet, that are not able to download large packages. On a 850mhz, 40 GB HDD, 512MB, the SP installs on a system with all updates selected in about 4min and 25sec. This is what I use for a test bed. Since Microsoft, has completely killed off support for the Win9x systems, its my civil duty as a Win9x power user to try my best and pick up where they have dropped us off. The pack has very minor cosmetic changes. Service Pack does NOT have any hidden agenda. It is there to use if needed. The main goal of the SP is to increase system stability, system performance, and the option of allowing users to install what they want. Blah, blah, blah etc.... I will do the full documentation in the final release.

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 20 May 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

rloew, on 19 May 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

I did not run tests to see if my Software is compatable with your SP except for the RAM Limitation Patch and the SATA Patch, which were needed to Boot my Computer. When I tested U98SESP3.9 I verified that WDMEX worked after removing the WDMSTUB references. The remaining tests were for the USB problems I identified with 3.9, and the results are in my post from last week.

Thanks again for the confirmation I will eventually write up a full document explaining the goals of the SP. Here is a brief introduction, the SP is intended for users who don't have fast internet, that are not able to download large packages. On a 850mhz, 40 GB HDD, 512MB, the SP installs on a system with all updates selected in about 4min and 25sec. This is what I use for a test bed. Since Microsoft, has completely killed off support for the Win9x systems, its my civil duty as a Win9x power user to try my best and pick up where they have dropped us off. The pack has very minor cosmetic changes. Service Pack does NOT have any hidden agenda. It is there to use if needed. The main goal of the SP is to increase system stability, system performance, and the option of allowing users to install what they want. Blah, blah, blah etc.... I will do the full documentation in the final release.

I was referring to usage instructions before the Installation menu appears, not a goal statement.
Also you specify that DirectX 9c be Installed before the SP. Where is an User supposed to get it. It is not in the CD, Windows Update doesn't work and it is not in your SP.
The same thing can be said about IE6. A Service Pack should have at least everything that was in Windows Update so that a new Installation can be brought up to date without having to scrounge the Internet looking for pieces.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I tried to maintain the approach Gape set for me. Adding more options wouldn't be considered bloat, since everything is optional. I was giving you an idea of what the full documentation would consist of. I have to constanstly compile the chm when I make changes. Direct X will add 15MB to the SP, and IE would add about another 75MB. Then you would have users who don't use IE at all, or have some users who might use a older ver such as 5.5SP2. I see a headache. But if users want to go that route, I will be willing to put in the work. I was trying to keep it small and simple, but I could add a full blown package.

[Drugwash]

I agree that a full-blown SP package would be difficult to download for slow/limited connection users (such as myself) and it may also drive away some people at seeing the size of it. It would also take a lot of HDD space, as it would have to unpack all the bundled packages whether they're needed or not and sometimes free space may not be enough for unpacking/storage and installation.

I also agree that since certain options in the SP require either DirectX or IE6, users should be well aware of these requirements and be able to readily get them. Would it be possible (legally and bandwidth-wise) to host these additional packages at the same place as the SP?

The current installer used to pack/unpack the SP is rather simple. There would be a need for a more flexible one that would allow both opening a bundled help file (the CHM file) by a simple button click and opening any web pages needed for more documentation or download, such as the DirectX or IE6-SP1 packages, through visible links. Some time ago I had suggested PROBLEMCHYLD the usage of the NSIS installer, same that is used by the KernelEx package or Winamp, for that matter. Thing is, we need someone that knows the syntax used for setting the options correctly. I was wondering, Mr. Loew, could you help in this matter? Or anybody else that knows that syntax well enough?

I was thinking, the installer should be wise enough to automatically inform the user about the requirements and offer to download the necessary package(s), when certain options are marked. Of course, an Internet connection should already be available, which is another thing the SP should check for, because one may well copy the SP to a web-isolated machine through CD/DVD/USB, in which case downloading would be impossible and user should be notified about it. For such situation, a full-blown SP package could be provided, but the download page should explicitly mention which is what, so that nobody would download unneeded or wrong package(s).

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

If I added Direct X, it would bring the package up to 80mb approximately. Thats not too bad Now adding Internet Explorer and it depends because some people use IE 5.0 SP, IE 5.5SP2 or IE 6 + updates for Outlook Express and IE would bring it close to a 100MB. In total, thats about 180mb + The bandwidth would eventually become slow, upload time would take longer aswell as download. If it becomes that size, we should look into torrents. I agree with rloew and Drugwash, we are eventually going to have to move away from older versions of IE. There will be users with no or limited internet connections, but a full blown SP would be useful to others with no internet connection. If bugs occur, users will have to fix the issues manually until the next update.

p.s.

I don't see me adding Internet Explorer. Reason, you have people who don't even use IE or use different versions from others, and just to download an extra 100mb is pointless. We will find some type of work around or another solution but adding IE is not worth it.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 21 May 2013 - 11:28 AM

[Drugwash]

IE usually was needed for certain updated system files it had bundled, that could not be found otherwise. It is not about using IE as a browser, but getting those files into the system. One may well rename iexplore.exe to whatever else (mine is iexplore.exe.000) and set some other browser as default.

The idea was to have any possible combination for download on the main uSP page, such as:
- uSP FULL (standard uSP + IE6-SP1 + DirectX 9.0c) [For deployment in web-isolated environments]
- uSP Standard [regular package]
- DirectX 9.0c [standalone DirectX, latest 98SE/ME version - required by certain uSP options]
- IE6 SP1 [standalone IE6, latest 98SE/ME version - required by certain uSP options]

That should cover any and all possible demands. A smart installer with two separate package scripts could build both Full and Standard packages with a single click each.

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 21 May 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

If I added Direct X, it would bring the package up to 80mb approximately. Thats not too bad Now adding Internet Explorer and it depends because some people use IE 5.0 SP, IE 5.5SP2 or IE 6 + updates for Outlook Express and IE would bring it close to a 100MB. In total, thats about 180mb + The bandwidth would eventually become slow, upload time would take longer aswell as download. If it becomes that size, we should look into torrents. I agree with rloew and Drugwash, we are eventually going to have to move away from older versions of IE. There will be users with no or limited internet connections, but a full blown SP would be useful to others with no internet connection. If bugs occur, users will have to fix the issues manually until the next update.

p.s.

I don't see me adding Internet Explorer. Reason, you have people who don't even use IE or use different versions from others, and just to download an extra 100mb is pointless. We will find some type of work around or another solution but adding IE is not worth it.

Probably the best solution is two versions. A "Lite" (current) Version and a "Full" Version.

@drugwash: I have never used NSIS. I write my own Installers.

[TmEE]

I install MSIE6 to get proper view of Japanese (and Chinese) characters on websites in other browsers.

[bphlpt]

That points out one specific useful reason for having updated IE files even if you do not use IE as your browser that I'm sure effects more than just TmEE. So that just puts it back to figuring out the most useful distribution method and hosting source. Anyone have any suggestions?

Cheers and Regards

[LoneCrusader]

Cross-posting here and in the NUSB thread.

Due to the repeated problems some users with VIA Chipsets are having, I have created an automated installer for the VIA USB 2.0 Driver Stack. This can be used to replace the Microsoft Windows 2000 files installed by NUSB and the Unofficial Service Pack on systems that have VIA chipsets and have problems using the Microsoft files.

This package supports the /Q:A and /R:N syntax for silent or scripted installations. It will overwrite the Microsoft files installed by NUSB in C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS and C:\WINDOWS\OPTIONS\CABS without prompting.

This package is intended for use with NUSB and the USP ONLY. It does NOT provide an INF file, and can NOT be uninstalled. To restore the Microsoft files, you must re-add them manually, or reinstall NUSB/USP.

ONLY USE THIS PACKAGE IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE MICROSOFT DRIVERS!

VIAUSB2.ZIP - 180.7 Kb

[Steven W]

PROBLEMCHYLD, might I be so bold as to suggest optional pre- or post-packs? One for IE 5.5 SP2 and one for IE 6 SP1. Maybe one with all the other software DotNet, WMP, etc? Just a thought.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Steven W, on Yesterday, 06:43 PM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, might I be so bold as to suggest optional pre- or post-packs? One for IE 5.5 SP2 and one for IE 6 SP1. Maybe one with all the other software DotNet, WMP, etc? Just a thought.

Sure, I don't mind constructive feedback and input. Here is the thing, I'm trying to figure out the best solution, there will be users that have their personal preference when it comes to Internet Explorer. As I said before, their will be some who use IE 5.0 SP.X, IE 5.5 SP2, IE 6 SP1 and users like myself who don't use IE at all. I don't have the bandwidth muscle to host multiple packages that are HUGE unless I upgrade to a Business package from my ISP. That means, I will need to start taking donations and I'm trying to avoid that. Certain free sites allow a size limit on files, meaning I have to pay them for hosting huge packages.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: Today, 11:06 AM

[JorgeA]

Please forgive my ignorance if this suggestion is infeasible or already taken care of, but instead of including those large IE packages how about if the Service Pack installation instructions were to provide addresses for (trustworthy) places where the user could get each of the possible alternative IE versions? Then the user could download the desired one as needed.

This might provide the best practical mix of package comprehensiveness, user convenience, and customizability, while at the same time limiting the size of the files that @PROBLEMCHYLD needs to offer.

--JorgeA

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

JorgeA, on Today, 12:46 PM, said:

Please forgive my ignorance if this suggestion is infeasible or already taken care of, but instead of including those large IE packages how about if the Service Pack installation instructions were to provide addresses for (trustworthy) places where the user could get each of the possible alternative IE versions? Then the user could download the desired one as needed.

This might provide the best practical mix of package comprehensiveness, user convenience, and customizability, while at the same time limiting the size of the files that @PROBLEMCHYLD needs to offer.

--JorgeA

Another solution. Thank You! I'm working on it as we speak.

[duffy98]

PROBLEMCHYLD ... would this page be of benefit or maybe it's already on your list to check out.

MDGx

Internet Explorer (IE) 4/5/6/7/8/9/10

http://www.mdgx.com/ietoy.htm

Internet Explorer (IE) 4/5/6/7/8/9/10
Essential FREE Fixes + Updates

...