soporific

Drugwash: keep digging away, this is really good that someone is verifying my code. v1.91 is now out - report function fixed - report function improved (you will get 2 less "missing" updates) - other small changes (see first post change log)

With regard to Autopach.bat I think you're referring to v1.7 code (i haven't got a copy at hand to check) --- v1.8 onwards already has 2 changes: * there is now only one routine to check for DUN --- before my code was directing to 2 locations * I don't use msdun98.cat anymore because its possible the user un-installed DUN at some stage which still leaves msdun98.cat behind. However, MSDUNSE.INF is deleted if un-installed and so the code now simply checks for its existence. I think this should be enough as i think in 99.99% of cases, either the user has installed the latest DUN update or they haven't. Does anyone know how likely is it that the user has a different version of the DUN update on their computer? I ask as I have no idea if one even exists. EDIT: there is also code for DUN in MainCode.bat but it is not used by any routines anymore. I should delete it from the next release to avoid confusion. PROGRAM CHANGES: I have disabled the 3rd party apps module because the utility I was relying on to process the code is being problematic. I need a utility to be able to search through all directories to find a particular file. I was using LOCATE.COM but i'm having problems with it. It is reporting that the file isn't found when it should be saying the opposite. The only app inside the module was 7-zip so its not the end of the world or anything. Well, maybe if George Bush gets his extra 900 billion (!!) for the war in Iraq it may just be ... The report function has also been improved - it was reporting too early into the install routine, some hotfixes weren't going to be installed but the report said your computer was missing those updates. How stupid is that? The user isn't interested in what was NOT going to be installed, only what's missing that WAS going to be installed. This has now been fixed.

I've run out of ideas --- i tried to install Windows 98 on a Pentium D and it wouldn't install. Yours is a funny one because you got yours to install but you seemt to be having similar problems. I just don't know what else to suggest. Thanks for the feedback! Glad to see this project draws people to MSFN, a similar thing happened to me.

That's very similar to the message I got when trying to install Win98se on a Pentium D --- my motherboard documentation said that only Win2K or higher was poss, but I thought I'd give it a go anyway. The problem seems to be something to do with how the disk drives, and memory components function - I don't know the explanation, but the setup routine couldn't find any RAM (it said I had 2 MB) --- I mucked about changing the hard disk settings, trying different modes, and one of them managed to copy all the files as per normal, but after reboot I got messages about not enough memory. ie very similar to the story above. The bottom line is that the computer is too new and won't support OSes from the last millenium.

Would there be any reason why I get the same message for the Unofficial Cumulative Update for Internet Explorer 6 sp1 (kb925454) AFTER it has been installed ??? (ie i install it, then try to run the hotfix again) -- the message is the same as in the screen-shot I posted a few posts above. Trying to run the OFFICIAL Cumulative Update for Internet Explorer 6 sp1 (kb916281) produces the same message box. This is problematic for anyone wanting to be in harmony with Windows Update. Due to the message box, the official cumulative update for IE6 sp1 (kb916281) cannot be installed and so no matter how many times you go thru the WU process, you cannot get rid of the warning that your PC needs kb916281. This didn't used to be the case.

Known bugs in v1.9 BETA * i've somehow managed to break the report function in v1.9 BETA --- will fix ASAP.

Yes i did, thanks !

OK, there may be two problems here --- 1, there may be a problem with how your computer is processing certain DOS commands, and 2, your computer may be going too fast for a particular routine that is critical for the program to work. In the attachment there is an update to AutoPach.bat that now has a delay included where the problem should be (if the problem is speed). Also included is a replacement start-up file called Manual_Start.bat which should be run from the same location as Startpch.bat --- there is less code to stuff things up. When you run the file it will tell you the instructions but here they are now -- you need to install the program (copying/moving the files is fine) to a specific location which is: c:\autopach The other thing to try is to type out the 3rd last line of Manual_Start.bat in a DOS box and see what happens. ie type %COMSPEC% /E:2048 /C "C:\AUTOPACH\CODE\AUTOPACH.BAT" C:\AUTOPACH Can you give me an example of what you mean? I don't think this is possible because it would mean recording all this other extra info about each update, and I'm just not going to spend my time on that. Maybe I'm wrong which is why i'm asking for an example. I'm not worried in the slightest about long reports. Nope, its: 1. DUN 1.4 Upgrade (Auto-Patcher asks you to install it first) 2. IE6-SP1 3. DS Client for Windows98 I haven't experienced any problems with this order. Anyone comment? If we could somehow get a silent installer for DUN14 we could choose the order. Fix_for_no_start.zip

see the post above

The "Installation count" feature I mentioned in an earlier post has now been implemented. And also I've done a significant clean up of the program code --- my goodness there were some weird leftovers from previous incarnations of this project. But in particular, the program was using multiple locations OUTSIDE of the program location to do some stuff. No more. Only one file is now created outside of the program folder and that is to restart the program after a reboot. It is written to the root of the C drive and is deleted before the end of the autopach process. As soon as I have tested the new code for stability, I'll release a v1.9 update containing all the new stuff. Should be only a few days... i'm probably going to release the next full version as Preview Release 2 and hopefully just rename it to Final if no bugs are forthcoming ... OK, firstly dscsetup.dll won't be on your system becuase its only used to install the update (i didn't check before suggesting it) And secondly, can you confirm you have the LATEST "DS Client For Windows 98" as apparently there are 4 or 5 versions floating around. Use my complete hotfixes list to get the download. If you install that manually and STILL get the update listed as missing in your report, I'll EAT MY SHORTS!! You may need to un-install the old one first, but tell me if you need to do that as that will make things a bit harder.

I got this email from someone just recently, I thought I'd post for the information and hopefully the solution for all to read... Hmmm, OK lets try a few things: 1) Turn on debugging - if you edit any of the .bat files in the CODE folder you'll see a variable setting near the top -- SET DEBUG=N ... change this to SET DEBUG=Y (the text case doesn't matter) --- but in your case this isn't going to help much because your problem is way before any debugging can start. However, I have modified StartPch.bat to include debugging and I've already turned it on. Download the attachment and overwrite the appropriate file in the program folder. Run the program as normal and the two essential variables that should be the cause of the problem will be shown for you to see. Report back how you go and what happened. 2) Find the program directory and open the CODE folder. Now open a command prompt (and you should already be at the CODE folder in DOS) and type "Autopach <Locate>" where Locate is the path to the program directory. Eg if the program is in c:\autopach then use "autopach c:\autopach" and see what happens 3) Don't use the COMSPEC variable in StartPch --- replace %COMSPEC% with c:\windows\command.com or whatever the path is to command.com and see what happens. 4) The only other thing I can think of is that this is a disk drive problem --- and that your shiny new motherboard is making my DOS programming go haywire. See how you go with all that ... Sop. StartPch.zip

Just out of interest, does your computer reboot to the desktop without having to log in or anything like that? I would imagine that for people who have to do something (ie press a button) for the desktop to finish loading would get a wee bit frustrated with all the reboots. There is maybe room to save on one or two reboots, but most of them are still required ... the fact that Microsoft didn't have to do that much to create an OS that didn't have to reboot so often really puts a rumoured quote from one of their hapless way-down-the-corporate-ladder employees into context ... "Windows 98 is a toy operating system" he was supposed to have said --- what does that make WinXP "a toy operating system that doesn't reboot so often"? Heh.

Can you do this step for me please? There is nothing wrong with the .sed file. the_guy sorry i missed your message...

v1.20 - added 8 new tweaks: * Increase your default icon cache size (to 4096) * Change the default behaviour of .reg files from MERGE to EDIT * fix for missing Attrib column in Windows Explorer’s "Details" view * Fix for missing "NEW" command in Windows Explorer, or in right-click menu * Disable CD autorun * Enable CD autorun * fix to restore Windows Explorer’s thumbnail preview capability for most popular image types. * Stop screen savers from forcing restarts of interrupted Defrag operations

Thanks for the tip, I've used nearly the exact formatting you posted. If you have any other ideas about keeping verbosity down while not losing any info, please post ... thanks again. Didn't we pin this down to an earlier version of 98SE2ME? I haven't seen the problem for weeks now... ie I don't have any test systems with that install on it anymore. Shouldn't be a worry anymore ... if you forget about it, so will the rest of us! D'OH !! If you have any idea down the track, I'll be interested to hear ... but it doesn't really matter does it ... Auto-Patcher handles superceeded files elegantly i reckon ... NEW FEATURE: I have added a modules menu option to force the re-installation of all files in the selected modules. Instead of reporting a file is already installed, it skips showing the message and tries again. But this means you won't know which installs are looping if that's what they're doing. So you should really only use this option if you have already run Auto-Patcher once, but it shouldn't matter either way. Adding this feature was mainly for my benefit as it helps troubleshoot problematic installs, but I'm sure there's another good reason to include it just dont' ask me what that reason is -- if anyone thinks of a good one, please post... !

But I HAVE got the new file --- in fact, because of the existence of a newly released update, I've now triple-checked that I was using the newest file. I just did it again - I downloaded the hotfix and did a full folder compare for any unique files between the file contained in the 1.8 version of Auto-Patcher and the newest IE905495 and they are exactly the same. The weird behaviour is that once the hotfix is installed, if you try to just double-click the hotfix, it runs normally. But before it is installed, double-clicking brings up the error msg and blocks the install. This is DEFINITELY with the newest file. Weirdness double extra plus. EDIT: I just found the best site for support for all things Windows!! -- http://aumha.org/win4/index.htm ---MDGx i'm pretty sure you don't have this site in your list of Win98 sites .... and on it I found a list of errorlevel codes --- i'm not entirely sure if these correspond exactly to every hotfix install, but it's the only list i could find at it appears to be correct. Can anyone comment?

Q. How does one change the Windows network Browse Master Settings on a Windows 9x/Me computer? A. The settings for Windows 9x/Me is found at Start, Settings, Control Panel, Network, select File and Printer sharing...(not the button), Properties, Advanced, Browse Master. The available settings are Automatic, Enabled, and Disabled. The default setting is "Automatic." You probably already knew that --- what I want to know is what is the patched state of the systems you're trying to maintain? There are both shutdown hotfixes and also ones for Printer spooling ... there's about 5 you could apply. Apply these updates first if you haven't already! Hey, even better, run the report function from Auto-Patcher on all the towers and post the results (I'm greedy for feedback aren't i?) More good links on BrowseMaster: http://www.duxcw.com/faq/network/bm.htm http://www.chicagotech.net/browser.htm

The log files and report files are the best "easy" thing to do to provide feedback. SO thanks heaps. A feature. When it was still a fairly new feature there wasn't too many modules with options so when someone had finished with the options, I thought they'd prefer to have the toggle reset. Now that there are lots of modules you can set options for, its not so obvious which behaviour to go for. Unless people have huge objections I'm going to leave it as it is. EDIT: OK, I think i've found the first bug in v1.8 --- iWindowze's log file confirmed it for me, and I have already reported it on MDGX's latest updates thread so go there for more info. It is the kb905495 package --- it wont install normally but if you unzip it and manually run the command, it installs fine. The code doesn't catch these types of errors unfortunately (or maybe i can set a errorlevel check, does anyone know?) and so the program will keep trying to install it, no matter how many times you run Auto-Patcher. I have already made my own installer for it so it will be fixed in the next version. EDIT 2: I just finished reviewing the log file I was given by iWindoze and it all looks good. The only other thing of interest was: 18:16:10 -- superceeded title -- OLEDBUP - OLE DB Provider for Internet Publishing Update I don't get a superceeded message on my test systems -- Do us a favour can you? Can you check for the file version of this file and path -- C:\Program Files\Common Files\system\ole db\msdaipp.dll -- my code says it should be 8.102.4004.0 and if yours is later, is it 8.103.4004.0 and if its not, any idea where it came from? Cheers, man. If only everyone would at least do a report on their system, this project would be a millions times more accurate.... EDIT 3: a new feature was just added: when you get reports of superceeded hotfixes, the log file now tells you: * the path & filename of the file being checked for its file version * the file version number * and also the file version that Auto-Patcher wanted to install. This should make reporting back on questions like above much easier... hopefully all people will need to do is post their log file or report file. Here's a sample: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15:18:02 ++ the System Stability Hotfixes module was started -------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15:18:08 -- superceeded title -- q260067 - Mapped Drives Update C:\WINDOWS\system\user32.dll has file version: 4.90.0.3001 The file version Auto-Patcher wanted to install was: 4.10.0.2227 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15:18:16 ++ No titles need to be installed. Environment space now used: 765 (this is usually between 500 and 1000) -------------------------------------------------------------------- If anyone thinks of other useful features, you know what to do... things I was thinking of adding: * a report function that tells you what you HAVE installed (not just what is missing) * the log file to record the number of installations carried out during a particular patching session. Its annoying having to scroll through the entire amount of logfile text looking to see if anything was installed. The only problem with this is it adds more complexity to the install process, and may slow it down a little. Still, I think this would be a great addition ... * automatic access to this project's homepage from the main menu (already added) * a pretty full on feature would be to choose not to install any of the unofficial updates. I can think of a few good reasons why some people might want this. I'll have to work out how to integrate it into the program options so its not something I can just whack in ... * the program does all your housework including mowing the lawn and making cocktails --- now I'm just getting silly, its obvious Auto-Patcher will be better suited to pouring beer and rolling spliffs...

OK I wasn't out of this world. I think there's a problem with IE905495... MDGx: In a VM, in a totally clean install of Win98se, I installed: * Dial-up Networking 1.4 * Ie6sp1 by re-downloading all the files just in case there was something wrong with my version - I downloaded a fresh copy of ie6setup.exe put it in its own folder, ran it, choose custom, selected all the components including all the language files, and started to install --- all 41mb of setup files were downloaded and installed -- I did get a couple of VM type errors so just in case, I forced a re-install of all components and there were no errors or problems. And after all that I tried to manually run the latest IE905495 hotfix and got this message: I spent quite a while tracking down the above and I think I've eliminated all possible causes from my end (ie thats why I described the above in such detail). Any ideas? Could it be the extra language files? I say that cause that's the only difference between Auto-Patcher version 1.7 and 1.8 and this problem was never in 1.7 ... I'm stumped and EDIT --- I still kept at it ... I unzipped the hotfix and ran "ieupdate q905495" from the command line and it installed fine! And just for some more weirdness, I expected to get the same error when I tried to run the hotfix again like normal (ie not unzipping first) but the error message wasn't there anymore and it re-installed perfectly fine --- So I will be able to package the hotfix myself and get it to install, but I still want to know why this happens I'm now officially going bonkers. Thanks in advance for any help with this.

Che Lives !!! OK, let me state that my enthusiasm for this project has been recently greatly renewed ... yay!! ... i dunno, but seeing your project appear on a major download site for all the world to check out, rate, review, etc ... well, it sorta gives you a reason to actually make it as good as you possibly can (not that I wasn't trying to anyway) because so many people will now be checking it out ... its only been up for a day or so and already hundreds have downloaded it, and the page has been viewed by nearly a thousand, so a big thank you to Randy Rivers for uploading the program to SoftPedia (it was you wasn't it?) and it's also listed in the 'Week's best' column to the right of the Windows apps section. Anyway, I now promise to keep developing the program even though I was going to hang up my computer hat, and put on my music hat for most of this year. Looks like I'll be doing both. For those interested to hear what my music sounds like, I've already got 3 finished tunes that i'll find a home for within the week. I'll add the URL to my profile, stay tuned ... So, yeah, i'll be needing lots of feedback .... so i'll add my voice to the call for this project to be stickified ... sticky please?

The original text of this post was out of this world, and thus off topic. Sorry !

Just a really quick bit of feedback --- and maybe this has been improved recently, but the Install Fader effect chews up lots of graphics processing power. For modern systems this is not a problem at all, but for older systems, and especially ones with integrated graphics, the Fader effects significantly slows everything down. A quick fix is to reduce the priority of the process to Lowest but this is a dirty hack as its a bit iffy getting to the task manager in these conditions (ie the computer is already struggling with the fade effects). Maybe Nighwolf has improved this since the last time (maybe the tassie devil can comment), but just in case he hasn't, now you know.

I just wanted to say thanks for your post --- the question of why Auto-Patcher isn't so well regarded by some of the more regulars on forums like MSFN i can only attribute to the fact I'm obviously not a full-on developer, or coder (as my exchange with Tihiy exposed) and/or that Auto-Patcher is obviously a DOS based program. It's a shame really because my project isn't about writing super-duper code --- all it is, is a TIME-SAVER !!! I read on the Neowin forums (which I haven't visited since the crap about using the word "AutoPatcher") that one of the reasons why an AutoPatcher for Window s98 would be so hard (and not worth doing) was the inability to stack up all the installs without having to reboot. ie an AutoPatcher for Windows 98 will SAVE MORE TIME FOR THE USER that an Autopatcher for any other later OS would be. it was why I started the project in the first place -- to save on the hours it usually took to bring a Windows 98 OS up to speed. So all I can say is it is THEIR LOSS. If they want to spend more than a few minutes it takes me to set up the modules I want to install, then they can waste all the time in the world. I would just like to know why people DON'T use Auto-Patcher... as someone has already pointed out, its just an automatic hotfix installer that eliminates the need to wait around while Window s98 reboots. It really beggars belief actually ... PS - I have posted a CD to someone who has kindly offered to host the file. I should have a URL within the week. I have totally given up on free file hosting --- unless someone recommends a particular site, I am just not going to bother wasting my time, and bandwidth.

I want to get to the bottom of your list, please respond to the following questions: 323455: -- the code checks for the file version of negotiat.dll (5.0.2195.4784) --- if you don't have this file, or you have an earlier version, then the report will say you don't have it installed. Since this is causing problems, I am considering changing the file that is checked to dscsetup.dll (5.0.2195.5201) --- so can you please check for the existence of both these files and report back what file version you have I am currently checking the other things you listed, i will adjust this post as I go ...

Let me state for the record that i would easily prefer a GUI interface than what we put up with at present --- when you try to use Auto-Patcher on a system that hasn't got the proper graphics card driver installed, you can barely read the DOS box text even if you maximize it. And even when the display is all good, its still a bit hard to read. The only problem is I don't know how to write the code to make such a thing at present, and I have way too much on my plate to consider dropping everything to learn how. I might a bit down the track, but right now its just not possible. This is actually why I was fishing for partners for this project. My idea was that the other person would be responsible for packaging the project into a GUI format. Any takers?