soporific

7-zip has an SFX add-on??!?? --- YES !!!!!! --- go here to grab the add-ons if you are like me and have only just found out (by reading this!) I've confirmed Windows Update says you have all the updates installed when you have run v.1.5 - Seriously, v1.0 of this project was not really up to scratch on so many levels. I hope you like the new version. No, but I'll check it out ...

Sorry about all the environment space probs --- i was setting totally unrealistic spaces to begin with which some systems obviously can't handle. The program now records what the current used space is in the log file (i've added a log function) - and I can report the highest amount I've reached is 897 ... it mostly varies between 500 and 800. I dunno what the unit of measurement is ... bytes? I'll get around to adding more component options, just keep suggesting them ... I may ignore the suggestions but only for a good reason, i promise. The user may as well do that. I'll try my best to include whatever is useful and what I can discern from Gape's work, but I can tell you now that I most likely won't be adding the service pack as it stands. Everything else the autopatcher installs is controlled --- checks are done to see if installs are needed, and log entries are created that specifies exactly what is being installed and I'll lose all of that. This is not a comment on the quality of the service pack, but just common sense. People can run the service pack before running the autopatcher, and all the autopatcher will do is fill in the gaps. So what you did is what others should do also. the first post has been updated with news of the imminent release of v1.5 --- i'm very very proud of this version. It's nearly ready ...

They are the same!! q242937 is actually q269601 q242937 is the kb article number, whereas q269601 is what the update is named as when you install it. It's confusing, I know. That's why q242937 is in brackets at the end of the description for q269601

Sorry, i wasn't clear enough. The example code is ONLY to expose the bug. My point is that there is (always) a temptation to try to save extra lines of code than necessary ... ie to be elegant (method1) IF [logical test] then [do something] :Continue (method2) IF [logical test] then goto [somewhere] goto CONTINUE :[somewhere] [do something] :Continue You would ALWAYS want to use the first method because its less code and less directional label parsing. So you CAN use method1 in all cases EXCEPT when [do something] involves writing to a file - then the bug appears. So, my point is that as it wasn't immediately obvious you couldn't write to a text file as a result of a IF logical test - i was wondering if this had happened to any others ... I admit to adding a red herring when I wrote: :: if for some unlikely reason "C:\notexist" or "C:\exist" already exist on your test system :: change this to something else, and then change the code appropriately but that was from an earlier version of the test that I forgot to delete (it was only comment anyway) but it did serve to confuse you about the point i was trying to make. Now things should be clear ...

thanks for all your tips and info to-date!! and your kind words ... sorry, but I couldn't resist this reply to the above! -- you wouldn't happen to know anywhere I could find a list of obsolete hotfixes, do you?

Fixed

oohh got a good one... consider the following code: @echo off :: tests for the location of the windows directory :: this code works as expected. IF %windir%==C:\Windows goto END Echo. the windows directory is not in the default location. PAUSE CLS EXIT :End Echo. the windows directory is in the default location. PAUSE EXIT and ... @echo off :: write the letter 'Y' to a file called MyFile.txt :: this code works as expected. Echo Y> "C:\MyFile.txt" EXIT My question is this: for people that understand batch file programming, what would you expect the following code to do? (n.b - It is example code, it has no relation to any of my projects!) --- see if you can work it out without actually trying out the code for real --- and then test it. Or just test it anyway to see the result if you have no idea! :: this code is designed to test that :: 2 directory locations match up :: write Y to a file if they do match :: <snipped> it was a red herring!!! @echo off SET mydir=C:\notexist IF EXIST "C:\MyFile.txt" DEL "C:\MyFile.txt" IF %mydir%==C:\exist Echo Y> "C:\MyFile.txt" IF EXIST "C:\MyFile.txt" goto END Echo. the directories do not match up PAUSE CLS EXIT :End Echo. the directories do match up PAUSE EXIT So, who can guess what happens? And don't just guess, tell us why you think your guess is correct!! And no cheating!! Of all the bugs I've had trouble digging out, the one caused by the above code was the most amazing when I realised why it was happening, because IMHO it was so easy to make the mistake. I've had code that had this bug that I just gave up trying to work out why it wasn't working, and just tunnelled around it. So I thought it may be good to see if I'm the only one or if this is a common misconception.

3rd Nov 2006: Added to main list : kb837001, NUSB23e, FdskFrmt Moved to Obsolete list: Usbmte q306453 --- it was already in the main list kb905455 --- what is this? no such kb article kb837001 --- has been added.

thanks for the tip -- i went looking for the download on the M$ site but they've stayed true to form and discontinued offering it for download ... jeessus h mohammed .. Why, oh f**king why, do they have to make life hard? Don't they know we HATE them for this? But then... ... I found out about possibly the best site I've stumbled across this year (a big call for me) - http://www.filewatcher.com/ - all I needed to enter was the most likely filename, which I got easily from google and I got to this! - http://www.filewatcher.com/m/wmencoder71.e...524144.0.0.html - far out I was happy! i'm on the case ... OK, the selectable modules function works a treat -- it was much easier than I thought, and the interface will be very quick to make choices -- actually it may even be faster than using a mouse to click little check boxes - the way it works is the default choices are shown and all you have to do is press the corresponding number to change the option ... actually, why don't I upload some screenshots ... hmmm, good idea, just a sec ... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ there, now you can see for yourself - in the above example, I pressed 8 and the option changed - that's a good set of modules - just press S to start! The other modules (Net Framework, ASPI, Notepad replacement, the IE 5.5 browseui.dll fix) are being tested now and as I go it will be easier and easier to just whack in more options, hotfixes, and 3rd party freeware apps simply as modules that you can unselect at will. version 1.5 alpha will be released soon!! Change log is currently: - summary: the changes from 1.2 to 1.5 are significant !! - a superior file version checking system has been devised that now handles this question of which file to install using a much better method - actually checking the file version numbers and performing arithmetic. there's probably an official way to do this, but stuff trying to decipher how to do that, i prefer the challenge of re-inventing the wheel over trying to understand what Microsoft is trying to tell me, anyday. - the selectable modules function has been added. Its very quick to set which modules you want and then to start the install. I thought it was going to be harder than it turned out. (see screen shots above) - I'm slowly changing over all the checks the program uses to see if an update needs to be applied. As i've said I've worked out my own system of checking for the newest file version when offered a choice during installation, which means the autopatcher won't go 'out-of-date' and be unusable (which it was until this point). I'm probably re-inventing the wheel, but then again the method is pure DOS which can be useful in some circumstances I can think of. - many less reboots are performed due to exhaustive checking whether each hotfix needed it or not. There's still quite a few reboots, sorry but they seem to be needed, but only if you need the updates. A fully patched computer shouldn't install a single thing and won't reboot even once. - a much better distribution of hotfixes into modules. (see screen shots above)

NUSB 2.3 is definitely an upgrade over and above USBMTE, all the files are either the same or a higher file version. The only question would be that of stability, i haven't been closely following the development - are there many, if any, reports of incompatibility? As the update relates to hardware devices I would think there could be more scope for things going wrong, but then maybe i'm the one who's wrong If its all good, which i'm guessing it is, then yeah, go ahead and take the file down ... sorry to give you extra work!

31th Oct 2006: Added download location: Usbmte Added to Obsolete list: q293818, kb913296, kb912919 30th Oct 2006: Moved to Obsolete list: kb910906

Feedback, oh glorious feedback!! Thank you thank you thank you!! I was wondering if I had uploaded a complete lemon and was wasting my time with this project, so thanks for your nice words!! re: ** WMP71: - thanks for the tips and info re WMP71, I will do something similar with the WMP9 module - check to see if WMP71 is installed and install that first before moving on to v9. Ditto the .Net and DirectX modules. ** out of environment errors: - yes, these are the bane of my life. I will be much more thorough for the next release in doing 2 things - clearing variables before exiting batch files, and setting realistic environment spaces. I will also use a ENV space checker to control these errors, rather than let people just discover them for themselves and then are stuck because variables aren't being set. ** Windows update reports you still need updates: - it is my goal and philosophy to get to the point that Windows Update (WU) says you don't need any updates, so can others report on this as well. I will aim to have nothing more to install (according to WU) for the next release. Some of the hotfixes WU reports that you need have actually been superceeded by newer updates. So we install both the superceeded hotfix and the newer one at the same time to fool WU. I have already used this method for installing the following superceeded hotfixes: - q238453 (installed with q269388), kb837009 (installed with kb911567), and kb916281 (installed with kb918899), although 916281 is being stubborn - this always comes up as still needing to be installed even when it definitely has. 918899 is the problem it seems. I also install both versions of kb918547 (the offical and the unoffical). ** Being barred from the system folder: - I don't know what's going on there - just so you know, the autopatcher is basically an automatic hotfix installer. If you manually ran each update and hotfix, you would get exactly the same result if you ran the autopatcher, except where the code says an update doesn't need to be installed, then the update is skipped. So, it seems there's not much I can do ... any info from others on this would be great. YOu made a few other points but they were lost in your post a bit - if there's anything I've missed in my replies above, please restate the question, or clarify for me! Thanks again for the feedback, I was beginning to wonder ... about 70 people have downloaded this thing but they have all been silent so far. Cat got your tongue?

Thanks for the info! Just letting people know: I posted a link to a file version checker a couple of weeks ago on this thread, but it was a big mistake going with it. When using it, it seemed that you couldn't grab the file version number from a VXD file because it wasn't a system library file but a device driver file. But you can. Gape's unoffical service pack uses GETVER which only produces one line of text: the file version, and the name of the file. Much much easier to use for checking purposes. I don't know where to get it without getting the Unofficial sp2 but at least you know its in there. So, this means all my checking code is going to change!! No more using file dates!! Yay!!

update 1.2 for the alpha release of the Autopatcher for Windows 98se is available for download from here: http://z02.zupload.com/download.php?file=g...;filepath=10628

Eck, thanks for the tip, i'll look into it. Ok, the Autopatcher may have a pretty major bug which i'm confirming now. The bug is giving heaps of false alarms about hotfixes looping thru installs ... in my effort to speed up the process I removed a pause from all the registry tests because it looked like I didn't need them ... that was on my work computer which is quite a bit slower than my home one ... and the lack of a pause is stuffing everything up on my super-duper fast machine ... so all those with a 'nighssss' system will probably be writing a rather lenghthy post telling me that every single install that uses a registry check fails the code. Don't waste your time, please. As soon as I can confirm whether or not this was the fault, i'll post again. Sorry about this! EDIT: yep, that was the problem. And when I said 'pause', i meant 'delay' - there was a one second delay after a registry key was exported to a text file that I've put back in. Good news is you don't need to download another 140mb file. Its just 60kb. Again, sorry if you got lots of 'loop thru' messages! And another little bug caused the Hotfix pack no 4 module to not even run. so here's a combined update for the above two stupid mistakes http://z02.zupload.com/download.php?file=g...;filepath=10628

tscharlii, i'm not joking, your story had me on the edge of my seat ... will he succeed in getting his OS to use all his hardware? This is a Microsoft OS we're talking about, so there was immediately some suspense ... I liked how you managed to raise the tension level as you took us thru the adventure ... Very cool of you to add your experience to these forums, thanks for the good read with only 10 minutes to go to the end of my week of wage slavery, I nearly didn't leave right on the dot!!

Hey there 98ers, I am extremely relieved to be able to finally announce the alpha release of the AutoPatcher for Windows 98se. Download it from here: http://www.zupload.com/download.php?file=g...;filepath=47842 or http://mega-file.net/file.php?file=2a9f732...45c27cfdcfaf2b9 (much faster server) See the first post of this thread for more info.

got some more brain teasers... * when you install hotfixes manually, a lot of the time in Windows 98se you are asked to reboot the computer so the OS will use the new system files. My question is this: - what exactly is happening when the system needs to reboot to complete an install. ie what tasks are set to complete on reboot, and how are they carried out ... just the abstract of the process, not the nitty gritty. - can you "stack" up installing hotfixes that would normally ask you to reboot after each one? I know its possible in lots of cases, but I want to know what the restrictions are ... ie if there are 2 hotfixes with different versions of the same file, do they need to be installed separately? Is there a limit to the number of hotfix installs you can "stack up" before rebooting? * under what circumstances can you install Dial-Up Networking 1.4 on Windows 98 se ? - it obviously installs onto a clean install of Win98 with no updates yet installed, but ... - at some stage, you get a message saying "This update was not designed for your version of Windows" - when does this happen? The only clue I have so far is that it might be when you install the dsclient update that it happens, but that's a wild guess at this stage. EDIT: well I can't replicate the "This update was not designed for your version of Windows" message, but I did notice that it produced a boot up error (can't find ndiswan.vxd - your system.ini file refers to a file blah blah blah) - but that was possibly my fault - I'm testing again EDIT2: no bootup error, but it still won't install nicely --- it does on a perfectly clean Win98 installation, but if I try to apply the update after everything else, I get problems ... - seems liek the easiest thing is to repackage the hotfix, but not sure how to go about doing this with the file in question (Dial-Up Networking 1.4 on Windows 98 se) - any help much appreciated. * And what's up with the kb892211 Web folders update? The bloomin thing wants to automatically reboot when I don't want it to!! I am using the /Q:A /R:N switch but it obviously doesn't work. thanks in advance for help --- the honour roll of people I have to thank for helping with the autopatcher is slowly growing ...

thanks again to all who've contributed. All suggestions were investigated, and the list was updated appropriately. 24 Oct 2006: Wanted list: Emptied the list of all except one Added to Main list: q269388, kb892211, UCopy2Gb, UVS6SP6, UCrypt9x Renamed: dsclient to q323455 (for the last time, promise!) Moved to Obsolete list: q238453 Added to Obsolete list: kb840315, q272137 updated info: q242193, q321467 Other changes: deleted q283261 entirely

Is this available anywhere? Has anyone checked it out?

thanks for all the tips and updates to the list ... i've only got about 10 more items in my to-do folder ... then the Autopatcher will be uploaded. promise! 23 Oct 2006: Added to wanted list: q321467, q272137, q242193 Added to Main list: q295629, kb925672, q241084, q243199, q262232, q273991, Renamed: q242937 to q269601 Moved to Obsolete list: q239697, q326728, kb919587 Added to Obsolete list: q242939, q241084, q241134, q249863, q242934, q246387, q251002, q252694, q252958, q258010, q263891, q265334, q267304, q269874, q271811, q284837, q291362, q311430, kb890175, q289635 updated info: Rootsup, kb832353, q245065

I have an interesting question ... I used to juggle the version of WMP i would install on a particular Window 98se system based upon the hardware it was going on. I remember when WMP 7.1 came out, the old 486s would take forever to load media files and it was better to just leave 6.4 installed. So I want to know, and I'm assuming others would as well, what are the pros and cons of installing each version? I would imagine the only pro of keeping 6.4 (with all updates applicable to it) would be doing it purely for speed. But with each version upgrade, just what exactly is the benefit? The main thing I'd like to know is if there is any good reason to just stick with WMP 7.1 and not go any further. The other good one would be to know the same for "series" 9 ... Is there a page with this info on it already prepared? I would definitely take the trouble to compile a table for easy reference for all so any info is appreciated ...

22 Oct 2006: Added: kb824220 & q315575 kb824220 -2003 Aug 08 - 115kb - download - info - Some Web Page Images Do Not Appear When You View a Web Page with Internet Explorer 6 SP1 q315575 - 2002 Feb 27 - 1.26mb - download - info - DCOM Program Hangs After Server Reboot Creating DCOM Object thanks, as always, and all credit to MDGx

you have a sick sense of humour !! a funny one as well ... thanks for the link ... i adapted the info into a little batch file that simply reports if the computer its run on is a laptop or not. If anyone wants to help me confirm the code, download the attachment and run it. All that happens is a certain registry key, if found, is exported to a text file and the existence of it is checked. This happens 5 times. The text file is deleted afterwards. It runs on any version of windows but i'm particularly interested in the results from Win98 machines, obviously. EDIT: i've realised the code is only going to be correct for Win98. I may as well make it correct for all the other OSes. Just a sec ... EDIT: 2 here it is ... Check_For_Laptop.zip

wow, heaps of feedback and help! you guys rock ... Another question: In Windows 98, how can you determine if the OS has been installed on a laptop computer? It should be easy I would imagine, I just don't know ... are there files that get used only on a laptop? or can we determine this some other way? The reason is I want the autopatcher to only install laptop updates on computers that are laptops. People with desktops i imagine will feel that installing those updates is pointless and a waste of space, so if its easy to determine this, I will add this check. Thanks in advance!