Glenn9999

I saw 942763 as well when I ran Windows Update http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942763

I have an app written that works well in both Win32 and DOS (given the proper compiler). The problem is, I need to be able to see and handle LFN names in the DOS version so it will work on a Windows ME startup disk. Are there any guides or help that anyone can point me to on how to do this?

(See referenced JPG file.) Actually we know .NET 3.0 to simply be .NET 2.0 with a few other things thrown in. .NET 3.5 seems to be .NET 2.0 with a few more things thrown in than .NET 3.0. But maybe with this last post, I'm wondering if that's how the jump-up from roughly a 50MB install (in .NET 3.0) to a 197MB install is too justifiable. If the 64-bit stuff is in there, then it could be cut down drastically for a 32-bit install, most likely. Anyway, to address the pic, which is a screen shot of Add/Remove Programs... 1) Is there anything that indicates that .NET 1.1 is still necessary with .NET 3.5? If I read what is listed under the .NET 2.0 install correctly, I interpret ".NET Framework 1" to be the same thing. True or false? 2) I notice my .NET 3.0 install is still listed. Bug or is .NET 3.5 and .NET 3.0 co-existing? I guess the question parallel to the last one is if one should de-install everything first before installing .NET 3.5. 3) I knew one of the major projects Microsoft had in mind was to port WPF from Vista to XP. I can't say I know too well, but does this mean that Vista-only apps (i.e. apps that won't run on XP) can be run now without something like Alky for Applications? 4) I guess my patch question got answered when I took a good look at this. Killling off all .NET 2.0 and .NET 3.0 patches if one installs .NET 3.5 seems to be a safe bet. But again, not so sure about .NET 1.1 stuff. Any thoughts on this?

Yep I'm reminded that Microsoft sets standards "because we say". And I really have seen nothing from anyone that indicates that they don't jump like lemmings at everything Microsoft does. .NET is a perfect example. It's bloated, runs 10x slower (or more), adds complexity to both application development and debugging, and not portable (a deal breaker in and of itself). While I have the option to get .NET compilers and do it that way and I tried one, I don't simply because I see absolutely no advantage or benefit to .NET in any way, shape, or form. This error that was presented is a perfect example - how does kykc debug it? As far as he/she knows, it could be a problem in code, or a problem in .NET, or a problem in the system itself (virus, malware), or DLL Hell (.NET brings that problem in spades). Is it better because it truly is better, or because Microsoft says so?

Rather it uses data downloaded from the WU servers, and then compares that data against things like this in the system.

Perhaps the most fool-proof way to handle the issues I referred to earlier is what you're already doing with WUD (store information relating to specific patches for each OS, like reference KB#, MD5 of the file (to identify it), install parms, etc). I really didn't want to get into that much work in supporting my patching program, though. Honestly, that's the only way I could see to do it 100%. I ended up doing what was recommended in Microsoft's data when I wrote the program (query the extended file info), but found that they weren't even consistent with anything they've done. As a result, it's maybe 99% consistent, and maybe that's going to have to be enough. As far as identifying whether patches have already been installed, that's easy enough, but again you need that reference KB # in order to identify it against data in the system that isn't routinely thrashed by anything (uninstall directories and logs get thrashed by CCleaner for example), and you can't get it from the file itself in any consistent way. Then, of course, Microsoft isn't even consistent themselves regarding this one. Then, there's always the possibility of storing data on what patches you've already run, downloaded, etc, but that would sacrifice portability. Perhaps the thing that got it closest was AutoPatcher, and they did it by storing all the data relating to the patches in the install (along with the patches themselves of course). I do have an idea I'm going to try out once I get those before-mentioned enhancements completed.

(trying to keep any salesmanship out of this) Since I tested it just now, I can answer that question. Seems the answer is No (it installed 3 patches that I could verify were already installed - verified by having it install the patches again a second time). Evidently, this person is using a similar method to the one I arrived upon when I wrote my patching program. The problem I encountered in doing many things I wanted to do with the patches is that there's really no uniformity present in the way Microsoft presents their updates. This is one of them. 1) To be able to detect updates that are already installed in the list, a foolproof way to identify the KB number would be a requirement. You could parse it out of the file name, but given #2, I had reservations in whether the patches would have a uniform name that would always have a KB # in it. If I have a KB #, given in a reasonably reliable way I could feel comfortable with (i.e. not easily renamed out), I would know how to detect updates that are already installed, and would have already put it into the program. 2) As I mentioned in the accompanying documentation, there are certain updates where Microsoft uses what could be referred to as a non-uniform convention for running the patches silently. The patches listed within the documentation are great examples - they either use unique parms everything else doesn't use, or they do not accept parms at all. 3) Then, there always the issue of telling the difference between updates and installs. My program will identify WMP 11, IE7, and Service Pack 2 as something that it can run. While it will run WMP 11 okay (I tested it), but will run IE7 and then the IE7 install will reboot itself. I haven't tried actually running Service Pack 2 with my program, but I'm not sure I want to try. In short, basically, it picks up things that could be run, but are best left to be run by themselves. Or again, could be run, but require unique command parms. In short, the issue is really one of identifying and cataloging what the patches are when they are presented. (salesmanship mode on) I'm looking at working on this program again soon (1 and 2 are done, actually) to add a few things that have been nagging at me: 1) Changing how the wait code is handled on running the patches. Gives more CPU to the patches and will shave a few seconds off of big patch runs. 2) Give the option at the beginning if qchain isn't detected to bring up the file from Microsoft's site to download it. This works in IE, but not tested yet for FF, Opera, etc. The method I used should work for those, though. 3) Give the option in attended mode to be able to select the patches to install. 4) Shut down System Restore while the patch run is going, if it is on. I can do this in XP very easily, but not sure how to do it with Windows ME yet (mine looks to support more than just 2000/XP, etc)

Yeah, I saw this and was going to ask if anyone installed it yet on a clean system to know which .NET patches this release makes redundant.

This should help, and works for most of what I throw at it: http://www.msfn.org/board/Batch_Patcher_t9...amp;mode=linear You will need to download QCHAIN.EXE, though. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815062/

IMO, this is a better link - it's what the original link is referring to: http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/windo...ance-gains.html or http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/updat...ram-office.html The testing tool used on that page is DMS Clarity Studio, downloadable at http://www.xpnet.com if you wish to test it for yourself.

All can be done via installed patches. If you're up-to-date you don't need to use MS Update for anything other than maybe validating needed patches so you can add them to your install process. http://www.msfn.org/board/Batch_Patcher_t9...amp;mode=linear would probably be more closer to what you're looking to do? Quoted for Reference regarding Kelsen's post:

Then you won't get by without paying out some money - I don't know many free web hosts, and of the ones I know they won't allow the kind of stuff you're wanting to do and will be ad-ridden and severely limited (even most of the file hosts are that way). I don't know too many people that would like you to have free rein to do anything on their servers, either, even if you do pay them. Basically put, you're asking for too much if you're wanting a free ride.

In addition to what has been said, bad drivers can cause this problem. See if drivers for all your devices (especially the mainboard) have been revised since SP2 came out (roughly 2002).

You would do very well to just set up your own web server on your computer, lock down any access to it from outside IPs (i.e. not local IPs *), and do your practice, web design, and programming on it, especially since I'm pretty sure you won't find anything free like you describe. That's what I did when I was playing around with those things. *Hint: You access an internet service on your local computer by checking address 127.0.0.1.

If you legitimately have Windows ME installed it's on Windows Update. Update #287564, WMM 1.0. Kind of as an extra downloadable freebie app to those that are legitimate, I guess.

I found an acceptable option. Thanks for the advice.

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724451.aspx It seems three or four function calls would need to be hooked in multiple DLLs (either renamed or created). As you correctly point out, most programs will probably use GetVersion or GetVersionEx, but there are a multitude of methods, including ones that are automatic within the compiler. GetVersion/GetVersionEX in Kernel32.dll IsOS() in SHLWAPI.DLL http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb773795.aspx GetProductInfo() in KERNEL32.DLL http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724358.aspx VerifyVersionInfo() in KERNEL32.DLL http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms725492.aspx but 9 times out of 10, though, if something is meant for NT/XP/2000/Vista, it won't be architecturally capable of running on 9X most times anyway, if we're talking about fooling a program into thinking it's on a different version.

A system file call. GetVersion() and GetVersionEx() I believe. (Edited: I stand corrected.)

There's really not much difference between the two. Windows Update only applies to Windows, but Microsoft Update will handle Windows and several other Microsoft things as well (Office, Windows Defender, etc). There's really no harm in going with either - actually I'm confused as to why Microsoft set it up as an opt-in service.

A question that just came to mind that I'm curious about: This is assuming the cost of purchasing each one was the same (I saw some pretty cheap B&W laser printers last time I walked through a computer store). I'd choose the B&W laser now, simply because I realize that most (99.99%) of the stuff I print doesn't need to be in color, and I always thought the laser did a better job than the inkjet at both print quality and durability for printing large amounts of things. Plus, if I need something in color, it's cheaper in the long run (and better quality) to just have it done at a place like Kinkos.

I saw a reference to this in a more recent thread and found that it fits my needs. Is there a more accurate link to download the NTFS4DOS Personal, since all the links in this thread are dead?

AxCrypt is one that I know of. http://www.axantum.com/AxCrypt/

I'm sure this might help some: http://www.msfn.org/board/Batch_Patcher_t9...amp;mode=linear

Anyone know a good file host where I can post things to hyperlink to in message boards like this one? (Images, programs, source examples, etc?)

I went to the site you posted and don't find that the web site is offering me anything different based on what I select in the drop-down box. You might consider just doing one batch file and one EXE file.