[tsampikos]

Another good one and simple too with good speeds which I use is UppIt.com.

http://uppit.com/

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

My hours are fluctuating @ work. Hopefully I can get an update out over the weekend.
The next update I release, I asking that maybe a couple of people on here might test on a clean install.
That would really help me. dencorso and Drugwash, I have read you suggestions and I will work on them before
the final build. Its a litte more complicated because RP9/KernelEx patches files.
I normally patch files and then add the patched file to the Service Pack.

[gerislamico]

If Tihiy authorizes this good tool to implement IPTEST.EXE and dlls

[Drugwash]

PROBLEMCHYLD, it may not be that complicated, after all. Both RP and KEx are standalone, self-contained installers and they both require a reboot after installation. If you decide to include them in the Service Pack, my opinion is that they should be added as-is and if the user chooses to install any of them, then deploy the respective package to a safe location (%windir%\Cabs or whatever), create shortcut to it on the desktop and inform the user that they have to launch it manually.
Obviously, this operation will have to take place only after the Service Pack has finished installing its core files (and/or the optional ones). Just make sure the files in the Requirements package recommended by Tihiy for RP, have been installed regardless of the core/optional choice, if RP installation was selected.

[Hu$tle]

Why would you add Revolution Pack and KernelEx?
Both are buggy and neither pack is finished. Why not add adobe flash while you @ it, and some unnecessaries?

loblo, on 19 January 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

And since the pack is already quite big why not adding a bit of eye candy with the patched Vista screensavers? (I love Bubbles)

http://www.softpedia...ted-to-XP.shtml

Dave-H, on 19 January 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

Not sure I agree with that.
If you start putting that sort of thing in, it becomes more of an enhancement pack than a service pack.
I think things like that should be included in a separate package.

I REST MY CASE!

[Dave-H]

Drugwash, on 30 March 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

PROBLEMCHYLD, it may not be that complicated, after all. Both RP and KEx are standalone, self-contained installers and they both require a reboot after installation. If you decide to include them in the Service Pack, my opinion is that they should be added as-is and if the user chooses to install any of them, then deploy the respective package to a safe location (%windir%\Cabs or whatever), create shortcut to it on the desktop and inform the user that they have to launch it manually.
Obviously, this operation will have to take place only after the Service Pack has finished installing its core files (and/or the optional ones). Just make sure the files in the Requirements package recommended by Tihiy for RP, have been installed regardless of the core/optional choice, if RP installation was selected.

I agree with this, but please don't add anything more, no matter what it is that people find and recommend, unless it's a real show stopper..
Every new addition has to be tested and this will result in never getting a final version because as soon as you verify something as safe and include it, someone will find something else that they think you should include!
Include RP and KEx, (and WIA too) as options for later manual installation subject to any necessary warnings, as Drugwash says, but leave it at that.
Future additions can always be added in SP 3.1 etc.

[gerislamico]

IPTEST is the only tool that adds the network icon WinME/2K/XP/Vista/7 for Win98SE.

RP add me seems absurd, since it is a complete software customization.
Instead KernelEX is a core extending application support on Win98 NT

[loblo]

Hu$tle, on 30 March 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Why would you add Revolution Pack and KernelEx?
Both are buggy and neither pack is finished.

I am wondering what those bugs might be...

[LoneCrusader]

PROBLEMCHYLD, as you know, I am not a fan of unofficial Service Packs to begin with, as I like to pick and choose my updates. I know you have made a great effort with this, and made a lot of progress in making each update "optional," and all of us are grateful to anyone who spends their time working on things for the OS'es that we all love.

So, for what it's worth, one "project author" to another, my advice is to finalize Service Pack 3 WITHOUT KernelEx and RP9. Sooner or later, you must be able to reach a "final build" of your service pack and be finished and happy with it, or you will be working on it forever. We all hope that further development of updates, KEX, and RP will continue, and if this is the case, you will be having to update your package every time some new advancement or workaround is discovered. SP3 needs to be a "milestone" rather than a "cure-all." For those who wish to install it, it can be the first step to having an updated system, and it certainly is a big step in the right direction. If these other packages are added, then a potential user could end up having an OLDER version of KEX or RP installed than whatever the current build is. As long as development has not ceased for good on these packages, then they should remain independent. If their development ceases permanently, I could possibly see adding them as an options.

[Dave-H]

A service pack should enhance the stability and security of an operating system.
KernelEx allows some software that was not designed to run on Windows 98SE to run on it.
Revolutions Pack allows for some of the user interface enhancements of later operating systems to be used on Windows 98SE.
We could argue forever on whether it's appropriate for these and similar items to be included in the service pack, and we will certainly never get a final version.
Things like WIA are Microsoft technologies, so I think there is a much better case for including them.
I would now say leave things like that in, but as optional installs of course, and leave things like RP and KEx out for the moment.
Once we have a stable final SP 3.0, we can build on that, but we must have a fixed base to build on, and we're never going to get it if we keep on debating on what should or should not be included!

The ball's in your court PROBLEMCHYLD, it's your baby.
You decide what you want to include in the final version, and publish it as the final version.
Once that is set and locked, we can move on to the next version, which may or may not include some of the things that we've been talking about!

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 30 March 2012 - 04:49 PM

[dencorso]

Drugwash, on 30 March 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Just make sure the files in the Requirements package recommended by Tihiy for RP, have been installed regardless of the core/optional choice, if RP installation was selected.

Well... I can agree that both KernelEx and RP are easy to install afterwards, and are projects that remain (hopefully) being developed, and that this is a reason not to include them in the uSP. But Drugwash has just made an important point: the files in Tihiy's Requirements pack surely should be a part of the uSP, regardless of whether the user intends or not to install RP later. As for WIA, provided it can be made to get along with TWAIN, I see no problem with adding it as an optional.

And, BTW, for those interested, Maximus-Decim's Cumulative Updates for MDAC and IE6 are real good and cater well for having those particular pieces of software up-to-date if needed/wanted. So I see no need at all for the uSP to navigate those waters.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Updated

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

LoneCrusader, on 30 March 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

So, for what it's worth, one "project author" to another, my advice is to finalize Service Pack 3 WITHOUT KernelEx and RP9.

Dave-H, on 30 March 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Things like WIA are Microsoft technologies, so I think there is a much better case for including them.
I would now say leave things like that in, but as optional installs of course, and leave things like RP and KEx out for the moment.

dencorso, on 30 March 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Well... I can agree that both KernelEx and RP are easy to install afterwards, and are projects that remain (hopefully) being developed, and that this is a reason not to include them in the uSP.

I will not add KernelEx and RP9 because they are still in development.

dencorso, on 30 March 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

And, BTW, for those interested, Maximus-Decim's Cumulative Updates for MDAC and IE6 are real good and cater well for having those particular pieces of software up-to-date if needed/wanted. So I see no need at all for the uSP to navigate those waters.

Yes, this is true but Maximus-Decim's Cumulative Updates for MDAC is outdated. MDGx has newer packages @ his site thats not included in Maximus-Decim's Cumulative Updates for MDAC. So I will add the newest files as optional as always.

[go98]

My suggestion is to write out the link where to download the latest service pack, everytime it's updated. It's a bit difficult to find out for new users...and on the first page is a link to beta4...confusing.

[dencorso]

The link is the last line of his signature. Why is it confusing?

[bristols]

go98, on 04 April 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

My suggestion is to write out the link where to download the latest service pack, everytime it's updated. It's a bit difficult to find out for new users...and on the first page is a link to beta4...confusing.

dencorso, on 04 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

The link is the last line of his signature. Why is it confusing?

Perhaps because to see members' signatures, you have to not only be a member yourself, but also signed-in. Visitors to this site who are not members never see signatures. The link on the first page to Beta 4 is for them the most prominent link. I can see how confusion might follow.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

?

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 04 April 2012 - 01:13 PM

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Quote

Perhaps because to see members' signatures, you have to not only be a member yourself, but also signed-in. Visitors to this site who are not members never see signatures.

I say good for this!

Leechers need to participate and not just grab 'n run!

Quote

The link on the first page to Beta 4 is for them the most prominent link. I can see how confusion might follow

That would be the price to pay for not wanting to participate and pay attention.

NOW with all of that said I suggest:

Problemchyld makes his OWN usp3+ thread and denecorso stickies it. Replacing the old and very outdated gapes version.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Kelsenellenelvian, on 04 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

I say good for this!

Leechers need to participate and not just grab 'n run!

Never thought about like that. Great feedback. I can just leave the signature as is. If you're a member, then you reap the benefits. We are all here to share.

Kelsenellenelvian, on 04 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

NOW with all of that said I suggest:

Problemchyld makes his OWN usp3+ thread and denecorso stickies it. Replacing the old and very outdated gapes version.

I prefer to leave it here because this is where it all started.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 04 April 2012 - 01:29 PM

[bristols]

Kelsenellenelvian, on 04 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

Quote

Perhaps because to see members' signatures, you have to not only be a member yourself, but also signed-in. Visitors to this site who are not members never see signatures.

I say good for this!

Leechers need to participate and not just grab 'n run!

You say that in jest, right? Isn't the point of the 9x forums (or at least a tangential point ) to support and spread the usage of the OS? Do you do that better by putting up barriers to downloading an unofficial service pack?

Interesting that you don't apply the same logic to your own project.