RyanVM

, it's not like I'm leaving MSFN. I wouldn't want to lose the ability to torment you for your (dis)tastes in sports teams Thanks for the compliments

OK, my little surprise: http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/ I'm going to have this thread locked so discussion can move over to it.

It's something like that that I'm waiting for. I'm also working on some much-needed site updates which will be a rather pleasant addition .

I still say it's because the Windows Installer service isn't started yet.

Can you guys please take the off-topic discussion to a different thread? And .NET probably isn't installing because I'm pretty sure that the Windows Installer service isn't started yet at that point during setup.

I obviously agree with that I'll release 1.0.4 when there's a significant enough update to warrant a release. Creating a new release for two crappy little hotfixes which fix issues hardly anyone will ever experience is a waste of bandwidth in my opinion.

Very confusing do we really need this? Couldn't this be put in another thread maybe? That's why I didn't want him using 1.0.4 as his version number. It's only going to confuse people. Which is why I wish he would have done what I asked him to do. Not that I have any right to dictate such things It happens when you create new cab archives (at least with makecab). If you really want to see for yourself, send me an IM and I can send you some batch files which will allow you to easily see the issue.

Same reason as I included the makecab from the CAB SDK. The versions that come with Windows have a bug where files added to a cab archive have their file creation date changed to the date they were added to the archive.For what it's worth, I performed numerous tests between the CAB SDK version and the version included with XP SP2 and there was little to no difference in file sizes.

It should be noted (as I told him via PM) that my 1.0.4 release will not be matching his when I release mine. I don't consider the two recent hotfixes to be significant enough releases to warrant a new release. hp38guser, as I told you in PM, please name it something other than 1.0.4 to avoid confusion. 1.0.3a would be fine with me.

qchain hasn't been needed since SP1 came out

Straight from the sticky at the top of the page: And use this page to tell you how to run the EXEs: http://unattended.msfn.org/xp/installhotfixes_old.htm ALWAYS check unattended.msfn.org first

You know, that was my suspicion too It's one thing to come to a forum as the new guy and say "I was thinking this should be done, so I went ahead and tried it. Here's my results." It's a completely different thing to come to a forum and say "This is a good idea, you guys should do this." If you want something done, do it yourself. It's the only way anything will ever get done.

kurt, are you volunteering yourself for this job or are you just saying somebody should do it?

What exactly was the point of your analysis?

I'm beginning to wonder if it's a bug with the JVM

Any reason you decided to make a thread about it when the link's already been posted in a few threads, including the sticked thread at the top of the forum?

whole*

I fail to see the point in that. All that means is every time you change a "protected" file, Windows will complain and ask you to insert the CD since it can't find a cached copy of the file.

Indeed, that did occur to me; however hotfixes clearly are able to replace system files which are protected by SFC so it can be done Hotfixes are also created by Microsoft. I have a feeling they know a bit better how communicate with the WFP API Yes, that's the easiest way if you ask me.

You're missing my point. WFP is enabled, but in reality it's effectively disabled since there are no protected files in dllcache. I have yet to see a hacked sfcfiles.dll for SP2 that works correctly.

That would be considerably more difficult, since you'd have to deal with WFP getting in the way.

Yeah I do. It was a typo. It worked on my machine that I had already installed. I think I might have found something interesting. When I tried the runonceex on an already installed OS (installed jre 1.4 from my unattended install, then uninstalled it to simulate no jre installed) it installed ok. At this point I assumed everythign was ok. I burnt the DVD to disc and performed the actual install with my switches as posted earlier and it gove me the message saying the computer should be restarted and I clicked no and it went on ok. The only thing that I can think of is that if there was or is an installation of JRE on your computer it wont force a restart. I am going to test some other witches and post back what I find out. This is certainly VERY interesting. Louis It prompted you to restart because you didn't put a Reboot=Suppress switch in the command line.

Two whole threads below yours http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=32617

Holy crap, learn how to use the enter key. Paragraphs are you friend. And you're probably going to want to visit this subforum as it seems to be more suited to the questions you're asking (at least, from what I could decipher from that). http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showforum=82 Unfortunately, it sounds like you do need both XP Pro and XP Home on one CD/DVD. That's certainly doable. You can leave the CD key out of winnt.sif so you can type it in during setup. That's what I personally do as I use my unattended CD on many people's computers. Whether or not the computer came from the OEM with SP1 integrated shouldn't matter - an XP Home key is an XP Home key regardless of the service pack integrated into it.

The only files in my pack QFECheck doesn't like are the hacked SFC_OS and UXTHEME.DLL files. Every other updated file is protected by WFP. And I have yet to see a hacked sfcfiles.dll for SP2 which actually works correctly. Try this: with WFP enabled, integrate sfcfiles.dll into i386, install XP, then look in your dllcache directory. Even though WFP is enabled, it will be empty except for some CAT files. Not exactly intended behavior