Can there be Setup modification project? like 98Lite?

[lama]

98Lite is a fine example but it was shutdown by shane (reasons are obvious) but instead of creating post installation updates, patches, INF, projects, is it NOT easy to modify installation setup files? Something like nLite? that gives option to integrate different official, unofficial patches, modified INF files, drivers? etc into setup files? This method saves lots of time of an average user going thorough @#$%& "reading!!!!"

I look at MDGx's pages at beginning then I scroll till the bottom of the page (to see how much information I've to read) then, I quit and get lost and leave the entire purpose of me being here... (which is install 98) why? I would go crazy if I've to read so much...

I did installations of W98 so many times but going through this, its just too much . If guys can create unofficial SPx, they can surely create nLite-like package that installs their SPs before installations (into CABs or something)

Edited July 21, 2009 by Tarun

[CLASYS]

98Lite is a fine example but it was shutdown by shane (reasons are obvious)

I am the chief instigator of [among other things] getting 98lite SLEEK support put into the 98SEUSP2.1a. [You'll see an acknowledgment to me in the installation pages as you start the SP up.]

I still use 98lite, and was one of the most prolific people attempting to get him to make a stable version 4.8 that would actually work, i.e., a "V2" implementation of the SLEEK shell. To this day we still have a paradox:

1) The SLEEK shell works perfectly fine in terms of file maintenance tasks. Without SLEEK, even with all of the kludges using files from IE55SP2, once you install IE6.0 or SP1, you never get stability. This is not a 98lite issue, just that IE60 was never truly compatible with any Win9x system, period. So, you have to stop at IE55SP2 if you want stability, or use IE60 and suffer from always just barely stable [as long as you don't do too many operations that slowly kill memory. Tip: A band-aid is to turn off display windows contents while dragging].

Of course there are minor issues of the Win95 shell having little silly problems such as the inability to properly size large directories [over 4 GB] but that's purely cosmetic, and of course the total lack of such things as a property-sheet-oriented "My Documents" icon, but I would gladly use sleek over CHUBBY or OVERWEIGHT because it runs rock-solid.

I did all of the valiant effort to attempt to patch literally dozens of apps to be sleek-compatible with the shell32.w98, only eventually to be thwarted as newer versions came out that just couldn't be satisfied. [And that includes all sorts of stuff that could only be fixed after they were installed and crashed!]

I was instrumental in showing shane all of the gyrations of how to shoehorn in IE60 [any version] using the original patched LOADWC.EXE I created, and he was working on integrating it in. I still use my own procedure to get IE60 installed on SLEEK; I have some systems I cannot use anything else on due to meager resources, etc.

On faster systems, I still use CHUBBY because there is no downside; once you are using the 98SE shell, the IE-related damage is done, mitigate it as best as possible, and move on; all the apps will just install, etc.

However, all the above said, if anyone is interested, I can post the procedure to get 98lite to install IE60 [sP1 preferably]. It is not straight-forward; a major user-level disappointment of the product, but it *does* work. Here's in outline form what to do:

1) The one most people would want to use:

a ) Install 98SE straight. If you want, you can update the drivers, etc.

b ) Repair install over the freshly installed 98SE, this time starting up the 98lite install instead.

c ) Install IE60 SP1; fix it the best you can, a topic for all win9x that does not use the 95shell [sLEEK "V1" as I call it].

d ) Make a sizeable bunch of small patches, TweakUI stuff, and some .reg files I wrote to do the stuff that cannot be done without regedit, etc.

Done that way, you get full app compatibility, and some 98lite improvements, just not all. Most notably, you get the IE desktop icon in an unbroken manner. [in WinME, it's often broken, again an issue beyond 98lite.] A small few desktop folder settings are modestly unstable, and can easily be put back; this could be an issue beyond 98lite, and could be driver-dependent [especially video].

I of course use a lot of the Me files that improve stuff, most notably scanfrag stuff.

For the more "adventurous" types, a far-more involved install is to first install SLEEK on the first and only install. This involves a lot of the tricks mentioned above, but is only the start of things. You then need to shell swap to CHUBBY. Then you have to reinstall IE60SP1 repeatedly until you get it to issue a proper message; this usually takes a total of three passes at an install! Once done, you have to apply a registry patch I derived to get most of the cosmetics and property sheet for the desktop IE icon to work, and of course eventually do all of those IE-related shell problems since SLEEK is not in the picture.

However, it is apparent that the cleanest install of IE60 paradoxically is when the SLEEK shell is in effect, despite MS's prevention of installing IE60 on Win95. Once this is done, the long-way-around to CHUBBY can commence, along with a somewhat larger laundry list of patches, etc.

And one over-reaching point: Other than the designated shell swaps done exactly once if at all, NEVER swap again!

It's all stable, albeit messy to perform, and I have profusely documented the procedure. The only remaining issues are:

SLEEK V2 never worked. For unknown reasons, it is incompatible with some seemingly unrelated aspects of explorer.exe that get confused and either crash or hang. It accomplishes all of the major goals, but he was never able to devote enough time to solving the other problems, whatever is causing them. I have the patched files themselves, and they are quite easy to apply from DOS, but it makes random other things crash frustrating our efforts to get SLEEK to also be compatible, etc.

ME compatibility was never finished. I created some batch files to fix what was overlooked; how to patch the relevant files was straight-forward. The only implication to the above is of course the lack of MS-DOS being available, so you need to dual-boot to change files, and if you use the SLEEK-then-CHUBBY method, you may have to install IE60 as many as SIX TIMES! And as I said, only the recommended method gets you a "pristine" desktop icon, wierdly enough.

cjl [back to msfn after a serious and long illness, largely overcome]

[lama]

98Lite is a fine example but it was shutdown by shane (reasons are obvious)

...To this day we still have a paradox:

This is 2009 and there are certainly many things discovered of W98 (patches for newly discovered problems exist). There are new ways to integrate drivers (software like Driver Magician show basics of such if nLite doesn't to you). 4.7 maybe the last but if we consider adding current available patches (USBz, INFs, default VGA drvs etc) there can still be 4.8 of current date

[CLASYS]

98Lite is a fine example but it was shutdown by shane (reasons are obvious)

...To this day we still have a paradox:

This is 2009 and there are certainly many things discovered of W98 (patches for newly discovered problems exist). There are new ways to integrate drivers (software like Driver Magician show basics of such if nLite doesn't to you). 4.7 maybe the last but if we consider adding current available patches (USBz, INFs, default VGA drvs etc) there can still be 4.8 of current date

Can you elaborate about 4.8? All I have is a provisional 4.8 that literally has bugs in it if you want to just not address the SLEEK V2 situation. Unless you are attempting to do that [which doesn't even fully work] it is a step backwards for all of the other situations that work perfectly fine, as long as you are willing to apply all of my variant steps, etc. Or are you merely suggesting there could theoretically a 4.8 version that could work [based on a lot of hand-waving]?

cjl

ps: Another SLEEK paradox: The Recycle Bin empties really, really fast underl SLEEK. All other ways to run 98 up are really slow, especially if you have multiple partitions.

[lama]

98Lite is a fine example but it was shutdown by shane (reasons are obvious)

...To this day we still have a paradox:

This is 2009 and there are certainly many things discovered of W98 (patches for newly discovered problems exist). There are new ways to integrate drivers (software like Driver Magician show basics of such if nLite doesn't to you). 4.7 maybe the last but if we consider adding current available patches (USBz, INFs, default VGA drvs etc) there can still be 4.8 of current date

Can you elaborate about 4.8? All I have is a provisional 4.8 that literally has bugs in it if you want to just not address the SLEEK V2 situation. Unless you are attempting to do that [which doesn't even fully work] it is a step backwards for all of the other situations that work perfectly fine, as long as you are willing to apply all of my variant steps, etc. Or are you merely suggesting there could theoretically a 4.8 version that could work [based on a lot of hand-waving]?

cjl

ps: Another SLEEK paradox: The Recycle Bin empties really, really fast underl SLEEK. All other ways to run 98 up are really slow, especially if you have multiple partitions.

Well, you guys have given up already (which doesn't change much of what I've said). If you're trying to tell me that you're stuck, right then... I'm not arguing you're not or something In my eyes, its cool to make something like nLite (integration of INF, un-official stuff etc). This is rather solid way to keep and grow W98 community such as this one...

Unless you're suggesting nothing should be done and no one is interested in it (the poll has good results on that one) I admit its a "hard" job but "doable"

[submix8c]

"Integrating" various items into 98 is not that easily done since all of the modules are in CAB's as opposed to 2k, XP, (etc.).

Is this the suggestion of the Poll? If so, then it's a lot easier to remove than to insert components (etc). Resources abound here at MSFN (and elsewhere) to "automate" but not "integrate". Not worth the effort to attempt "true integration" as this subject has been brought up many times before with the same "debate" being raised. "Integrated" items would have to be re-CAB'ed according to the original INF's into non-standard CAB sizes, not to mentioned added/removed modules.

The only other alternative is to extract from the CAB's, compress all the modules (as in 2k,xp, etc), modify all the INF's accordingly, not to mention the method of "expanding" the modules (not inherent in the 9x-series CAB methodology), among other "stumbling blocks".

IMHO. a pointless task as methods like the above-mentioned USP, the UBCD-98SE project (since removed from MSFN due to restrictions), and AutoPatcher-98SE (topic still available) fit the bill nicely.

Sooo, to put it bluntly, the idea was never "given up" on; simply not worth the effort. Check around in the forums and you'll see what I mean... And if you want to do it, go ahead - feel free!

p.s. - If you notice, the USP is in CAB format as well.

Edited June 21, 2009 by submix8c

[Session]

I still use 98lite, and was one of the most prolific people attempting to get him to make a stable version 4.8 that would actually work, i.e., a "V2" implementation of the SLEEK shell. To this day we still have a paradox:

...

...use IE60 and suffer...

...

You're using SLEEK V1 interchangeably with 98lite's sleek shell-swap option. I thought SLEEK Vx was a buggy attempt to improve program compatibility by leaving shell32 as-is and pointing explorer and comdlg to shell95.dll.

Of course there are minor issues of the Win95 shell having little silly problems such as the inability to properly size large directories [over 4 GB]...

Controller has a 95 shell update that fixes this...

[sp193]

I thought SLEEK Vx was a buggy attempt to improve program compatibility by leaving shell32 as-is and pointing explorer and comdlg to shell95.dll.

You're right. However, it did cause many bugs in windows....possibly because some part of the explorer shell still pointed to the Win98 shell32.dll instead of shell95.dll. So I supposed that it was deemed to be a failure.

That's why I've developed SH95UPD to solve the Win95 shell32 missing exports problem with 3rd party programs.

Controller has a 95 shell update that fixes this...

Really? I looked over that page but didn't find such a patch...maybe I've missed it. =(

I do agree that we need a setup modifier GUI for Win9x as inexperienced users find editing and modifying the Win9x setup files a challenge (But I suppose it's still easier than modifying WinNT by hand?).

Edited June 24, 2009 by sp193

[bristols]

Controller has a 95 shell update that fixes this...

Really? I looked over that page but didn't find such a patch...maybe I've missed it. =(

It's here:

http://ctuser.net/download.php?win98pro,sh...patch_0504a.zip

From this web page:

http://ctuser.net/content/docs/win98pro_en.htm

[Session]

That's why I've developed SH95UPD to solve the Win95 shell32 missing exports problem with 3rd party programs.

Using it.

I have a small compatibility list for your thread if you want.

Controller has a 95 shell update that fixes this...

I see now that it was probably fixed in OSR2, as the patched 95A shell doesn't do it and Controller doesn't mention it.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Session

[sp193]

I see now that it was probably fixed in OSR2, as the patched 95A shell doesn't do it and Controller doesn't mention it.

Agreed. There was no such patch.

Well, I don't use Windows 95 OSR2.x but I do use the shell32.dll 4.00.1112 (From Windows 95 OSR2.x) under Win98SE, and it still mis-calculates the file sizes that are greater than 4GB....(The file size would wrap round at 4GB, hence this shows that MS had only made the SHELL32.DLL to use 32-bits)

Using it.

I have a small compatibility list for your thread if you want.

Great to hear that! Thanks.

Edited June 27, 2009 by sp193

[lama]

OK, I found a nice information on MSBATCH.INF file from microsoft techNet (HERE) basically you can add many registry settings, modify any files inside Windows folder, and Root folder (ex msdos.sys disable all LOGs etc and inside Windows, modify important files so there is 2GB support (RAM) etc) Registry tweaks are also possible....

Now INF and all can be integrated easily... use WINRAR to find all the INF files inside cabs and then extract particular CAB, add extra INFs and rebuild CABs

This is definately not that HARD... so, I'm still wondering why such thing was never made? though I'm doing many thing as of now...

[sp193]

This is definately not that HARD... so, I'm still wondering why such thing was never made? though I'm doing many thing as of now...

I agree that it isn't very hard, but is is really easier with a proper GUI to help you, and especially inexperienced users. Have you used nlite before and seen how easy it is to integrate new drivers and SPs?

Now INF and all can be integrated easily... use WINRAR to find all the INF files inside cabs and then extract particular CAB, add extra INFs and rebuild CABs

You can't just add a .INF into Windows setup CAB files and expect it to execute normally. You will need to modify SETUPPP.INF to include your added INFs, and modify LAYOUT.INF to upate the new size of SETUPPP.INF or setup will think that the file is corrupted. However, improper modification may result in a unstable, or unusable Windows installation (Due to broken dependencies, incompatible files, or simply due to a simple syntax error in setup's files).

It's easy for people who have done it before, but not for those inexperienced users.

That's why we need a GUI to make it easier to modify Windows setup.

Edited July 1, 2009 by sp193

[iWindoze]

This older thread should prove interesting for anyone seeking to actually give doing this a go: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=81068

--iWindoze

[lama]

now that link is so 2006 and still no GUI for inexperienced but then again... its too late for that i guess. When i talked about INF, I was hoping W98 setup would search for INFs (ICH7) at that detection moment (since right now, after setup reboots, I manually put those in INF folder)

Now I'm only interested due to the fact that I recently 'successfully' installed w98 (add to that, after 4 years of constant failures).

My system currently has XPx86 (with fully 8GB RAM usable) + Win7 RC + OSX 10.5.7 + W98 2222 (which looks cool after all these years)

Edited July 2, 2009 by lama