Jump to content

Windows 2000 "Hotstream" Project

Gurgelmeyer

By Gurgelmeyer
in Hotstream

 Share

Recommended Posts

-I-

-I-

Posted
Posted (edited)
win2ksp56ne.jpg

zOMG hawt! O_O

I need to make something like that for my preinstallations. =/

Im Looking at it now, and thinkin - co have been way better if i had curled the - win2000 test - to the shape of the circle - and make it look like a cdrom...

maybe even remove the monitor picture and making the (cdrom) look bigger, (just an idea)....

Edited by -I-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

peanut3697

peanut3697

Posted
Posted

Liveengineer... that would be the best tribute to all the hard work that Gurgelmeyer has put into this project.

I feel bad that I've been a lurker here for months and months awaiting the day that Gurgelmeyer releases his Win2K w/ IE6, DX9, etc... final product. I can't wait until the final product is released. G: I for one thank all of your efforts into helping to make the lives of all us Win2K users that much better!! Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-I-

-I-

Posted
Posted (edited)

WOW LOOK AT THIS. GREAT WORK :thumbup

Hi everyone

I see it is Artwork time...Cool,finally something i can contribute to.Just a quickie as an example.Hope im on the right track..post-67661-1129042144_thumb.jpg

if you make the feet and beak of the puinguin black. (instead of yellow),

and add (in (realy) small print): "based on: MicroSoft windows 2000"

I realy would like to ask, what should be done with original versioning nrs.

one for instance COULD say, make it identify itself als Windows 2000 USP5 (build: xxxxx)

and i ask you, why not, - msn isn't planing on releasing any updates to it anyway, so why even bother

keeping windows update happy...

I Would tell the poeple, if you are scared about, using Windows 2000 without the 3 or 4 updates. M$ might,

release, (and i realy dont believe it will be more than that).

> you should either migrate to XP (because MS sure as hell wont be bothered anylonger if 1 or or 2 security risks will accour.

> of you should be using a good n stable - antivir / firewall / anty spy solucion.

just a though.

Edited by -I-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
At0mic

At0mic

Posted
Posted

Some nice ideas everyone. Just a thought though, how about an options screen during the install of USP5 with a few options? The options could possibly be switched during the slipstream with the use of switches? For example:

"Do you wish to set the version number to "Service Pack 5" at the sacrifice of Windows Update?"

"Do you wish to enable the logo?"

I personally would like the version number to say "Service Pack 5" and the logo looks cool as well but I would like to disable the logo if I install it onto a server because certain people at work would crucify me if they saw a logo saying the word "Unofficial" on the main server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slippykillsticks

slippykillsticks

Posted
Posted

I don't mean to offend you fellas in any way or to put your ideas down, but some of these ideas (as far as I can tell) sound like they go a bit beyond the scope of what Gurgelmeyer has been trying to accomplish here -- a fully updated Windows 2000, plain and simple.

Even adding an OEM logo is "pushing it" in terms of personalizing or branding this release. See nLite for an example of what I mean -- nuhi tried to brand nLite with his own logo and it caused a user backlash, so now he has made it optional, disabled by default. Why not avoid all of that by leaving it alone in the first place?

I think everyone is probably just a bit anxious to get this sucker so they can fiddle around with it and enjoy the Windows 2000 operating system as it should be - fully updated from the get-go without using Windows Update.

If Gurgelmeyer sees fit to brand the release, I see no problem with it. Heck, he could just use his avatar (which ain't half bad honestly). However, adding GUI-mode messages asking the user for stuff is pushing it. It would be difficult to do and might even interfere with one's ability to conduct a silent installation using a WINNT.SIF answer file, among other things.

Let's just stick to the basics and wait for Gurgelmeyer. After all, he's been working his tail off on this mofo for nearly a year now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-I-

-I-

Posted
Posted (edited)

Branding it, (with a logo), seems, to be one better way to check if a system is running USP5 (.1) for changing the version nr. one should probebly know where it is defined. - im thinking: build (an optional) branding.exe to do this

it should probebly run about in the same manor as - the xpize.ua

an other good thing comes from this, (if the version check doesn't get through, WinUpdate also cant f*** up the finetuning of the os, - for wich Gurglemayer has put so mutch work into this, - also BTW this wouldn't comleately screw up updates. it would be always possible to look at the updates, and if they were good, - we just hade to change the - works on build, ..... defenition ... in any case it would alow checking whether the update would even fix somthing instead of braking something down....

people at work would crucify me if they

saw a logo saying the word "Unofficial" on the main server.

Is usp5.1 actualy working on the server versions of Windows 2000???

and further more, how wise is it to, actualy run any server on patches that where / are concidered Beta, (on a production server - for pete's sake).

hmmz I guess. - I'd kill you anyways, with or without logo's

Edited by -I-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lightninglord2000

lightninglord2000

Posted
Posted

I don't want to sound like a brat but I really like to see a release for this ASAP. Even an unstable beta would do.

BTW, branding, for me, is ok as long as it's optional.

Also, this may sound off-topic but since we are still waiting for the latest USP5.* release, can you guys tell me an alternative to USP5 (the one where patches or hotfixes for Windows 2000 are bundled together)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-I-

-I-

Posted
Posted (edited)
Also, this may sound off-topic but since we are still waiting for the latest USP5.* release, can you guys tell me an alternative to USP5 (the one where patches or hotfixes for Windows 2000 are bundled together)?

How about, installing: USP5.0b (and add DX.exe, DA.exe, and IC.exe to the cmdlines.txt file (if they support an ua. command),

You will probebly, have to install some, aditional hoxfixes afterwards (just dont op rolup-pack - inpite what M$-update says, you already have it).

but i still think its the best way to go for now....

Edited by -I-
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gurgelmeyer

Gurgelmeyer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi :)

Just added the latest security updates to version 5.0 SR-1 - still got one minor issue to sort out though.

Server editions are very much supported in USP 5.0 btw. Almost one third of all hotfixes are server-only hotfixes. USP 5.0 is in fact running on quite a few servers out there (and has solved quite a few problems I'm told :rolleyes: ).

The number of distinct hotfixes in USP 5.0 SR-1 is now >400, which means that roughly 7-800 problems will be solved with this release.

I won't brand USP 5.0 SR-1. And I'm not even sure I should brand USP 5.1 - except maybe the Extreme Edition. I love your artwork btw. B)

About setting the SP version no. to 5 - this is absolutely no problem. It can be set to 4a, 5, 5a, 5b, 7q - it is even possible to add a build number. But MS has promised to release security updates on WU till 2010, so I'd rather not break the WU compatibility ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
-I-

-I-

Posted
Posted

Great work... and about the server part, (i absolutely didn't know - WOW -

but no i do have to ask... how does a hotfix check whether its a supporterd os or not... does it check for; 'Microsoft Windows Service Pack 4 build 2600'

or does it rather pick: "windows nt v5.0 build 2600" and leave the screen name alone. like i said, and especialy in larger networks it would be pleasant to be able to distinquis the regular SP4 computers and the USP 5 computers.

or am i wrong here???? / BTW im looking SOOOOO forward to it...

and ofcaurse to what (later on) usp 5.1 will have in store for us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kocoman

kocoman

Posted
Posted

It says Error 404

Page Not Found. Warning: main(/home/.darkstar/war59312/willsdownloads.com.throttled/ban/ban.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/.darkstar/war59312/willsdownloads.com.throttled/sp3.php on line 3

Warning: main(/home/.darkstar/war59312/willsdownloads.com.throttled/ban/ban.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/.darkstar/war59312/willsdownloads.com.throttled/sp3.php on line 3

Fatal error: main(): Failed opening required '/home/.darkstar/war59312/willsdownloads.com.throttled/ban/ban.php' (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/.darkstar/war59312/willsdownloads.com.throttled/sp3.php on line 3

does anyone know where else I can dl it? Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
war59312

war59312

Posted
Posted

Hey Guys,

Well all my bandwidth for the entire month is gone.

That's 234.652 GB in 15 days. About 16GB a day average. Well last three days it was over 30GB a day. 90GB in three days.

Thanks to donations in the last few months I have been able to stay alive. But this month traffic took off. And I can not afford to pay for more. At the current rate, my host just notified me, that it will cost me another $79.65 for the month. Which I can not afford to pay by myself. :(

So ATM I have no choice, but to close down shop until next month or if I get donations. ;)

Sorry everyone.

Now that being said, I am working on getting more funding. :)

Take Care,

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...