iWindoze

I saw that on OSNews.com when it first come out... Unfortunately I can't believe his suggestions include not installing the latest service pack when, as many of us all know, nLite allows you to slipstream and then strip out most of the above referenced 'bloat' on the system... Also I seem to recall there being a tweak in nLite allowing for a patch made to the installation eliminating the memory check (allowing you to by pass the minimum required memory) add that to the option to install using the Windows 2000 setup routine and I imagine you'll do just fine. --iWindoze

You must love me...I went to the wayback machine and kept punching until I finally came to a working link: [ http://web.archive.org/web/20010515191337/...org/home_en.apg ] This is the first one that works but unfortunately it doesn't go anywehere... ...and all the rest of the ones after that are pretty dead for the most part too. However if you type in his name in Google you eventually come up with... [ http://pchitescu.null.ro/ ] And the software pages are here: [ http://pchitescu.null.ro/software/win32s/ ] Now....bow before the might of my google-fu! (and admit that you could have found it just as easily too if you weren't so lazy! )

You DEFINATELY want to read Black Viper's services guide! [ http://www.blackviper.com/ ] Also if you're feeling particularly adventurous you could mosey on over to [ http://www.nliteos.com ] and try building an XP distro that slipstreams drivers, etc in to the system at install and eliminate alot of annoying services that way...

I had that board for a while...that's the one with the onboard SiS730 video, right? How'd you ever recoup the memory? The board refused to give it up even with a alt video card in...

Tell that to my HP Omnibook 6100... Heh 'Designed for Windows XP' my a**...the ####ing thing doesn't support graphic drivers past SP1...

While obviously you're not going to be going quite this extreme... http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Lib110CT.html http://home.hccnet.nl/pr.nienhuis/Windows.html#Win2Kservices ...these will give you an idea of what's possible!

Doesn't Ieradicator already do what you want here ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some of what I want, yes...but not at install time and note from the top of the page you yourself just linked: Whereas Fred Vorck's method WILL work with Win2000 SP2-5u* and its worked for me in Windows XPSP2 (minus a few breakage points in the 'enhanced' start menu). Also a big sticking point with IERadicator (IIRC, its been a few years since I last used it) Shane Brooks doesn't eliminate the ability of Explorer to convert to IE if a url is typed directly into the addressbar. The method referenced by Vorck is a direct modification to the DLLs themselves via Reshacker and 9x has the big advantage of using this method over 2000 and XP by virtute of its age: Its no longer being updated as frequently so files can be changed with a bit more impunity. Which is one of the bigger reasons why I favor a top up approach-- Starting fresh is simply less headache than trying to cajole the OS into behaving afterwards...surely anyone who has used ROMII knows that...especially as compared to the now defunct 98Lite! -iWindoze

Well like I said Fred Vorck (Can't believe I spelled his name wrong! Has a few ideas as to where exactly the IE parts of the shell in 2000 might be and how to murder IE without sacrificing the shell updates. Here's the links you asked for: [ http://www.vorck.com/2ksp4.html ] Step 20 [ http://www.vorck.com/2ksp5.html ] Step 25 Well I was actually talking about *.exes not *.dlls I'd like to see a bottom up approach definately! Thansk for replying.

I'd like to know if any of my suggestions helped. I'm also curious as to whether he tried simply copying the contents of the XP disk to the hard drive and installing in from there? Either from within 98 or via the dos boot disk he started the 98 install with...

What kind of Hard disk is it (Serial ATA, ATA, IDE, etc) and what kinds of connections are being used by the optical drives? This is a brand new machine you say? Yet it had all kinds of viruses on it? Strange...was it one of Best Lies infamous 'open box buys'? I ask because I got burnt on my first computer from them in just that way. Ummm...this is probably a down question, but regarding the viruses--are you installing while connected to the internet (broadband?) If so disconnect and try installing again. About the XP cds you have (we'll ignore the reference to corporate, simply because we too own a copy of corporate despite being in line to buy our own copy of home edition that cold Sunday morning... We simply got tired of asking Mommy permission to try out Linux or do a reformat when the viruses\spyware came calling...but anyway--) have you slipstreamed your XP with any of the service packs? Do you have anything plugged into the USB port? You mentioned that this is an AMD processor, well in my experience AMD boards are usually built on VIA motherboards and those always seem to have issues with USB for some reason. (Only in my personal experience!) Do you have onboard sound? Onboard video? If so try going into the bios and seeing about turning off the sound. (If its onboard video leave it be for now or you'll be in trouble!) Turn off serial ports and printer ports and see what happens. Turn on 'plug in play bios' if its off (turn it off if its on?) See if you have the OS2 memory thing on for some ungodly reason? Play with it. There shouldn't be any reason for Windows 98 to work when XP fails...I'm assuming you're online now using Windows 98? If so, try downloading the 'Ultimate bootcd' [ http://www.ultimatebootcd.com ] and see if you can test your memory to see if its some how corrupted. Try out some of the other tests you can perform with that disk too. The cd comes with several hard drive testing\formatting utilities - use them to see if the hard disk is damaged, check the disk with the virus scanners included. Like I said play around with it a little and see if anything helps; otherwise make a copy of your receipt and take the thing back to Best Lies and tell 'em you want a new machine. If they'll honor the warranty...you DID get the 'Xtra EXTRA extra warranty' right? --iWindoze EDIT - finished my explaination for having my own copy of Corporate

Speaking of Fred Vork... Would this be useful in finding out exactly which registry keys are required to run the NT4 shell in Windows 2000? (And eventually one could hope in XP too..)

Okay thanks for clarifying my misconceptions there on Setup.exe. I had read that all setup.exe does is launch a mini win3.x enviroment to copy files and provide a temporary gui for installation. I see that what I read is only half the situation. From my misconceptions I had the thought that the way to go would be to bootstrap a mini W9x enviroment and go from there, that no being the case then .infs are where I want to go. Hmmm.... Alright, then but please understand I'm not the fan of IE you seem to think I am...I only want IE for its updated files and then to make the rest of it go away as quickly as possible. I was hoping that once IE was installed (or at least the essensial files needed for updates) it could be modified ala Fred Vork's Win2000 RegInstall tips in step 19 (I think it was) of his project. I want\need the GUI shell enhancements of IE but don't want to pay for them by accpeting the rest of it. If there were a way to just add the files needed and reshack the #### out of them so they don't make all those directories in /Windows I'd be the happiest man on Earth. Well that's basically where I'm going...I'd like to do 'strange' things with the system though, like provide for installing the '/program files' folder at a different directory ala the way setup.exe currently asks for the /Windows location. Also I'd like to make the default install install certain files in a different location, either at /Windows/Command or if I can do it without breaking too much I'd like to make the setup put everything in '/Windows/system' ... and of course not install certain items at all! Like the whole 'Welcome to Windows' or the old RealAudio files..not to mention the WebTV stuff which seems to be inhereintly broken...unless someone knows of a way to fix it up ala Windows MCE? Ahh...well THIS is it exactly. I'd like to see about creating a whole new version of Windows 9x. I've tried before (I mentioned my first foolhardy attempt in my first post) some time ago and got some (limited) good results as long as I installed IE 6SP1 before allowing setup to continue. I'd like to try again with a little more enlightenment at my side. I'd even like to see what could be done about creating some kind of front end to this ala 98Lite (which to all extents and purposes seems dead) and make it freely available to the world. The trick (IMHO) is to get something that can be run on a proposed 98Setup directory and make all the changes from there with the user typing 'y' ala MGX's 98SE2ME which does just that. The difference would be that once finished the program\bat would exit out leaving a completely patched directory with everything ready to be used. You could burn the directory to disk with some extra tools (although that shouldn't be necessary) and when you installed the whole thing would run from start to finished and exit out with an updated (in all senses of the word) desktop. Drivers ect allready installed. Something that would be soporific's work on steriods.... Something that would use Tihiy's 98Revolutions Pack from the get go. Something...I think you get the picture...

Thanks for the tough love. I want to clear up one misconception though. I wouldn't be the one to try and do this. I'm simply not a programmer. I wish I were, it'd allow me to make some serious cash with some of the ideas I have floating around in my head. About Gape's service pack, I'm not actually focussing in so much on what Gape does (much as I am greatful beyond words for his work) I'm thinking more of on the level of stuff that Tihiy does or the kinds of things that are done by MGX's 98SE2ME app. I actually based things on MGX's list when I tried my earlier experiment in slipstreaming ME files in to 98SE. This was before the 982ME app was released and we all had to hack into things ourselves. What I'm focusing in on is doing things like adding and upgrading the actual OS. Things that 98lite did on the inf level can only go so far before they run into limitations in microsoft's setup.exe. Things like adding IE6SP1 at install time simply can't happen because setup.exe says so. You can't change around system file locations until after the system is installed because certain things are hard coded simular to the way Windows 2000 Service Packs could only be slipstreamed form a certian locations. I'd like to be able to install IE6 at install...ditto on Direct X. I'd like to do a lot of things that are required to improve system behavior semi-automatically.

I've been watching allthe efforts to learn and understand the 9x series of Windows (actually my favorite version, minus a few features I really enjoy from XP such as cleartype) and I was wonder what is to stop someone from creating our own setup.exe for Windows 9x? Instead of using Win3.x to install we could build an installer based on the work being done to build a 5mb windows. Then it would be just a matter of copying files to their proper locations and telling the registry where to find everything. I'm curious if this would be a better way to make a Windows 9x system that is fully updated at install time? I've tried using the various updates and MS's cab tool to create updated cabs for install and those seemed to work right up to the point where the system screamed for IE ...I actually managed to work my way around that issue by changing the shell to taskman.exe and installing IE6SP1 and the continuing the install after reboot by switching shells again. When I tried to do something simuliar with Gape's service pack and IE or maybe it was some WinME files? Setup complained about invailid beta needing an EULA or something. It occurs to me that we'd get around a lot of restrictions if someone were able to build a custom Win9x installer that were capable of using the best parts to build the system. Any ideas here anyone or have I just been awake too long?

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=51627 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do'h! I can't believe I missed that one! Thanks for the response...the thread seemed to mostly indicate that a hardware firewall was recommended, that's not exactly a possibility at the moment...do you know if its possible to be 'safe' running without one on 98SE2ME? Thanks again! -iWindoze

While I like the idea behind RyanVM I still voted for Autopatcher... Simply because as mucha s I like RyanVM there is not as of yet a known way to install the updates (via slipstreaming by way of nLite) without having to accept the whole package. At least with Autopatcher I can pick and choose which components I don't want to install. Perhaps this will change when he releases his own tool to do the patching\slipstreaming with... -iWindoze

I don't know that this *will* work, so make a copy of your file and try this on the COPY first, so as not make any mistakes and possibly lose your file! @_;; But have you tried (assuming that the rar archive isn't itself holding a single file in which case this wouldn't have worked anyway, but assuming that this is a RAR archive which contains smaller files all of them smaller than 1 gig or so, try) seeing if you can convert the huge RAR archive into a series of 100mb multipart self extracting archives. If that doesn't work or if its indeed a case of the RAR archive is only a container for another large file, say a DVD iso, then your best bet assuming you have a cd-burner would be to make a few 100mb archives with WinRAR and burn them all to cds, then take your cds to the local cybercafe\kinkos and see if they have a DVD burner you can use to burn your file with... Hope this helps, or at least points you towards something that could help you... --iWindoze

A bigger drawback is the fact that you're required to be in either Windows 2000 or XP in order to use it, although I can't tell how much of that is a Microsoft fault and how much of it is simple limitations on what nLite is capable of. As for the runtime requirements, pls take a look again at the site, they've managed to knock that requirement down to a mere 4mbs in a installer that will install only the files nLite ACTUALLY requires...so you can see why I'd think the OS is a bit more of a limiting factor than the runtimes, right? That said, to me one of the bigger advantages (also can be a disadvantage at times tho') is nLite's ability to remove files from being installed without still requiring them to be present on the install cd--something that 98Lite\LiteXP can't hold a candle to. It comes down to using the right tool for the right job after having weighted all the pros and cons. --iWindoze

Hello, All.... I've just recently picked up a HP Omnibook 6100 Laptop and am trying to decide which OS to install on it. I have Win98SE and I have Win2000 as well as WinXP (SP1a and SP2) what I'm trying to decide is which of these OSes is more secure by default. While I'm knowledgeable enough about them all to do basic locking down of the OS (antivirus, hosts, Spybot, ect ect) I'd like to get an opinion on which is more secure by default, any opinions? NOTE: Assume that Win98SE has been brought up to date w/ all patches installed-that's the default I mean, obviously trying to put an unpatched direct from the install 98SE on the net would be insanity. Also I'm still making up my mind as far as whether or not I'd install the system sans IE via 98Lite so that has some bearing to the discussion. Mostly I'm asking about services and such. --iWindoze PS: I've been able to get around some of my istall issues by using an older drive image of Win98SE to install from, but does anyone know how to work around the issues Setup.exe seems to have with the Omnibook? It loads itself, checks the hard drive and freezes up dead when attempted from within DOS...

Hello, All.... I've just recently picked up a HP Omnibook 6100 Laptop and am trying to decide which OS to install on it. I have Win98SE and I have Win2000 as well as WinXP (SP1a and SP2) what I'm trying to decide is which of these OSes is more secure by default. While I'm knowledgeable enough about them all to do basic locking down of the OS (antivirus, hosts, Spybot, ect ect) I'd like to get an opinion on which is more secure by default, any opinions? NOTE: Assume that Win98SE has been brought up to date w/ all patches installed-that's the default I mean, obviously trying to put an unpatched direct from the install 98SE on the net would be insanity. Also I'm still making up my mind as far as whether or not I'd install the system sans IE via 98Lite so that has some bearing to the discussion. Mostly I'm asking about services and such. --iWindoze PS: I've been able to get around some of my istall issues by using an older drive image of Win98SE to install from, but does anyone know how to work around the issues Setup.exe seems to have with the Omnibook? It loads itself, checks the hard drive and freezes up dead when attempted from within DOS...

Sorry for raising the dead here, but I've been searching the forums for info on a certain something and ran across this post, since I happen to know that work has begun on something much like what was requested here's a few links: soporific's Unattended and Updated Boot CD for Windows 98... http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=49892 Tihiy's Windows 9x Revolutions Pack.... http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=39333 Hope this helps!

To do that you'd want to make a boot disk with a customized autoexec.bat to start the setup.exe in dos mode...something like: D:\winme\setup.exe then (once you've verified that the boot disk finds your cdrom, the setup files in the proper directories, ect) you'll want to make a disk image with WinImage and choose it as the bootable disk when you reburn the files in Nero or whatever burning program you use.... I'm sure someone else can specifiy a better way to find the cd-rom drive than this tho' perhaps you can figure it out a way from reading sophorific's code in the unattended update cd-install thread..? -iWindoze PS: This still doesn't address the bigger issue of how to specifiy where the older OS files are so that setup will quit bugging us about them.

Where? I've used the program...I've yet to see this option! I admit to having used the version that came with my Win98SE disk, is there a different version which I should have used? Please reply, I'd like to know how to do this! As it is now the batch just times out into a 'Setup has examined the directories and failed to find...." that allows me to manually specifiy but defeats the whole purpose of having an unattended install! --iWindoze

Agreed, I've been doing this for quite awhile now myself; Still, do you or anyone else here know of a way to specifiy which directory to use in an unattended MSBATCH.INF install? --iWindoze

Thanks for the info on DX9, I'll give my process another look and see if somehow I knocked off those extensions by mistake. As for the cdshell.ini the trouble appears here: print c "\n& #092;c I think that the text editor you used was using its own fonts and the thing didn't translate too well... I hope this helps. I'll try and copy my cdshell.ini tothe laptop next time I get home and see if I can post my 'corrected' version. Take your time on it; the rush has faded and while I still want to learn, I'll just have to take things step by step--impressing my fellow geeks at my home town will have to wait for the next visit. --iWindoze