dirtwarrior Posted July 15, 2005 Share Posted July 15, 2005 you are doing great things for win 2k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
war59312 Posted July 16, 2005 Share Posted July 16, 2005 Indeed he is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2forza Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Indeed he is!<{POST_SNAPBACK}>agrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgelmeyer Posted July 19, 2005 Author Share Posted July 19, 2005 (edited) Ooops---- Edited July 19, 2005 by Gurgelmeyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgelmeyer Posted July 19, 2005 Author Share Posted July 19, 2005 Thanks guys Started to really test the non-slipstreamed setup myself, and found a few issues that I'm working on. Installing on W2K Gold/SP1/SP2 is quite complicated because of the MSI upgrade to version 2.0. Anyway, it works now. Got a few more issues that need fixing - thanx to the beta testers That reminds me: I'm gonna keep MSI 2.0 in the unofficial SP5 - I'll explain later.Did this logo between clockcycles http://www.imagerage.com/pictures/7fO91770.jpgBest regardsGurgelmeyer B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railman5 Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Question for FDV.Trying to follow your guide to Win2k SP5 and in your list it says to download MSXML 4.0.when you click the link to Microsoft you have several choices.which one do you mean we downloaad?picture attachedthankx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pene Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 (edited) @Railman5: 1. Wrong forum, you should ask at http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=321252. Fdv's page is not updated for the latest version of the hfslip script, follow the instructions in the zip file you downloaded from his page instead. You will also find there the answer to your question.Regards,Pene. Edited July 19, 2005 by pene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railman5 Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Cheers Pene.engaged typing fingers before reading all the stuff in the pages first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoak Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Wow Gurgelmeyer it sounds like you're really going "balls to the walls" and that this may in fact be the best patched and most correctly updated iteration of a Microsoft OS ever! For anyone that doesn't already know; Microsoft updates, patches, fixes, fix packs, rollups, hot fixes, and service packs employ a messy hodge-podge of installers, scripting technology and technique where a lot of cheap and dirty shortcuts have been employed just to "get it done" -- with very uneven results; a fix may not even get applied, or worse actually do more harm then the issue it was intended to address; we still see this today with even the most recent updates from Microsoft for it's most recent Operating Systems.It would appear our quiet hero is taking the longer, harder, and less traveled road to do the job "right" and is doing it virtually single handed... The results are certain to be appealing, and will definately be a nice touch and soften the blow of Microsofts abandoning it last clean OS design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdv Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Hoak - just clarifying. This is only a solo effort to avoid duplication of effort. By and large it is possible to grab the regedits from the rollup's UPDATE.INF, add them to the SP4 UPDATE.INF, compress the rollup files individually using makecab, and drag-drop-replace into the SP4 folder (after having expanded with /X). For files that don't exist in SP4, the rollup's INF has the details on target locations; these may be added to SP4's UPDATE.INF. That's why updates to things like MDAC will be in his option pack, as he notes at the start of the thread.The post-rollup files that may then be added can be found listed elsewhere on MSFN. Letting your computer create an integrated Win2k is detailed here (skip step 8 if you like Internet Explorer). The trick is avoiding a Cease and Desist letter from Microsoft when offering an unofficial SP5 binary, though the maintainer of the Windows 98 service pack seems to have gotten away with it Guglemeyer - That's great news that you've also found the method to trick WinUpdate into seeing that the rollup files are present. Not an easy fix I think you'd agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoak Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) Sorry, having read the thread in entire I think you're trivializing what Gurgelmeyer is doing. He's not "only" doing this to "avoid a duplication of effort"; he has also run down dozens of hard/impossible to find fixes, and fixed a load of scripting errors & compatibility issues with all the different environments in which a service pack can be deployed.I don't need a recitation of a recitation of Microsoft's documentation on it's update script, installers and rollup features; I've slipstreamed, built rollups, and even built custome installers for Microsoft updates -- I well know what's involved. Edited July 20, 2005 by hoak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgelmeyer Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Just to clarify a bit further: my SP5 contains >250 non-publicly available post-sp4/urp1 updates which cannot be dl'ed directly from anywhere in addition to the publicly available ones of course. It also adds missing registry entries, fixes some yet undocumented (but very real) problems, etc etc. Also the product support tools shipped with SP4 are updated.The /integrate part has worked perfectly for some time now. That turned out to be much less of a problem than first anticipated.The SP5 must be able to safely install and uninstall safely on top of any existing W2K. People who have servers to maintain are not likely to just reinstall. That's what I'm working on right now.Also, I don't want to include >300 .cat files - I've improved upon the logic which analyses .cat's, and it's down to 150 of those.The Option Pack (or Plus! pack) will contain the IE6/NETFX11/WMP9/DX9C/MDAC27/MSXML4/JETPOSTSP8/MSI31 etc etc, including some non-publicly available hotfixes for those as well. It will be out later when the SP5 is completely done.Best regardsGurgelmeyer B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgelmeyer Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) PS - it's not just about integrating whatever shows up on WU - also it's not for techncal or political reasons that I've decided to "split" my work into an Unofficial SP5 and an Option Pack. It's because many people - myself included - prefer not to have new features in service packs. Thanx for all your kind words and all the great feedback :thumbsup: Best regards,Gurgelmeyer Edited July 20, 2005 by Gurgelmeyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winguy Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The Option Pack (or Plus! pack) will contain the IE6/NETFX11/WMP9/DX9C/MDAC27/MSXML4/JETPOSTSP8/MSI31 etc etc, <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Gurgelmeyer,what is the reason for including MDAC27 and not 2.8SP1, which is the latest?Best regards,winguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgelmeyer Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 A good question actually SQL Server 2000 was the reason that I chose the MDAC 2.7a SP1 Refresh (plus a few fixes) rather than the MDAC 2.8 "SP0" Refresh. At the time I made this decision MDAC 2.8 SP1 was not available for W2K, and an MDAC 2.8 "SP0" would likely cause more problems than the much older MDAC 2.7a SP1 Refresh, and no applications I could think of would require MDAC 2.8 SP0.It did come as a nice surprise to a lot af people I think, that MDAC 2.8 SP1 was released for W2K, and I do plan to have a look at it.I do not have access to SQL Server 2000 myself, so I have to rely 100% on the input I get from others who do. So if anyone knows how SQL Server 2000 performs on W2K with MDAC 2.8 SP1 - please enlighten me B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts