LoneCrusader

Technically there's no reason they could not be left as an option, provided an appropriate warning NOT to choose that option if you use USB Keyboards & Mice is given. Just for the record.

I believe that if you copy the drivers to the same folder as SETUP & the .CAB files, then the installation will find and use the drivers. This is how it works for updated HotFix files (ones outside the .CAB's will be used instead of those inside) but I've never tested it with drivers.

Thats your problem, you think too much with that simpleton brain of yours. Stop thinking and learn something for a change. Nice. Have a nice day!

If all of us followed the instructions we would be running Windows 7. If all of us followed the instructions then we would have burned our Windows 9x hardware and software and be singing the praises of Microsoft. If jds prefers to use his Intel USB2 drivers, then he has every right to, regardless of what you think about it. And the instructions are irrelevant here. He did not get any errors from his "lack of following them." He simply requested that a part of the SP be made optional, and you got mad about it. End of story. I think I've made my point.

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: (emphasis mine)

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! 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.

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.

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

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

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.

Not by the current established format they have been using. Of course they have a habit of changing things, so there's no guarantee what applies today will apply tomorrow. Not quite. Gape's project existed first so he has first claim to the name. I do agree that Gape's SP pushed the bounds of "Service Pack" as well though. Several things were included that I think should not be, and one of those is still an issue now. (The Icons.) Also Gape had some stipulations that have gone by the wayside in PROBLEMCHYLD's version. For example, Gape had a policy of not adding any files from Windows ME. This is no longer the case. While I personally believe that's a good change, that's just one person's opinion.

Also granted. But that wasn't what I meant to imply. 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."

The issue here is NOT the "inclusion" of various packages. It's whether or not those packages install by default or by user choice.

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

To a point. 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."

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.

I can confirm that, not directly with storage devices but with USB2 controller drivers. One of my machines had the Orangware/Intel USB2 drivers installed before I installed NUSB. Even though I removed them from the Device Manager to install NUSB, when the machine rebooted, it reloaded the Orangeware drivers for the USB2 controller instead of the NUSB ones.

+1 This business is not helpful to anyone or the community as a whole. We have precious few enough members as it is, there is no point to this argument. I see both sides of this, and I think it's a shining example of why I don't like and don't use unofficial Service Packs. What some people want and find important others do not want at all, and vice versa. I believe, as PROBLEMCHYLD does, that NUSB should be considered a "main update" and I would prefer that to having a myriad of different drivers for the same types of devices. However, that's just my opinion and I also sympathize with jds at the inclusion of something unwanted. There is no perfect solution. @PROBLEMCHYLD Accept that people are going to complain and criticize your decisions. You opened yourself up to this when you took over the project. Be careful when you ask others for input, because if you get input that you don't like, then you're not going to be happy and your users aren't going to be happy when you choose not to take their suggestions. @jds Accept that PROBLEMCHYLD has no desire to modify his package the way you want it. If you want to use it, then delete the USB2 and USB Storage files after installing it. I have not looked into the packages but you should also be able to build a custom version of the installer with IEXPRESS or use ResHacker to edit the .CAB inside the installer and remove the files & INF references you don't want.

Using RLoew's RAM Limitation Patch 7.0. The thread jaclaz linked contains all of the relevant info for running 9x with more than 512MB of RAM.

I assume you meant a Level 50 archer? That does suck... I know how long it takes to achieve that.

Some of us who prefer the original icons also don't use the service pack, and you told us not to respond. Just kidding, no offense intended.

Welcome to MSFN See this thread in regard to >512MB of RAM issues, and I believe you already found rloew's homepage for the SATA drive issues, but here's the address anyhow: http://rloew1.no-ip.com

I don't know how to test this, I had the help of someone far more knowledgeable about such things than myself, but I'll throw in a few bits of information that I learned during my search for a USB2 stack that could be used with Windows 95 OSR2. (Sadly no success as yet, but it may not be "impossible.") There may be differences in the way that supposedly identical WDM driver functions behave between different versions of Windows. Even a function that has the same name and is present in both Windows versions may behave differently or expect different conditions on each version. You all seem to be lucky in the fact that USB3 drivers became more complex as time went on. Some of the earlier USB2 stacks I found and examined seemed to be more complex than the final release versions. (Or at least they were missing more WDM functions on Win9x than the later ones...)

No problem. I need to be in bed myself, lol.

5.0.2195.6881 Apparently comes from KB831375. I'm getting the HotFixes that contain the later versions of the other files now.