tomasz86

Thanks for an express reply So 8 means "Force Rename"... what does it really do when we have for example: kernel32.dll and kernel32.dll,,,8? What effect will this "force rename" have when such a hotfix is installed? Could you explain it more specifically? Also I have another question Is it possible to set several flags next to one file?

Does anyone know what function the ",,,8" at the end of a .dll file has? Ex. sp3res.dll,,,8 What is the difference between the 'sp3res.dll' and 'sp3res.dll,,,8'? Also sometimes you can see the same file twice one after another, ex. sp3res.dll sp3res.dll Do you know what's the reason for it? Is it just a mistake done by M$? Personally I haven't noticed any difference while installing the updates. I would just like to know whether it makes any difference or not

I did some tests to find out which file was causing these problems and it's comctl32.dll. Unfortunately, it seems that comctl32.dll is the core responsible for displaying 32-bit icons. I tried to remove it but the explorer doesn't look very pretty

Also there is something wrong with icons in Event Manager :/ They look normal when I switch to 16-bit display mode. In case of Windows Live Toolbar, switching display modes doesn't make any difference

Yes, this link is a very special one I found it somewhere here on this forum I'm going to update this topic as new updates are released in the future.

I think I found a bug in KB2479628... Windows Live Toolbar icons in IE6 look strange: This is how they should be displayed: I don't have enough time now to test it more thoroughly... could anyone install the toolbar and check the icons? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/944026

If you unpack the installer of 982524 you will see that it contains two updates - one for .NET 3.5 and one for .NET 2.0. 976576 is the one for .NET 2.0. Shortly speaking, 976576 is the same update as 982524 but only for .NET 2.0. Windows 2000 is not mentioned but the updates can be installed on a 2000 system without any problems.

I'm not sure whether all of these strings are absolutely necessary but I decided to input them just in case. [ProductCatalogsToInstall] is the one directly responsible for installing catalogs.

I made a v5 of KB2479628. It contains a few very important changes: 1. First of all, I wanted to do something about the compatibility with IE5 and IE6 systems respectively. I thought it would be better than having two separate versions - one for IE5 and one for IE6. V5 solves this problem as it can be installed on both IE5 and IE6 systems. I used the logic which I already mentioned few days ago. before (v4) and now (v5) The content of the xpsp2_binarydrop folder: The problematic file 'browseui.dll' is copied only if IE6 SP1 is installed. It's not copied at all when IE5.x is present. I also did a HFSLIP test and it's the same - 'browseui.dll' is integrated only if IE6 is present in HFCABS folder. 2. KB2479628 supersedes three other unofficial updates - 2160329, 2436673, 2286198. From these three 2286198 supersedes the official update 967715 and 2436673 supersedes the official update 979559. In order to prevent Windows Update from asking for the two older superseded official updates (967715, 979559) I added their catalog files to KB2479628-v5. I also added the original XP catalog file of 2479628 as it gets registered in a 2K system without any problems. I did some extensive testing concerning this and I think it's a 100% success All the three .CAT files get registered in Windows and Windows Update does not ask for the two superseded updates anymore. Here you go Windows2000-KB2479628-v5-x86-ENU.exe It replaces both KB2479628-v4 and KB2479628-v4-IE5.

It would be an honour for me

I made a w2k version of KB2443685. December 2010 cumulative time zone update for Windows operating systems [2010-11-22] Windows2000-KB2443685-x86-ENU.exe

WildBill, I hope you don't mind but I made a v2 version of KB981852 (MS10-047). The point was to add the "Mup.sys" file from the older M$ official KB979683. By doing so KB981852-v2 supersedes KB979683. I also added the original .CAT file from KB979683 so WU won't ask for KB979683 after having installed KB981852-v2. Windows2000-KB981852-v2-x86-ENU.exe

I did a test today with KB2079403 and the XP's .CAT file was registered without any problems.

.NET Framework 1.1 (2011-10-12) dotNetFx.exe NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe NDP1.1sp1-KB971108-X86.exe <- W2K only NDP1.1sp1-KB2572067-X86.exe .NET Framework 2.0 (2011-10-13) NetFx20SP2_x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB958481-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB971111-x86.exe <- W2K only NDP20SP2-KB976576-x86.exe <- same update as 982524 but for .NET 2.0 only (982524 is for both .NET 2.0 & .NET 3.5) NDP20SP2-KB979909-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB2418241-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB2518864-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB2539631-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB2572073-x86.exe

The new list for .NET Framework 1.1 (2011-05-13) dotNetFx.exe NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe NDP1.1sp1-KB971108-X86.exe - W2K only NDP1.1sp1-KB2416447-X86.exe (supersedes KB979906) The new list for .NET Framework 2.0 (2011-05-13) NetFx20SP2_x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB958481-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB971111-x86.exe - W2K only NDP20SP2-KB976576-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB979909-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB982167-x86.exe NDP20SP2-KB2418241-x86.exe (supersedes KB976765) NDP20SP2-KB2446704-v2-x86.exe (supersedes KB983583, KB976569, KB974417) All of them can be processed by SNMsynth but in case of KB2446704-v2 you may have to remove the "-v2" as the filename is too long and results in a "file not found" error. As I'm using Windows 2000 I'm not really interested in making a current list of .NET 3.5 updates. Still it would be nice if someone else made an updated list for newer Frameworks

There is one more security update from 2011-04-05. KB2446704-v2 @edit

This post lists most of the current updates for .NET 2.0 SP2: It's also important to note than the newest .NET 2.0 updates for XP install without any problems on a 2K system.

I made a w2k version of KB951072. The XP version works just as it is so I only had to change the structure of the package and edit the update.inf file. I used the SP2QFE branch. August 2008 Cumulative Time Zone Update for Microsoft Windows Operating Systems [2008-08-19] Windows2000-KB951072-v2-x86-ENU.exe Superseded by KB2443685

Concerning IE5 I found sth interesting in one of the original M$ hotfixes. Windows2000-KB900725-x86-ENU.EXE This hotfix contains two versions of the 'shlwapi.dll' file - one is a w2k version and the other one is from XP SP2. The XP SP2 version is copied into the 2000 system only if IE6 is installed. These strings are responsible for it: [IE501.System32.Files] shlwapi.dll [IE501.Cache.Files] shlwapi.dll [IE6SP1.System32.Files] shlwapi.dll, xpsp2_binarydrop\shlwapi.dll [IE6SP1.Cache.Files] shlwapi.dll, xpsp2_binarydrop\shlwapi.dll I think it is possible to make just a one single version of KB2479628-v4 by using such strings, ie. browseui.dll would be copied only when IE6 is installed. I'm going to have a look on it when I have some free time in near future

KMPlayer or PotPlayer.

I made an IE5 version of KB2479628-v4. I just removed browseui.dll file from it. No other changes were made. Windows2000-KB2479628-v4-IE5-x86-ENU.exe I've tested it on a Windows 2000 Profession SP4 + IE5 system and also tested it in HFSLIP. @edit (2011.05.17) Superseded by KB2479628-v5.

Everything is true about IE5's security but I think it would be useful to put a warning in the third post in case someone installs this hotfix on a machine with IE5 and Windows gets broken.

You're right. I've just tested it on a virtual machine (W2k Pro SP4, no other updates, IE5) and explorer doesn't start after installing the update. Before having installed this hotfix I tried to run the new explorer.exe file manually and it works, so it's not the explorer itself that causes this problem. After installing the hotfix running the explorer manually is impossible as Task Manager generates an error when clicking on "file->run".

I'm trying to run SmoothText on an old computer with a Pentium III 866MHz processor. It's incredibly slow. The CPU usage jumps up to 50% just by running SmoothText and becomes almost unusable Is there any way to speed it up?

I don't know how to check the power but I don't think this is the issue as it happens on two different computers. I tried both FAT32 and NTFS but it seems to make no difference.