Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


tomasz86

Unofficial SP 5.2 for Microsoft Windows 2000 (WIP)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dibya said:

Tested under XP . It has some glitch . i should try to fix it.

when it will be ready, isn't it better to have a true add-on for slipstreaming?

Thank you for all the engagement :) although in case of the HFSLIP package I think it will be better to limit it only to official M$ files. At the moment the package strictly follows my website when it comes to the updates included, and is also compatible with vanilla Windows 2000 (without any unofficial updates). For the time being I would prefer to keep it this way as only by doing so I can guarantee wide compatibility. Although I and many other users here are very open to the unofficial kernel, etc. there are still cases (like servers and such) where unofficially modified files are not welcome. I believe that it is still very useful to have such a basic package with all the official updates (and other compatible official M$ files / components) that can be used in any Windows 2000 configuration.

On the other hand, UURollup is where this kind of modified files belong to. However, as @jaclaz pointed out, I tend to be quite conservative as far as adding new files goes. Even excluding all the external factors (like me being busy, etc.) I have never been very quick to update packages like UURollup simply because there is always very high risk of bugs and other system incompatibilities. In a situation where Windows 2000 is not used by many people any more, and only a few people make unofficial packages we always should test every new file thoroughly before installation, and especially files that have been modified since any potential issues may lead to broken systems. In other words, both the risk and the responsibility are very high. This does not mean that I am opposed to new files / components that could improve the system. I just believe they need to be tested very well before adding them to any larger unofficial package. Creating a separate addon may actually be a good way to test the files first!

 

On 2016. 7. 29. at 8:37 AM, LightAlpha263 said:

I have recently set up a file server on Windows 2000 Advanced Server. The machine is an old Dell PowerEdge from around 2003. I installed the OS initially with an official disk. I installed the drivers. I then created an slipstream disk via a (slightly) older version of the HFSLIP2000 full pack. I then 'non-destructive' (I used a slightly different method) reinstalled through that and then installed the latest UUR. All seemed well until took my primary external HDD from my router and plugged it into the server. It installed the device, but it didn't show in "My Computer". I went to Disk Management (diskmgmt.msc) and saw that the driver was "unreadable". I plugged the drive into my Windows 7 Home Premium x64 laptop and the drive worked fine. I then plugged it back into the router and it still worked.

The drive did say it was only 'compatible' with versions of Windows 7 and above, though initially I thought it was that since the HDD was 5TB and Windows 2000 isn't compatible with GPT, only MBR, which I converted the drive to earlier on limiting it's space to 2TB but getting it to work with my router (which since we changed routers, it might have worked with GPT, I don't know and I don't wanna risk reconverting).
 

So, is the drive incompatible due to a larger amount of space than Windows 2000 can handle (even with the unofficial updates)? Or is it a problem with the USB ports on the computer (I tried multiple ports, the drive is USB3 but the ports may be USB2 or hopefully not 1)? What else could it be?

I personally have not used / tested the non-destructive method thoroughly but could you just check whether the 48-Bit LBA support is even enabled? Please follow https://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098 and let me know what the EnableBigLba is currently set to.

As for the USB ports, I believe all of them should be intercompatible. I think I myself even used a USB 3.0 external drive with a computer that only had USB 1.1 ports before. I only had to use a USB Y-cable to make it work :).

Edited by tomasz86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tomasz86 said:

I personally have not used / tested the non-destructive method thoroughly but could you just check whether the 48-Bit LBA support is even enabled? Please follow https://support.microsoft.com/kb/305098 and let me know what the EnableBigLba is currently set to.

EnableBigLba is set to 0x1. I tried plugging the drive in again, but it still came up as "unreadable" in Disk Management. I'm not sure if I have to use a USB-Y cable, or if one can connect into the drive. Also, as far as I know as of now, the drive isn't a drive-sled that can be easily opened up with the HDD in there. It is the size of a typical drive-sled, and I'm looking now as to if I can maybe use the drive inside as an internal drive if I can remove the drive from the case.

UPDATE: There is a way to remove the drive-sled, but this particular drive has a tedious and annoying process as it the drive is very new. I'd rather use USB if I can. What else could be causing the drive not to be recognized? 

Edited by LightAlpha263

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LightAlpha263 said:

What else could be causing the drive not to be recognized?

Check if it a 4 Kb sector "native" drive (less probable), or - more likely - an AF one, those are a PITA with pre-windows 7 OS, particularly when a USB bridge is involved.

Only seemingly unrelated:
 

http://reboot.pro/topic/21130-sector-size-cluster-muck-accessing-1-of-2-wd10ezex-1tb-af-ntfs-disk-under-two-different-interfaces-incl-a-usb-sata-bridge-in-the-mix/?hl=4096#entry199055

On a Windows 7 try the:
fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo <drive letter>

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh848035(v=vs.85).aspx

and post results.

jaclaz
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2016 at 1:19 PM, jaclaz said:

Check if it a 4 Kb sector "native" drive (less probable), or - more likely - an AF one, those are a PITA with pre-windows 7 OS, particularly when a USB bridge is involved.

Only seemingly unrelated:
 

http://reboot.pro/topic/21130-sector-size-cluster-muck-accessing-1-of-2-wd10ezex-1tb-af-ntfs-disk-under-two-different-interfaces-incl-a-usb-sata-bridge-in-the-mix/?hl=4096#entry199055

On a Windows 7 try the:
fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo <drive letter>

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh848035(v=vs.85).aspx

and post results.

jaclaz
 

I'll have to get the drive from my router, as it is connected as NAS drive via the router (which is slow, and why I'm trying to do the W2K file server thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have updated my site today!

I have replaced all the remaining links with direct URLs :). The only remaining non-direct URL is 890830 (Malicious Software Removal Tool) which is updated monthly and I kind of doubt if it even still works in Windows 2000. I should probably check it and remove from the list if that is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2016 at 7:02 AM, tomasz86 said:

I have updated my site today!

I have replaced all the remaining links with direct URLs :). The only remaining non-direct URL is 890830 (Malicious Software Removal Tool) which is updated monthly and I kind of doubt if it even still works in Windows 2000. I should probably check it and remove from the list if that is the case.

Great! Did you speed up the site? I have yet to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tomasz,

Using FF48 on w2k your site is loading super-fast !!!!!:D

Thanks Tomasz & Cheers...

Edited by Hackeronte
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have updated the site again today!

This is an important update as I have reintroduced several unofficial updates to the lists (apart from adding a few other regular / XP updates). I have more updates to add on my to-do list but have not had enough time to process them yet. You can check the changelog for details.

The HFSLIP2000-FullPack.7z has also been updated accordingly. As always, you can find it in the Download Archive in the Windows2000/USP5 folder.

On 2016. 8. 20. at 11:46 PM, LightAlpha263 said:

Great! Did you speed up the site? I have yet to check it out.

Not really, except for some minor fixes :(. The site is still loading slowly simply because the code has grown massively in the recent months. I will probably need to rewrite (simplify) some of the code to really visibly improve the current state but I need more time to work on it. At the moment Opera 12 seems to load the site fastest due to its superior table rendering.

6 hours ago, Hackeronte said:

Hi Tomasz,

Using FF48 on w2k your site is loading super-fast !!!!!:D

Thanks Tomasz & Cheers...

Thank you for your continuing support! :thumbup

It is good to hear that Firefox is working for you as in my case the browser freezes for several seconds while trying to load the site... I rely mostly on Chrome (actually SRWare Iron) and Opera 12 when testing it on my desktop as the two are much, much faster. Of course, I am only talking about the Updates page as the main page is very lightweight and quick to load ;).

Edited by tomasz86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tom

I'm using various versions of  FF portable edition (12, 36, 38, 40, 43, 45 and 48) 'cause it's a much more simple and efficient way to test  if  FF's addons are still working on new FF versions :P

To be completely honest..now that you said it... yes, when opening Updates page freezes for only few seconds ( i thought it was due to too opened tabs: 46 !!! :blink:)

But... nope 'cause i've tried to open it with only 2 or 3 tabs already open and the page is still freezing a bit...:)

I've installed FF 5.1 alpha portable and for the first time on w2k usp52 ext. kern. it refuses to start :angry:

the ERROR is:

firefox.exe - Application Error
Couldn't load XPCOM.
The instruction at "0x00004000" referenced memory at "0x00004000". The memory could not be "read".

Click on OK to terminate the program

i've tried to start the exe with Application Compatibility Launcher but nothing change

Please someone can confirme that is a general problem and not a peculiarity of my W2K + USP52 + EXT KRN installation

THANKS a lot :cool:

P.D.

Obviously FF 5.1a is running smoothely on W7-U-SP1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added a few XP updates / hotfixes to the Updates Lists and removed one obsolete update. Please check the changelog for details. I have also updated the HFSLIP2000-FullPack accordingly.

@Hackeronte

firefox.png

I am getting the same error with my HFSLIP2000 build and BlackWingCat's extended core and kernel installed. If possible, someone please test if the Firefox Nightly 51 runs in Windows XP.

Edited by tomasz86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, spookymulder90 said:

Yes, Nightly 51 works on Windows XP.
http://imgur.com/a/0S7t0

Let us hope then that BlackWingCat will do something about this issue :}.

There is still time as the current stable version of Firefox is 48.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a LOT guys for the quick & efficient reply :)

"...Let us hope then that BlackWingCat will do something about this issue..."

I'm agree with you, Tom.

Thanks again and cheers

hckrnt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2016 at 1:49 PM, tomasz86 said:

There is still time as the current stable version of Firefox is 48.

Not true. Firefox ESR is a version of Firefox that is older in functionality but receives updates. It is an official version of Firefox, and is meant mainly for businesses who are reliant on software still working while remaining updated. Technically, that also applies to legacy systems such as Win2K Extended Kernel.


Download the latest version here: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all/

I have it on my Windows 2000 laptop, and it works great. I also have it on my main laptop for some reason I don't get.

Edited by LightAlpha263

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LightAlpha263 said:

Not true. Firefox ESR is a version of Firefox that is older in functionality but receives updates. It is an official version of Firefox, and is meant mainly for businesses who are reliant on software still working while remaining updated. Technically, that also applies to legacy systems such as Win2K Extended Kernel

You are right but technically Firefox ESR is a specialised release of the browser. Mozilla describes it as follows.

Quote

Firefox ESR is intended for groups who deploy and maintain the desktop environment in large organizations such as schools, governments and businesses.

It is not advertised as a browser for general use and most computer users have no idea it even exists.

The problem is that even if you do decide to use Firefox ESR for now, we still need to get the Firefox Nightly issue fixed because the current branch of Firefox ESR will not be supported for ever.

I am also wondering whether it is the UI or the engine to cause the problem. If it is the former then SeaMonkey or Palemoon could also be considered a viable alternative (especially the first one since it uses exactly the same engine as Firefox).

Edited by tomasz86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×