Jump to content

98 SE SP 3.32


Gape

Recommended Posts


Why is Gape pack considered a Sp and PROBLEMCHYLD'S not? Gape has options and tweaks etc.

I see no difference except more options.

I just said that Gape's SP pushes the limits of "Service Pack" as well. I see no need to break down and itemize the differences. The point is, that the boundaries have already been pushed. Don't push them any further. Anything added should be optional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just said that Gape's SP pushes the limits of "Service Pack" as well. I see no need to break down and itemize the differences. The point is, that the boundaries have already been pushed. Don't push them any further. Anything added should be optional.

So an unofficial patched kernel32.dll or shell32.dll should be optional. Yeah right, you sound like jds.

Me personally I don't want to download a bunch of updates that going to do the same as the sp does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So an unofficial patched kernel32.dll or shell32.dll should be optional. Yeah right, you sound like jds.

Me personally I don't want to download a bunch of updates that going to do the same as the sp does.

Oh no, don't put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

I believe I said "bugfixes" should be installed. KERNEL32 is a bugfix. The patched SHELL32 contains bugfixes, but also contains "personal" modifications. (Icon changes, removal of Shortcut Arrow, etc). SHELL32 with BUGFIXES only should be installed by default. If you want a version with the other mods, it should be an OPTION.

Basically all MS HotFixes and unofficial BUGFIXES should be installed by default. But when you get into the realm of "I like this icon better than the other one, so I will include it," or "I want the shortcut arrows gone, so I will include it," or "I use KernelEx, so I will include it," it has gone beyond a Service Pack.

jds wanted the USB updates to be optional. I believe, as PROBLEMCHYLD does, that they should be included in the "HotFixes/Bugfixes" category, because there is nothing to be lost by using them. I sympathize with jds on this one, but don't agree. However, when it comes to the ASPI layer, the Adaptec files and MS files are NOT 100% compatible. So in this situation jds is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Microsoft versions of these files are different from the Adaptec versions. They are NOT 100% compatible, so therefore in some cases are NOT an upgrade.

So far, we only have one person with a issue with the ASPI drivers.

I have been using these drivers since 2004 on all types of computers and operating systems.

Don't forget about (ALL) the people who uses the SP and haven't had any issues with their hardware. I'm positive hes's not the only one with unique hardware.

He should search for a work-around unless others have problems, there will be no change.

To a point. :whistle:

This is supposed to be a Service Pack for Windows 98 SE. Go to far down the "take it or leave it" or "add everything" paths and it is no longer a Service Pack, but rather "PROBLEMCHYLD's Windows 98 SE Customizer."

Unless someone willing to make a few hundred patches and a few hundred options, it is what it is.

Example: MDGx updated SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.634 breaks the icons arrows from being used with TWEAKUI.

So far, no one has attempted to rectify the issue. I guess having 50 options of patches is ideal for the SP.

Kinda like the transparency patch that was found by Nexus_06. I should have a separate option for this too huh.

Good for you PROBLEMCHYLD!

:thumbup

I don't recall Microsoft offering any options in their OS Service Packs, you installed it or you didn't, end of story.

If it broke things because of the type of hardware or configuration of your system, you sorted it out afterwards.

There are always going to be a few people who will run into problems after a blanket update of system files, and you will never finish this if you try and take all their possible problems into account.

People with problems are right to mention them of course, but if you decide that what's there is good enough to work in the vast majority of cases, and the flagged problems are not going to be widespread enough to modify the SP to take them into account, that is your decision and that should be accepted and respected.

:yes:

Thank you Dave-H. Probably the best post I have read in a long time. Thanks again.

Granted. But Microsoft also does not include every single hodgepodge update or installable package that exists for a given OS.

That's because M$ is lazy.

Whats the difference if I add every single update that was created for Win98 and made it optional as opposed to me or others downloading and installing every single update one at a time.

At least the complaining and whining will stop. There will still be unhappy people regardless what you do.

I think you should remove it and your stress level will go down.

No it won't :realmad:

My point does back to what I said about this project being a Service Pack. If it remains a system update that installs bugfixes or corrects issues on a wide range of systems, then it's great and it deserves the "Service Pack" title. But, if it goes into the realm of installing every single installable package for 98SE and customizing the system according to what one person or a group of people think it should be, then it should no longer be called a "Service Pack."

What if it breaks something at the same time fixing something?. Then, what should it be called?

I agree, it's then more accurately termed an Enhancement Pack IMO, which is a completely different animal.

:)

Should the name or title really matter. It was called SP2 at first and no one said anything.

Now that I added some more options and call it SP3, it not good enough.

PROBLEMCHYLD...

Do not loose site of YOUR original Vision!

That vision, which I've recognized from the start--

is coming up with "The Best and Most up to date Service Pack,

You Will to achieve.

What you have achieved so far, is most excellent "Gold".

There is no need to turn it into an "alloy" trying to please even the most well meaning members.

One must never be side tracked from the integrity and purity of the original concept---which you have been wonderfully successful at maintaining.

Keep up the great work!

You can believe that if I do decide not to release to the public anymore, you'll get an exclusive update.

I believe I said "bugfixes" should be installed. KERNEL32 is a bugfix. The patched SHELL32 contains bugfixes, but also contains "personal" modifications.

Thats because the new patched shell32 from MDGx breaks the ability to remove the arrows. But since it fixes a bug, its ok to create one. Ok, I get it now.

I think Auto patcher will be the best solution for everyone because, the enhancement/custom pack I worked on seems to be worthless. Enjoy 3.6 because its the last. Thanks for all the help along the way. Its time to move on.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless someone willing to make a few hundred patches and a few hundred options, it is what it is.

Example: MDGx updated SHELL32.DLL 4.72.3812.634 breaks the icons arrows from being used with TWEAKUI.

So far, no one has attempted to rectify the issue. I guess having 50 options of patches is ideal for the SP.

Kinda like the transparency patch that was found by Nexus_06. I should have a separate option for this too huh.

It's really not that hard. You simply have the original MS version install by default and have a nice little checkbox for "Install Patched SHELL32.DLL & EXLPORER.EXE (Bugfix + Updated Icons, Removed Shortcut Arrows)." If checked, the MS version will be overwritten by the MDGx version. If someone wants to bother with creating a bugfixed version without the other modifications, then great, add it, but if not, then users can choose between the two options. I'm not suggesting that you fill all the gaps yourself.

That's because M$ is lazy.

Whats the difference if I add every single update that was created for Win98 and made it optional as opposed to me or others downloading and installing every single update one at a time.

Yes, they are lazy. But I would be d*mned irritated if a Windows XP Service Pack forced me to install IE7, or IE8, or WMP10, or WMP11, or the .NET framework, or some other rubbish, just because they feel I should. There's good reason for only including system updates that do not change the look, feel, or overall operation of the OS, and there's good reason for not bundling all updates and all installers.

What if it breaks something at the same time fixing something?. Then, what should it be called?

...

Should the name or title really matter. It was called SP2 at first and no one said anything.

Now that I added some more options and call it SP3, it not good enough.

If it breaks something while fixing something then there should be a clear warning about whatever is breaks, and an option to not install whatever update does the breaking. It all comes back to OPTIONS.

I said plenty about SP2 in other threads. It was not under active development though, where your current version is.

Thats because the new patched shell32 from MDGx breaks the ability to remove the arrows. But since it fixes a bug, its ok to create one. Ok, I get it now.

I think Auto patcher will be the best solution for everyone because, the enhancement/custom pack I worked on seems to be worthless. Enjoy 3.6 because its the last. Thanks for all the help along the way. Its time to move on.

Nowhere did I say it was OK to create a bug, so no, I don't think you get it at all. :realmad:

I have tried to be even handed in this and see both sides of the issues. But your attitude keeps driving me over to the other side. I respect your right to have your project the way you want it, but you're asking for it when you say you're willing to compromise or that you want input and then get mad when people want something changed or give input you don't like. If you keep acting they way you are about it, then sooner or later you will have no one willing to help you.

For the record, I never personally asked for anything to be changed, because I don't use the SP. I have tried to help in whatever small ways I can though, because I like to see any development for Windows 9x succeed. jds contributed to the project as well, in more ways that I did, and he did not deserve the rude manner in which you responded to his request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Auto patcher will be the best solution for everyone because, the enhancement/custom pack I worked on seems to be worthless. Enjoy 3.6 because its the last. Thanks for all the help along the way. Its time to move on.

Never for one moment think that what you've done is worthless!

Even if it does go no further, it's still a fantastic piece of work that you should be proud of!

:yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I never personally asked for anything to be changed, because I don't use the SP.

Then why do you have so much input. How can you comment on or about something you don't use.

You help start the flame wars when all you do is open your mouth. I don't use RP. Do you see me in the RP thread talking this and that, no. My attitude is towards people like you, who have the option of installing something or not installing, who are never satisfied.

I don't mind the feedback, but its people like you and jds who keeps its going. I'm not catering to just him. He wanted it removed because his system is not compatible, but hundreds of other systems are. I don't think you and him get it. Thats like saying the member that asked for the HOST file should have got it. You feel it should be optional when you don't even use the **** pack. That reallys help. Since you feel that way, you should create an update just for jds since you and him are seeing eye to eye or STFU before I get banned.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why do you have so much input. How can you comment on or about something you don't use.

You help start the flame wars when all you do is open your mouth. I don't use RP. Do you see me in the RP thread talking this and that, no. My attitude is towards people like you, who have the option of installing something or not installing, who are never satisfied.

I don't mind the feedback, but its people like you and jds who keeps its going. I'm not catering to just him. He wanted it removed because his system is not compatible, but hundreds of other systems are. I don't think you and him get it. Thats like saying the member that asked for the HOST file should have got it. You feel it should be optional when you don't even use the **** pack. That reallys help. Since you feel that way, you should create an update just for jds since you and him are seeing eye to eye or STFU before I get banned.

When I have spoken up in this thread it has usually been to help or to give information. The only reason I have interjected myself this time is because of your attitude toward jds. (And believe me I now wish I had just stayed out of it.)

jds DOES, or DOES WANT to use your package, and has contributed to the project, and made a request based upon your previous statements about "suggestions" and "compromise." You in turn flew off the handle at him, and accused him of whining. A simple "no thanks, I believe NUSB should remain mandatory" would have sufficed. It IS your project, but there is no need to attack people who make requests or suggestions, especially when you asked for them!

Under certain conditions I might use or recommend the use of a Service Pack. I personally have no need of it because I can slipstream the updates that I want. But I have tried to help make it better for others, and I have spoken for others who couldn't be bothered to post, or didn't bother to post at the risk of being treated like you treated jds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but there is no need to attack people who make requests or suggestions, especially when you asked for them!

You still don't get it do you? It not about the requests, its about how certain individuals want what they want and is not considered of others. Those files has been there for a long time. Now that this one person has a problem, I'm suppose to dismantle the SP for one person to benefit.

Once you and him realize that, I think we will get along a lot better.

It's really not that hard. You simply have the original MS version install by default and have a nice little checkbox for "Install Patched SHELL32.DLL & EXLPORER.EXE (Bugfix + Updated Icons, Removed Shortcut Arrows)

Unless you take countless hours out your day and sacrifice certain things, then you don't know how hard it is.

What if one user want the arrows removed, but don't want the icons changed.

Another option has to be added. A patch has to be created. Things has to be tested.

So, easy doesn't define the tasks thats ahead.

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't get it do you? It not about the requests, its about how certain individuals want what they want and is not considered of others.

You still don't get it either. It's not about what decisions YOU make with YOUR own project, it's your attitude toward other people that have posted here that I have a problem with.

Jumping down jds's throat because he made a request, and this "person A will receive updates but person B won't" business is extremely childish.

And how was jds "not being considerate of others" by asking that something be made optional? It's not like he asked for it to be removed! :blink:

Unless you take countless hours out your day and sacrifice certain things, then you don't know how hard it is.

What if one user want the arrows removed, but don't want the icons removed.

Another option has to be added. A patch ahs to be created. Things has to be tested.

So, easy doesn't define the tasks thats ahead.

I just said that it isn't up to you to create the "missing" patches. If someone creates them, great. If not, then too bad. All I said was that there should be options for the ones that ALREADY exist.

Edited by LoneCrusader
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me where he asked. I guess if every single person contribute then I would have to add what they want too.

Another SP item that should be an optional install : Adaptec Windows ASPI driver (version v4.71.2).

Joe.

So, if you call should asking then I was totally wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me where he asked. I guess if every single person contribute then I would have to add what they want too.

Another SP item that should be an optional install : Adaptec Windows ASPI driver (version v4.71.2).

Joe.

So, if you call should asking then I was totally wrong.

I'm not referring to the ASPI layer business. You didn't attack jds for that. You attacked him for making the USB request. Here it is:

Last night, I installed SP3.5 on my 98SE laptop which had IE5.01SP2 and KernelEx 4.52. I selected about 2/3 of the options. All went smoothly. :thumbup

One thing I'd request though ... Can the USB drivers in the future SP3.6 be made optional? I won't benefit from USB 2.0 drivers on my USB 1.1 machines, and I've already got Intel's drivers running on my USB 2.0 machine. As I'm happy with the USB drivers I already use, I'd rather not mess with them, if and when I chose to install the SP on my remaining machines.

Joe.

(emphasis mine)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why we are at war. I didn't attack him for requesting NUSB to be optional. I attacked because he wants to use the SP but doesn't want to follow the instructions by not removing his intel drivers.

So who fault is that. I keep saying follow the instructions. This is old news. I have moved on from this and so has he.

So why are you keeping up the bul*****?

Edited by PROBLEMCHYLD
Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...