[herbalist]

I also prefer to be able to view the contents of an installer before actually installing it, but I don't make that a requirement. For all purposes, you should be making full system backups before installing something like this in the first place. There's always some risk when installing something new, whether you can view the package contents or not. A lot of good software uses installers that can't be opened by a zip program. There are other options for opening installers, like the Universal Extractor that's available in this forum. Version 1.5 runs on 98. 7Zip will open more than WinZip. If viewing the contents of an installer is important to you, use a better tool than WinZip.

If a package like Auto-Patcher were being offered by some new member who only had a few posts, I could understand being suspicious. Soporific has been a member for over 4 years and has been maintaining this package here for nearly 3 years. If there was anything malicious in it, someone here would have found it long ago.

[Sweet William]

"Make an opaque installer when a self-extracting archive would do the job."

That is the second dummest idea I've encountered recently and it won't wash.
The dummest is a real doozey. Get a load of this!

Kelsenellenelvian, on Jul 25 2009, 09:07 PM, said:

Have you even tried just Running them?

Don't you just love it?

Thanks, guys, for being part of the internet. Your presence means so much to me and the black hats. You provide them with a preconditioned crop to be harvested at leasure and low cost and simultaneously ensure my humble security precautions are more than sufficient to define me as an unprofitable target.

If more than a few of you realise there is no such thing as a "trusted source", the black hats will ... Nah! It'll never happen. Now, where are my golf clu...

[Kelsenellenelvian]

I would like to intoduce something to you.

It is a new type of software:

ANTIVIRUS AND ANTISPYWARE.

Grow up man.

All you are doing is causing trouble by being a noob and dissing on a long sttanding app and long standing members of the forum.

[Sweet William]

herbalist, on Jul 26 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

I also prefer to be able to view the contents of an installer before actually installing it, but I don't make that a requirement. For all purposes, you should be making full system backups before installing something like this in the first place. There's always some risk when installing something new, whether you can view the package contents or not. A lot of good software uses installers that can't be opened by a zip program. There are other options for opening installers, like the Universal Extractor that's available in this forum. Version 1.5 runs on 98. 7Zip will open more than WinZip. If viewing the contents of an installer is important to you, use a better tool than WinZip.

If a package like Auto-Patcher were being offered by some new member who only had a few posts, I could understand being suspicious. Soporific has been a member for over 4 years and has been maintaining this package here for nearly 3 years. If there was anything malicious in it, someone here would have found it long ago.

Rick,

In June 2008 the AutoPatcher files were .zip archives. No problem. Now they return after the site had been down for a while as Innosetup installers which are opaque to my AVS. These are new packages. If Soporific only wanted a self-extractor, why use Innosetup? There are heaps of others and they are not opaque to AVS.

I do not believe that Soporific would be responsible for any nasty that found its way into a packege that he generated. Once it is placed on the server it is vulnerable to hacking. That is so obvious I feel foolish even stating it.

Here is another quote to add to your little list. I think it is a beauty.

"Have you even tried just Running them?"

CUL8R

[dencorso]

William: if you want to look inside Autopatcher, do use the Universal Extractor, and then you can even submit it file by file to VirusTotal. But tone down, already! Whatever reason you may have, gets diluted by the beligerant mode you're expressing yourself. Listen to yourself: you're talking to people at least as experienced as yourself, if not more.

[North of Watford]

William (not sweet),

At 1033 GMT you appeared to be looking for your golf clubs. Must have been a quick game as you were back making another acid contribution at 1106 GMT. If you program at the same speed as you play golf, I can understand some of your venom. It doesn't make it any more pleasant, but I could understand why you consider the rest of us to be thick twits, worthy only of scorn.

Seriously folks, that is everyone except Bitter William, I suggest that the time has come. Please don't feed the Troll any more. He has had enough attention for now!

[pcalvert]

Sweet William, on Jul 24 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

I don't like packages I can not get into and I can't get into these.

It's not that I don't trust you, it's just that I Trust No One!

Suggestion: if you must package in an installer then use one that can be opened with winzip.

Hello William,

I understand your concerns. My suggestion is that you download all of the patches yourself, excluding any unofficial patches. Then burn them onto a CD (make several copies as an extra precaution). Since Windows 98 is no longer supported, you won't have to worry about downloading a bunch of updates for Windows 98 ever again. However, you may want to consider some of the unofficial updates, with the caveat that you understand what is in them and how they were created.

Phil

[submix8c]

Ummm...

AutoPatcher does not run automatically (AFAICR). It merely "installs" the files for "AutoPatching". Install it, already, and then run a Virus Scanner if you wish.

All of the actual "patches" were derived from various legitimate sources (mostly found here on MSFN). The only thing "unique" is/are the BAT files that implement the patches (a certain sequence is necessary due to duplicated/newer modules within). Browse the contents of them... you'll find no magic within!

edit - why did I bother to post this comment here???

This post has been edited by submix8c: 08 August 2009 - 12:06 PM

[pcalvert]

Let's say someone wants to install only official updates using Auto-Patcher. In other words, exclude the unofficial patches and install everything else. Is that possible?

Phil

[Dave-H]

pcalvert, on Aug 10 2009, 05:23 AM, said:

Let's say someone wants to install only official updates using Auto-Patcher. In other words, exclude the unofficial patches and install everything else. Is that possible?

Phil

Yes.
The way that the batch files are written, you have complete control over what you choose to install or not to install.
In fact, once you've unpacked the files, you can browse the Auto-Patcher folders and find the installation files yourself and run them from there if you want to.

[lightning slinger]

IMHO

It is well worthwhile installing (aka unpacking) Auto-Patcher on any 98SE system even if you have no intention of running the actual program in the future.

As Dave-H points out the installation files can be run, one at a time, directly from the relavant folder.

Even if you just keep the files folder and the manual installs folder and bin the others. Saving these two folders in some convenient location, you have all the hotfixes and updates upto December 2008 and a handfull of handy 3rd party apps or utilities for future use all in one place.

HTH

Colin

[sc7]

If you, like me, want just a vanilla 98SE and aren't interested in any aftermarket patches (although the community's work is much appriciated), you just need to download the IE 6 installer, and install it. Upon doing so, you can get all official updates still from the Microsoft Windows Update website. That's what I did.

[soporific]

I suppose i should weigh in to the debate

The reason i was ignoring this thread was because of the tone of the guy who was complaining about the lack of an easy accessz zip file. I didn't expect this many replies though! Thanks to all those who put him straight

And Kel was right, in this instance, the Inno Installer was indeed acting as a wrapper for all the files. I used it so i could fine-tune the installer messages, fine-tune the creation of shortcuts (NEEDED), and also provide an easy uninstall after the user used the patcher. All someone needs to do to 'get' at the files is to install the 'program', copy the program files to another location. and then choose to uninstall. Sorry for not mentioning this in the first post. I will rectify this.

There was previously a zip file available, but when my website was hacked into and i lost all the content, i didn't feel like re-uploading another 300 MB zip file. Why? Because the inno installer really is all a user needs. Again, Kel was right with this. Moral of the story? Listen to Kel

Sop.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Thanks!

[pixturesk]

Hi Sop, have not spoken to you in awhile. As you know, I have the current AP for 98SE + RP7.11 installed on my P3 600, 256megs, Radeon 7000, DSL internet computer. Everything is working superbly but I am now thinking of moving up to XP pro because Avast, the last free AntiVirus software to support 98SE will probably stop that support in early 2010 + other programs I want to access especially Paltalk no longer support 98SE. I have a legal WinXP Pro Corporate SP1 (with key + won't require activation). Can I install that over my existing 98SE configuration then continue the update process at Microsoft? Will I retain my exact current 98SE Autopatcher configuration, including the Vista GUI from RP 7.11 or will my computer look like XP albeit with all the AutoPatcher improvements. I have a current Norton Ghost image of my 98SE configuration which works perfectly, which I can revert to if problems arise. If this is not feasible, shall I just install XP Pro Corporate SP1 from scratch, then update from Microsoft or perhaps a dual boot with 98SE + XP Pro? Thanks, Ken.

[dencorso]

@soporific: Glad to see you here again! Hope you can now be around more.
@pixturesk: In my opinion, the double-boot config is the way to go. And I do favor a set up using Grub4DOS, which permits both set-ups to be fully independent. What I like to do is: set up 98SE in the first active partitition of the master HDD, with all other drives disconnected, image it and remove it. Then set up XP on FAT-32, again in the first active partitition of the master HDD, also with all other drives disconnected. Deploy the previously saved image of 98SE on the first active partitition of the slave HDD. Set the machine to boot from slave. It'll boot 98SE as C:. Add Grub4DOS to the config.sys, in a [menu] item for it alone. Use Grub4DOS to invert the HDDs and launch XP from the menu.lst. So my machine always boots to DOS as C:, then jumps to XP as C:, if I let it alone. But I can have it boot to 98SE (as C:) from the Grub4DOS menu. If you're interested in this I can give you a more detailed walkthrough. And don't forget about cannie's double-boot tutorial for other good ways of double-booting.

[pixturesk]

Thanks Sop, Dencorso. Your approach is a bit much for my non-techie brain. Upon sober reflection because I have a pristine Norton Ghost image of my AP, RP 98SE configuration which works perfectly, I might just format my "C" drive, then install the XP Pro Corporate I have on its own, play with it for awhile see how it goes. With my 98SE, I am using a combo of Avast, Super AntiSpyware Free, Spyware Blaster, Sygate Personal Firewall, HiJack This, CCleaner, Diskeeper Lite, so my machine is pretty pristine. Even on GRC.com, the first 1056 ports are completely stealth, I get a perfect score, to a hacker my computer does not even exist on the internet, great feeling of security. Without Sop's guidance, software, I would not be with 98SE this long,MANY THANKS!!!. I am also experimenting with an iMac G3/400 (circa 2000) running the Panther OS (the XP equivalent), a great experience since there are no viruses (no registry in a Mac), no crashes, software installs/uninstalls are so easy, iTunes is fantastic, connects to my dsl automatically, as contemporary, in many ways, as a current PC. I am on the lookout for a G5 with a quicker processor, more ram, greater video capabilities etc, just might make the switch completely to a Mac, or keep both a PC + a Mac running just for a variety of experiences. just exploring all my options. Hate to leave 98SE but it is becoming more difficult to attempt some of the things I want. I tried KernelEX but really caused a lot of problems, would not work with any program. If I go the XP route, I see there is an AutoPatcher (325meg file) for it. Is that any connection with you Sop!!. Is it worth installing? Anyways, lots to think about, just don't want to get left without an anti-virus program. Thanks, Ken.

[soporific]

@dencorso: Great info regarding dual booting with Grub ... and i'm still around if you know where to look
@Ken: i think your plan sounds logical ... i think a move to XP is the way to go, no i'm not connected with AutoPatcher for XP but i do still use it. If you do go the XP route, i will send you a link to the autoPatcher installer that i created for myself which will make life easier for you.

[pixturesk]

Thanks Sop. I'll take you up on that AP for XP installer that you use when I actually tryout XP, come to think of it perhaps you can just post or send me that link now so I have it, won't have to bother you for it again. I am on the lookout for a machine with higher specs than mine to try XP, my current computer is not worth investing any more money, when P4's with much higher specs are very inexpensive here where I am. Dencorso, I made a text document out of that dual boot tutorial, thanks. Guys, it might take me awhile to get my XP act together but will get back to the group as soon as I have something concrete to report. Again Sop, thanks sincerely for all your assistance, I have never enjoyed my computing experience as much since coming upon this group + having the opportunity to exchange ideas to learn from such a congenial. thoughtful host. Whatever, I choose, I will not lose touch with this group. Ken.

[Sound Lover]

Soporific,

Thank you for Auto-Patcher.

RE: kb951066: Unofficial Cumulative Update for Outlook Express 6 sp1.

A few days ago I re-installed Windows 98SE (including Outlook Express).

I then ran the latest Auto-Patcher (Dec 2007 Final + Dec 2008 Upgrade) and installed the Internel Explorer 6 sp1 and hofixes in the Internet Explorer Module.

One of these hotfixes was: kb951066-Unofficial Cumulative Update for Outlook Express 6 sp1.

I decided to remove Outlook Express and found these two entries in Start/ Settings/Control Panel/Add/Remove:

1) Microsoft Outlook Express 6
2) Outlook Express Q951066

To make a long story short, I tried to remove "Outlook Express Q951066" first and the following message appeared on my screen:

"Internet Explorer Update
Invalid INF file
OK"

I'm fairly new at this and was hoping that someone here could explain what makes "Q951066.inf" "invalid".

Note that "Q951066" (in c:\WINDOWS) only reads:

"(Version)
OSVersion=4.10

(Strings)
IEVersion=6.0.2800.1106)


jp

This post has been edited by Sound Lover: 08 December 2009 - 05:46 AM