Jump to content

DX9


okias

Recommended Posts


If the PM wasn't too private, let us know what you find

I'm sorry, I can't do that ......... the information is classified TOP SECRET.

KiKi's 'people' would hunt me down like dog if I talked.

:lol:

Well this is the update on the situation:

Thanks to Mr. Greeneyes, I've managed to get rid of the text mode setup errors. (I changed all the 100, values in that section of the TXTSETUP.SIF to 1,)

There was a second section with similar values (much further down the file) that I hadn't noticed. This caught me out, but the Windows error message that was generated gave a different file name to the one it was giving before, so I knew that the first lot of fixes must have worked because Windows stopped complaining about those. I also knew where to look to find the second lot of values that needed fixing because I could search for the new filename being stated in this latest error message.

This time I went through the whole .sif file, making sure there were no other entries with the same starting value. I then saved the .sif and burned a new CD and it worked! :thumbup

Well, ... when I say "worked" I mean I am now back to my original problem of the setup locking up in GUI install mode at 55%. :rolleyes: But still, at least the text mode section is completing without complaining now.

The 55% GUI mode hang problem is really winding me up though. This has been going on for days now, and I think I'm slowly losing the will to live!

I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be down to the USP5.1 that I've been using, so I'm gonna have to go through yet more tedious testing to narrow it down (which is not easy as I've been integrating quite a few post SP5.1 hotfixes too, and the problem could possibly be down to any one of those files or a particular combination of them).

I've got a feeling that it's going to be days more testing before I get anywhere near having a usable custom setup CD :no:

Just wish I had a hint to help me narrow things down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't stated until now so I was obviously unaware.

Actually that's incorrect. If you re-read the thread you will see that I said it before you even posted.

That's how Ver Greeneyes spotted the problem (he recognised that the XP style install commands I'd quoted in my message were incorrect for use on Windows 2000).

Anyhow, it's sorted now.

Onwards and upwards to try to defeat the 55% hang bug!

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't stated until now so I was obviously unaware.

Actually that's incorrect. If you re-read the thread you will see that I said it before you even posted.

That's how Ver Greeneyes spotted the problem (he recognised that the XP style install commands I'd quoted in my message were incorrect for use on Windows 2000).

Anyhow, it's sorted now.

Onwards and upwards to try to defeat the 55% hang bug!

:blink:

Mind posting a link to the 55% hang bug thread so we can help you to resolve it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This DX is an installer that runs during setup, it doesn't integrate in your Windows.

Especially for Windows XP, it is a waste of CD/DVD space to use the full installers that are presented in this topic.

B)-->

QUOTE(chris.b @ Dec 22 2006, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could take Serebys DirectX Slipstream that integrates only the newest files of the december release.

You have to keep DX in nlite of course and it's a direct Slipstream no silent installer.

It really integrates, replacing files with the newest version (DX december). So it's not an installer. It will hardly use more space on your cd/dvd.

Since it integrates and updates your DX files, it's not meant for Windows2000 since 2000 doesn't have DX.

So the installers in this topic are good for Windows2000. And Sereby's integration pack is good for XP.

Edited by ZileXa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the PM wasn't too private, let us know what you find
I'm sorry, I can't do that ......... the information is classified TOP SECRET.

KiKi's 'people' would hunt me down like dog if I talked.

:lol:

ha! ha! glad to know you have partially addressed your concern ... ;)

EDIT: btw, i don't know if this could be a possibility (as the "find" by Tux was for XP ... he uses HFSLIP then nLite for reducing his source) but you might want to consider (topic is about d3dx* files):

I tried again and checked whether the files were present after HFSLIP and before nlite. And yes they are.

I can also confirm nlite removed them. Now, the question is why ?

still needs confirmation ... Edited by Kiki Burgh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and "USP5.2 " was the first hint.

Wow, well spotted Ponch! We have a sleuth in our midst. :yes:

Even I hadn't noticed that particular clue (and I was the one who wrote it!)

:lol:

OK folks, thanks to every one for their comments. Here is an update:

I have now managed (for the very first time) to install DX9 unattended :o

Yes, after spending more than 75 hours over the last week trying to sort this problem out, I am finally getting somewhere.

I used RyanVM's DX pack with a manually edited txtsetup.sif file (with Ver Greeneyes' corrections added) and not only did this install DX9, but it also allowed me to slipstream my ATI Radeon drivers for my PowerColor X1950 Pro.

However, none of this would have been verifiable or testable had I not also solved the 55% hang issue because I was totally unable to complete any installation of Windows 2000. But now this problem has also been resolved :w00t: (yes, I'm on a roll!)

@ Speeddymon - Thanks for the kind offer to help me find a fix. A link to the 55% Hang bug was posted in my earlier post (message number 17 of this thread). I'll include another link here (see the green "55%" text above). I've coloured the link this time, to make the it a bit more noticeable.

I'll update that 55% thread with my solution after I've finished writing this post.

There were a couple of minor issues though (but nothing in comparison to the grief I've been enduring over the last week).

1. DX9 appears to be fully installed, allowing ATI Radeon drivers to work and all tests in DXDiag to complete successfully. However, the version number on the first tab of DXDiag is still showing as version 7 (i.e. the original Windows 2000 version of DirectX).

2. Drivers for the RealTek onboard HD audio (Azalia) were also integrated. These did get copied to the system, but the drivers don't actually get successfully installed. Closer investigation showed that a requirement for the installation of these sound drivers is that a minimum of DX8.1 be installed. So I am wondering if these 2 issues are related (perhaps the RealTek drivers just look at the DX version number and then refuse to install).

I was going to post back here to seek assistance with these two issues, but having read the more recent comments in this thread, it seems that I was lucky to get this working at all! (because it seems the DX update packs are really not intended for Windows 2000 use).

So, I think I should make another install with a more appropriate DX pack and see how that works instead.

I'm just wondering which method (and which actual DX pack) would be the best to use in this circumstance. Although I really like the idea of the code being slipstreamed, I wonder what the downside would be to having it done as a silent install instead of a slipstream?

Any comments or advice on this would be very much appreciated.

Thanks again everyone

:hello:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and "USP5.2 " was the first hint.

Wow, well spotted Ponch! We have a sleuth in our midst. :yes:

Even I hadn't noticed that particular clue (and I was the one who wrote it!)

:lol:

OK folks, thanks to every one for their comments. Here is an update:

I have now managed (for the very first time) to install DX9 unattended :o

Yes, after spending more than 75 hours over the last week trying to sort this problem out, I am finally getting somewhere.

I used RyanVM's DX pack with a manually edited txtsetup.sif file (with Ver Greeneyes' corrections added) and not only did this install DX9, but it also allowed me to slipstream my ATI Radeon drivers for my PowerColor X1950 Pro.

However, none of this would have been verifiable or testable had I not also solved the 55% hang issue because I was totally unable to complete any installation of Windows 2000. But now this problem has also been resolved :w00t: (yes, I'm on a roll!)

@ Speeddymon - Thanks for the kind offer to help me find a fix. A link to the 55% Hang bug was posted in my earlier post (message number 17 of this thread). I'll include another link here (see the green "55%" text above). I've coloured the link this time, to make the it a bit more noticeable.

I'll update that 55% thread with my solution after I've finished writing this post.

There were a couple of minor issues though (but nothing in comparison to the grief I've been enduring over the last week).

1. DX9 appears to be fully installed, allowing ATI Radeon drivers to work and all tests in DXDiag to complete successfully. However, the version number on the first tab of DXDiag is still showing as version 7 (i.e. the original Windows 2000 version of DirectX).

2. Drivers for the RealTek onboard HD audio (Azalia) were also integrated. These did get copied to the system, but the drivers don't actually get successfully installed. Closer investigation showed that a requirement for the installation of these sound drivers is that a minimum of DX8.1 be installed. So I am wondering if these 2 issues are related (perhaps the RealTek drivers just look at the DX version number and then refuse to install).

I was going to post back here to seek assistance with these two issues, but having read the more recent comments in this thread, it seems that I was lucky to get this working at all! (because it seems the DX update packs are really not intended for Windows 2000 use).

So, I think I should make another install with a more appropriate DX pack and see how that works instead.

I'm just wondering which method (and which actual DX pack) would be the best to use in this circumstance. Although I really like the idea of the code being slipstreamed, I wonder what the downside would be to having it done as a silent install instead of a slipstream?

Any comments or advice on this would be very much appreciated.

Thanks again everyone

:hello:

Ok, this one is a doozie! :-P

Microsoft only made one release of DirectX for December. This release covers all versions of Windows that are still supported by Microsoft (including 2000). So technically speaking, this release of DirectX should work fine (and is in fact designed for) 2000.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\DirectX is the key that stores your installed DirectX version, so if it doesnt mention 4.09 somewhere in there, then that is why your Sound drivers wouldnt install. Try importing this xtrememac.ini file.

As far as silent insall vs slipstream, there is technically no difference, except that silent installs typically take up a little more space on the CD, and cause your total time to install windows (TTI) to go up some. If you want to do that, I would suggest getting this file: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download2924.html and then extracting it to somewhere on your CD like (cdroot)\$OEM$\$1\Install\DX9Dec06

Then setup runonceex or guirunonce to call the installer with the /silent switch like this:

C:\Install\DX9Dec06\DXSetup.exe /silent

That will install the whole thing the proper way for Windows 2000.

Like I said a lot of people prefer slipstreamed just due to the decrease in time to setup windows, however in cases like this where you are using Windows 2000, I think that the installer from MS would be the safer bet.

Of course, the other option is to use the pack you modified and just put the 2 entries in the attached file into the proper INF file, or import the reg file at guirunonce, your call.

Hope that helps

Speeddymon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

Thanks for the very informative and helpful comments Speed. :)

You've really helped clarify the various options available (as well as helping me understand the pros and cons of each).

The version of RyanVM's DX pack that I was using was 1.0, and not the new 1.1 that he has out now (which is dated December - so I'm guessing that it's based on the Microsoft December release that you mentioned).

I only used the 1.0 version because it was the one that I'd already downloaded from a few weeks ago when I'd just got my new PC up and running. When I encountered the wrong DX version being displayed, I thought I'd check for an update and that's when I saw that the 1.1 version had not long been released. So I downloaded that one as well.

I did wonder why there was such a difference in file size between the 2 versions.

So basically, (just to confirm I've understood this correctly) are you saying that I can just use RyanVM's DX pack 1.1 with NLite (as I did before) and because the new DX 1.1 pack is for all versions of Windows, it should be fine on Windows 2000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The previous version of Ryan's pack, which should be based on the October release, should work on Windows 2000 as well. So far as I know these updates are just for managed code, which is (as I understand it) specifically updated SDK-related code that certain (very) new games use. However, since there have been so many updates and fixes to DirectX, it seems that you can completely integrate DirectX 9.0c with this update. Either that or it's easier to make the update with the whole thing and that's just what Ryan released. Either way, that's probably why your version number didn't change.

About the size difference, try extracting the two versions. I don't have them here so I can't test it, but I read over at RyanVM's forum that 7-zip does a phenominal job of compressing this particular pack. It's quite possible that it has more difficulty with the newer version.

Edit: By the way, cheers on solving the 55% hang problem ^_^

Edited by Ver Greeneyes
Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...