Start Me Up

A very small bit of news: The update "WINDOWS2000-OTSKB000001-V4-X86-INTL.exe" has been released to the general public. Users of version 3 are advised to update to version 4. The help file "OTSKB.chm" has been updated slightly. --- things to do: Windows XP update: Analysis of the version "5.1.2600.7334" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". Write the version "5.1.2601.0001" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows XP/OTSKB000001-V1" to the help file write the update test it release it Windows Server 2003 update: Analysis of the version "5.2.3790.6946" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". Write the version "5.2.3791.0001" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows Server 2003/OTSKB000001-V1" to the help file write the update test it release it Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 update: Analysis of the version "5.1.2600.7684" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". Write the version "5.1.2602.0001" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/OTSKB000001-V1" to the help file write the update test it release it

Oh, I am sorry. Yes, you are right. The file "Windows XP No SSE2 Patch Rollup.zip" is in the directory "POSReady 2009" of the Windows XP post SP3 update pack. --- The analysis of the newest version (5.1.2600.7334) of the file "win32k.sys" from the Windows XP update is now complete. The file "code.htm" has been updated. There are no big surprises in this version. It's basicly just another buggy version which needs to be fixed. The code is more or less the same as in Windows 2000 or any other Windows version. --- A bug has been found in the version "5.00.2196.0001-V3" of the file "win32k.sys" for Windows 2000. That is why the version "5.00.2196.0001-V4" has been added to the file "code.htm". Even though only a single machine instruction has been changed, it will still go through some testing before the update "WINDOWS2000-OTSKB000001-V4-X86-INTL.exe" will be released to the general public. However, the help file has already been updated. --- things to do: Windows 2000 update: Write the version "5.00.2196.0001-V4" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows 2000/OTSKB000001-V4" to the help file write the update test it release it Windows XP update: Analysis of the version "5.1.2600.7334" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". Write the version "5.1.2601.0001" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows XP/OTSKB000001-V1" to the help file write the update test it release it Windows Server 2003 update: Analysis of the version "5.2.3790.6946" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". Write the version "5.2.3791.0001" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows Server 2003/OTSKB000001-V1" to the help file write the update test it release it Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 update: Analysis of the version "5.1.2600.7684" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". Write the version "5.1.2602.0001" of the file "win32k.sys". Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/OTSKB000001-V1" to the help file write the update test it release it

Thank you very much, MilkChan. --- I added the 3 variants of KB4039384 to the help file and treat them as separate updates with separate download links: "Windows XP/KB4039384", "Windows Embedded for Point of Service/KB4039384" and "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/KB4039384" --- zip file? Which zip file? I have no zip file with this name. Anyway, I found them on Microsoft's server. --- I like the naming scheme of Microsoft: If it's the same update, but for a different operating system, then the name of the update is the same, but the operating system prefix is different. So there will be no "Windows 2000 + Windows XP/OTSKB000001-V4" update and no "Windows XP/OTSKB000002" but rather a "Windows 2000/OTSKB000001-V3" update and a "Windows XP/OTSKB000001-V1" update. --- things to do: analysis of the updates "Windows XP/KB4039384', "Windows Server 2003/KB4516665" and "Windows Embedded POSReady/KB4493927" to check whether there are any changes to the function "CreateXlateObject" and what the offsets are. Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows XP/OTSKB000001" to the help file write the update "Windows XP/OTSKB000001" add the update "Windows Server 2003/OTSKB000001" to the help file write the update "Windows Server 2003/OTSKB000001" add the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/OTSKB000001" to the help file write the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/OTSKB000001"

Oh, I see. That is a problem. So "Windows XP/KB4493927" not an Windows XP update and I can't just advise all Windows XP users to add the value to their registry and install the update or some will end up with a machine that doesn't boot anymore. I will call the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/KB4493927" from now on. So basicly, when we talk about Windows XP (32 bits), then we are dealing the 3 different operating systems: Windows XP (32 bits) Windows Embedded for Point of Service (32 bits) Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 (32 bits). It just happens to be the case, that users of Windows XP are able to install updates for Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, if their CPU supports SSE2 and they got the POSReady key in their registry. --- The help file has been corrected accordingly. --- The update "Windows Server 2003/KB4516665" has been added to the help file. However, I was not able to find any security related reports on this update (like MS12-345 or CVE-1234-5678). -- That would be helpful. Thank you. --- Well, I guess I won't be releasing version 4 of OTSKB000001 but rather OTSKB000002, OTSKB000003 and OTSKB000004. So it's one update per operating system and not one update for many operating systems. So OTSKB000001 will still be the Windows 2000 update. OTSKB000002 will be the Windows XP (32 bits) update. OTSKB000003 will be the Windows Server 2003 (32 bits) update. OTSKB000004 will be the Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 (32 bits) update (but it will also work on Windows XP (32 bits) if the user has the value in the registry). --- things to do: add the update "Windows XP/KBxy" to the help file (it's the unknown update that MilkChan will hopefully find) analysis of the updates "Windows XP/KBxy', "Windows Server 2003/KB4516665" and "Windows Embedded POSReady/KB4493927" to check whether there are any changes to the function "CreateXlateObject" and what the offsets are. Then update "code.htm". add the update "Windows XP/OTSKB000002" to the help file write the update "Windows XP/OTSKB000002" add the update "Windows Server 2003/OTSKB000003" to the help file write the update "Windows Server 2003/OTSKB000003" add the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/OTSKB000004" to the help file write the update "Windows Embedded POSReady 2009/OTSKB000004"

Once again: Thank you very much, MilkChan. You deserved yourself a spot in the acknowledgements list of the update "OTSKB000001" and have been added to the help file. I am now able to make the update "OTSKB000001" compatible with Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. --- Yes, I need to analyse all language editions of the file win32k.sys. Or at least that was necessary in Windows 2000. --- I noticed, that installing the update "Windows XP/KB4493927" in a vanilla Windows XP system is not possible. To allow installing this update the key "POSready" and the value "Installed" need to be in the registry. So I added the update to the help file and added a note in the subtopic "system requirements" as a help with the installation. --- things to do: add the update "Windows Server 2003/KB4516665" to the help file analysis of the updates "Windows XP/KB4493927" and "Windows Server 2003/KB4516665" to check whether there are any changes to the function "CreateXlateObject" and what the offsets are. Then update "code.htm". add version 4 of the update "OTSKB000001" to the help file write the version 4 of the update "OTSKB000001"

Thank you very much, MilkChan. I already used the file from Windows Server 2008 to verify whether the bug still exists. It does exist even in Windows Server 2025. But knowing which update contains the latest version of win32k.sys allows me to write an update for XP and Windows Server 2003, too. Otherwise I would be patching an old version which has other bugs. So, yes, I am interested in knowing the latest update which contains the win32k.sys for Windows Server 2003, too. At the moment I will stick with the 32 bit versions. I do not have much experience in writing 64 bit code. So I don't want to risk messing up someone's system.

The update "WINDOWS2000-OTSKB000001-V3-X86-INTL.exe" has been released to the general public today. --- The updater was written from scratch and therefore does not cause copyright problems: updater-V3.png --- The help file "OTSKB.chm" was updated and is available as a separate file. But it is also included in the update (click on the "open the help file" button). --- The code comparison file "code.htm" was updated to include the version 3 changes. It's probably the final version. Well, at least if nothing unexpected comes up.

If it doesn't work either, then I can add some checks to narrow down the problem. Btw: You got surprisingly far in the booting process. Once the graphic issue is solved, you will most likely see the graphical user interface of Windows 2000.

The blue screen you got means in many situations that the graphics driver was not able to list any display mode. You could try my universal graphics driver for Windows 2000. But the chances are no way close to 100% that this will fix the problem. It might be a problem with videoprt.sys or no access to the VGA configuration registers.

Are you using the vanilla VGA.sys + VGA.dll as graphics driver or something from Windows XP?

I had a look at your project and made a bit of experience, which I'd like to share. trying it out I tried the iso file by mounting it as a CD drive in a virtual machine (VirtualBox). I selected 64 MB of RAM, which is the minimum system requirement for Windows 2000 Professional, and then I booted from CD. After a short moment of loading the installation greeted my with an error message complaining about the amount of system memory. Also, the message was in the wrong language and I had no ability to change the language. Attachment: memory.png I turned off the virtual machine, increased the amount of memory to 128 MB, which is the minimum system requirement for Windows 2000 Server to Datacenter. But when booting again I was shown the same error message. So I increased the amount again to 256 MB with the same result. So I continued with 512 MB with the same result. When I increased the amount to 1 024 MB the error message no longer appeared. Instead a black screen was shown for about 3 minutes with seemingly no disc activity. Attachment: black.png. After these 3 minutes the screen turned to something colorful but again with seemingly no disc activity. Attachment: colorful.png After 7 minutes in total I aborted the test. Afterwards I increased the amount of memory to 1 536 MB and retried but ended up with the same results (3 minutes black screen then something colorful). the documentation I had a look at the documentation and was pleased to see that at least something exists. Missing documentation is unfortunately a problem with many projects. So I went through it and tried to learn something from it. The documentation starts with claiming that it is a NT6.x installer, using the Window 10 setup to install Windows 2000. Well, Windows 10 is not NT6.x. Here is an overview of the Windows versions and their brand names: Brand name|date of release|version|major version|minor version Windows 2000|December 1999|5.0|05|h|0|h Windows experience (XP) 32 Bit|August 2001|5.01|5|h|1|h Windows experience (XP) 64 Bit|?|5.02|5|h|2|h Windows Server 2003|March 2003|5.02|5|h|2|h Windows Server 2003 R2|?|5.02|5|h|2|h Windows Vista|January 2007|6.00 (build 6000)|6|h0|h Windows Server 2008|March 2008|6.00 (build 6001)|6|h|0|h Windows 7|October 2009|6.01 (build 7600)|6|h|1|h Windows Server 2008 R2|October 2009|6.01 (build 7600)|6|h|1|h Windows 8|?|6.02|6|h|2|h Windows Server 2012|?|6.02|6|h|2|h Windows 8.1|?|6.03|6|h|3|h Windows Server 2012 R2|?|6.03|6|h|3|h Windows 10|?|10.00|10|h|0|h Windows Server 2016|10.00|10|h|0|h If your installer is really based on Windows Vista, it would explain, why it failed with the minimum system requirement regarding memory of Windows 2000. I did not check the system requirement of the processor, but Windows 2000 is fine with a Pentium processor - it does not need a Pentium Pro processor. Windows Vista will not work on a Pentium processor, as far as I know, but I haven't tested it and could be wrong. Legal perspective In your documentation you claim to distribute your project under the MIT license. The files in the iso, on the other hand, seem to be files from Microsoft which are covered by the EULA (not the MIT license). And this brings legal issues regarding copyright. There are only very few countries (like Iran) where distributing files from Microsoft is legal. In some additional countries (like Germany) the distribution is legal, as long as it is done for a scientific purpose. However, when it is not for a scientific purpose (like the general distribution to end users after the beta test is done), then it is also illegal in these countries. So this gets you in the situation, that you can work on your project but you cannot distribute anything to the general public. Which means, you are doing everything just for yourself. It will not serve the Windows 2000 community. As a matter of fact, as long as you keep yourself bussy with this project, you don't work on anything that will be helpful to anyone else. So if all you want to do is install Windows 2000 on a specific computer then just buy a cheap and compatible one on the second hand market. Use it to install Windows 2000 and then mount the hard disc in your favourite computer. It will save you a lot of time. Maybe you could explain your plans about the legal issue if I misunderstood them. Summary The drastic increment of the system requirements make your installer less compatible than a vanilla Windows 2000 disc. Your installer might work for you and some other people which struggle to get through the first phase of the installation. I think it will be difficult to reduce the system requirements as long as you are using so much stuff that you haven't written yourself. The legal issue is very hard to solve if you plan to ship Microsoft's property to end users. It looks as if you are building a spider web. It it useless and you get caught in it. The more time you invest in this project the more difficult it will become for you to let go again and drop the project by coming to the conclusion that all your invested development time is wasted. We had a similar discussion in the discord server a while ago. Some developers started to backport stuff from newer versions of Windows. I warned them about the issue that these files, once completed, could not be distributed to the general public. Folks continued with the backporting. After a while one of the developers involved wanted to announce the progress to the general public in the WinRaid forum (or whatever it is called). His post was quickly deleted. So he posted it here in the MSFN forum where the rules are not enforced so strictly. But still, it would have been much better, if all this precious development time went into something that doesn't need to be hidden somewhere. In politics we have a similar situation with the project "Ukraine". The NATO spent billions and billions into project "Ukraine" and now that nearly everyone knows that the NATO lost the war, they just can't let go. They spend some more billions, send some more ammunition, send some more wonder weapons like the Panzerhaubitze 2000, the Challenger, the Himars, the Taurus. They try to keep Selensky in power for a bit longer but the war is lost. All their spendings are wasted and Ukraine is on the brink of bankruptcy, unable to pay back all the money they borrowed. But they just can't let go, because they spent so much into this project.

There are 2 (or 3) post SP4 Windows updates which fix USB problems during the installation. But, they are both for the second phase when you see the graphical user interface. So my guess is, that Windows 2000 somehow uses the BIOS for keyboard input support during the first phase while you see the text based user interface. KB823086.htm KB829759.htm KB838417.htm

Is there some more information available or maybe a link to a project website?

Yes, Windows 2000 does support the installation of drivers while the Windows installation is still using a text mode. At the beginning of the installation you are being asked to press [F6] to install additional drivers. Is there any specific problem you encountered? Are you looking for a solution to use additional drivers without the need to press a key on your keyboard?

Maybe it's possible to get the universal graphics driver for Windows 2000 running on XP. It supports your J1900 up to 4k while the official driver from Intel supports no more than 1920x1200 I think.