Where's the next version?

n7Epsilon · Post by **n7Epsilon** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:25 pm

Another option we could try is using the Microsoft tool SignTool which according to the docs has a 'catdb'
option with a description of: Adds or removes a catalog file to or from a catalog database.
Now THAT sounds promising!

According to DOCS also, CAPICOM needs to be installed on the PC before such tools run, does that mean that your pack will include this ~1.5 MB component ??

CAPICOM download here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... 88EA5896F6

EDIT: Very interesting crypto information there...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau ... _tools.asp

Post by **RyanVM** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:30 pm

signtool is running fine on my VM with just the exe

Link · Post by **Link** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:01 pm

RyanVM wrote:You've hit the nail on the head, RogueSpear. The problem doesn't just lie with copying the files to the correct location - if that were it, I could do it with txtsetup.sif - it's that Windows has to properly register the info that's in them.

Also interesting to note is that I can finally reproduce the slowdowns some have noticed at the T39 mark. I've found through a little trial and error that the T39 time goes up rapidly as you get closer to 150 CAT files in svcpack.inf. Once again, here's to hoping for a better way.

What is the T39 slow down thing?

Could I just extract the files form the July 2005 security update archives downloaded from Microsoft's site and place the files in the i386 directory and the CAT files in the svcpack directory?? Could I do that after integrating 1.2.2 and 1.2.2b to add the July security hotfixes to the installation?

Post by **5eraph** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:52 pm

I think Ryan explains it well enough even though I haven't run into the problem myself. At T-39 it seems that Windows Setup goes through all the CAT files and integrates them with some master file among other things, but I'm not really certain.

I believe it depends on the update. I've been looking into this myself by trying to figure out how Ryan does his thing in his currently available packs and through other sources like Gnome's WMP10 Slipstreaming thread on MSFN.

Some do seem to only require updated pre-existing files in I386 and their CATs. Not all of the files, but the one(s) in the UPDATE directory created after extracting the hotfix. This will work fine. But Windows Update will not see these updates as installed without their corresponding registry entries. The full reg entries can be found in the update.inf file within each hotfix package with a bit of work and some understanding of how INF files are structured. I like the elegance of Ryan's method of selectively adding the entries so that they don't show in Add/Remove Programs.

Some other hotfixes add extra files to I386 that need to be listed in txtsetup.sif and dosnet.inf (and perhaps others I'm not aware of) in addition of the CATs and reg entries to function and be detected properly.

Still others consist of only registry entries.

I'm still trying to work out all the nuances myself.

Link · Post by **Link** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:59 pm

5eraph wrote:I believe it depends on the update. I've been looking into this myself by trying to figure out how Ryan does his thing in his currently available packs and through other sources like Gnome's WMP10 Slipstreaming thread on MSFN.

Some do seem to only require updated pre-existing files in I386 and their CATs. This will work fine. But Windows Update will not see these updates as installed without their corresponding registry entries. The full reg entries can be found in the update.inf file within each hotfix package with a bit of work and some understanding of how INF files are structured. I like the elegance of Ryan's method of selectively adding the entries so that they don't show in Add/Remove Programs.

Some other hotfixes add extra files to I386 that need to be listed in txtsetup.sif and dosnet.inf (and perhaps others I'm not aware of) in addition of the CATs and reg entries to function and be detected properly.

Still others consist of only registry entries.

I'm still trying to work out all the nuances myself.

What about this hotfix only?? http://www.microsoft.com/technet/securi ... 5-036.mspx

So the only thing that wouldn't work is WIndows Update wouldn't detect the hotfix has been installed??

Link · Post by **Link** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:01 pm

I think Ryan explains it well enough even though I haven't run into the problem myself. At T-39 it seems that Windows Setup goes through all the CAT files and integrates them with some master file among other things, but I'm not really certain.

Is it something that hurts system performance or just makes installation slower?? Or does it just give you an error when installing Windows XP?? ANd is it only a problem when the CAT files is 150 or greater?? I have 133 CAT files in the svcpack folder.

Post by **RyanVM** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:10 pm

It just slows down the install. As far as I can tell, it has no impact on overall system performance after the T39 mark. I've noticed it starts getting progressively slower from about 120-130 and on, and by 150 or so, it sits on my system for 15-20 minutes at T39.

I've got a few CAT files which I can probably remove, since I'm apparently 6 over right now (at 158). It's a temporary solution, though. Maybe I'm going to have to get more selective as to what fixes I add

Post by **5eraph** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:18 pm

I don't know how it affects performance as I haven't had the problem, but from what others have said it does seem to be a problem.

I haven't messed with the hotfix you mentioned. I really wouldn't know unless I went about trying to integrate it myself; I've been waiting patiently for Ryan to release UpdatePack 1.3.0 so I can see exactly how he integrates WMP10 and compare it to Gnome's method and its updates as I've worked them.

@Ryan: I hope not.

I've always considered your UpdatePacks as an SP3 in progress.

leviathan · Post by **leviathan** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:24 pm

Hey Ryan,

That sucks about the limit to CAT files it can handle. Have you contacted anyone at Microsoft about this? If so, were they of any help?

If I can be of any help, let me know.

--Leviathan

Protagonist. · Post by **Protagonist.** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:09 am

I personally wouldn't mind if you had to cut out a few updates. 1.3.0 will still be pretty much complete and you can always try to solve this issue in a 1.3.0a pack or similar.

Link · Post by **Link** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:20 am

Protagonist. wrote:I personally wouldn't mind if you had to cut out a few updates. 1.3.0 will still be pretty much complete and you can always try to solve this issue in a 1.3.0a pack or similar.

I totally agree. Cut out Windows Update v.6 and WIndows Media Pkayer 10.. Just include bug fixes and security hotfixes and if necessary and/or if possible updates to any critical Windows components like Windows Installer, DirectX, MDAC Jet Database engine, and etc.. Although the only one of those things that have had any updates is Windows Installer, which is already up to date with the last pack, There hasn't been a new DirectX release in almost a year which was DirectX 9.0c. If a new version of DirectX does come around, that would definitely be a great thing to include in update packs.

Kelsenellenelvian · Post by **Kelsenellenelvian** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:43 am

Is there any way the cat files could be zipped into an archive and then callad at a another time?

Or would this even work?

PsiMoon314 · Post by **PsiMoon314** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:29 am

Hi RyanVM,

I've got a few CAT files which I can probably remove, since I'm apparently 6 over right now (at 158). It's a temporary solution, though. Maybe I'm going to have to get more selective as to what fixes I add

To be honest when I went through the fixes on MSKB some of them seem dubious or less than immediatly useful.

Clearly there are some useful ones among the "non-public" hotfixes however I am sure many would only be needed in very specific and perhaps exceptional circumstances.

Perhaps a list of essential, useful and less than useful hotfixes could be produced and the total number of hotfixes included in the packs could then be reduced to include essential and useful ones?

Anything which updates critical files would be included as well as the publicly posted hotfixes.

Clearly this would only be a stop-gap measure but it would perhaps get around the seeming 150 CAT files issue you have run into.

Perhaps the laudable goal of a completely patched XP with all updates included need to be re-examened to see if this is really such a good idea in practice?

Just food for thought!

Kind Regards

Simon

studguy1 · Post by **studguy1** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:19 am

Hi I am having this problem with 1.2.2+1.2.2b (medium) + XP Pro Sp2 , in a consistent manner. It is reproducible in Virtual PC. If i try to add anything to the task scheduler i get this "access denied" error. The problem is probably b'cos the hotfix KB884573 is not applying properly.

It has been discussed before in this thread viewtopic.php?t=247 but it seems the problem is still there. I was able to obtain the patch from Microsoft and apply it succesfully, and the problem was fixed. I dont know if other people have experienced the same problem.

Any suggestions/thoughts would be welcome.

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:57 am

studguy1 - You're telling me that MS sent you a hotfix which actually made the problem go away? PM me please.

andy03 · Post by **andy03** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:32 am

maybe this is a silly question...

but why do we need the .cat files?? i always remove them before creating my iso and dont have any problems with install or the running of the pc... is it something to do with WFP/SFC??
if so you could release a pack specifically for people that have WFP/SFC disabled...

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:15 am

Yes, the CAT files are used to register the files with Windows File Protection, so it knows they're valid and doesn't try to replace them (or prompt the user to). And the last thing I want to do is create even MORE packs

.

What I'm going to do is this: do an install without any CAT files and see which hotfixes come up OK with qfecheck (since I know a few will). Those CAT files are for sure gone. I'm also probably going to kill completely the Scheduler hotfix (since we all know how well that one's worked) and probably all twext.dll-related hotfixes. If yet more need to go, I'll go through the least critical ones (there are some which patch files that I'm guessing people rarely if ever use) and start removing them.

Siginet has sent me his first crack at a GUI installer, so I have to try and break that as well tonight

. Also, my new hard drive is scheduled for delivery tomorrow, but I'll probably hold off on installing that until after I get a working 1.3.0 ready (heck, I think I'll make my system a final guinea pig of it

).

Thanks for the comments and your patience, guys.

n7Epsilon · Post by **n7Epsilon** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:45 pm

I have an idea...

Can Microsoft's hotfix installer INF file be hacked to include all of CAT files needed by the hotfixes without specifying any files in the [Copy.XXX] sections (but leaving in the [Copy.dllcache] sections) ??

Or does update.exe have the same limitation as SVCPACK.INF ....

I also think that Update.exe could be made to run instead if RVMUpPck.inf and that would negate the necessity to edit SYSOC.INF if its INF file includes all of the info in RvmUpPck.inf ...

Specifically here:

Code: Select all

[ProductCatalogsToInstall]
%SP_SHORT_TITLE%.cat, update\%SP_SHORT_TITLE%.cat

Thus UPDATE.EXE would do the hard work of registering the files with Windows File Protection at T-13 in svcpack.inf....

AutoPatcher XP does it. can it be implemented here ?

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:38 pm

Nuhi and I have discussed using update.inf. However, the problem with that is that you'll still end up bumping into the same limitations as earlier. I've tried manually registering the CAT files with signtool and have seen firsthand that it'll refuse to register them after a certain point (it errors out after a long delay). I honestly think there's something on Windows' end that's keeping them from registering, regardless of the method by which they are being registered.

Post by **5eraph** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:25 pm

Perhaps BTS has dealt with this already with his Driver Packs. I'd imagine there are many more CATs than 150 for as many drivers as they contain. Do they all register at OS installation or do they only register depending on the hardware being installed?

Just a thought.

n7Epsilon · Post by **n7Epsilon** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:11 pm

I think Windows would only register the CATs for the drivers that matches the HWIDs of the components in the PC it is running on...

RogueSpear · Post by **RogueSpear** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:27 pm

I can sense a hotfix to fix the hotfix issue. Microsoft has issued a prodigous amount of post SP2 updates and I don't see that slowing down a whole lot. With new security holes being discovered weekly, they pretty much have to keep pumping them out.

Perhaps we'll see some sort of post SP2 "roll up"

instead of them actually fixing the real problem.

Post by **5eraph** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:13 am

Those are my thoughts too, n7Epsilon. But I'm also wondering if installed signed drivers contribute to the ~150 limit.

A nice big security roll-up or two might do wonders to help cut down on CATs also. But I doubt there will be a hotfix to fix the hotfix issue seeing the number of fixes in SP1. SP2 shows around twice as many but I'm thinking SP1 updates are also included in that list. I believe with each service pack there may be only one CAT type file or database to cover all updates within it.

I was reading about SignTool and its commands and there's one that lets you choose a database to register the CAT into if I remember correctly. Maybe it's possible to make our own database to bypass the limit.

Post by **RyanVM** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:35 am

5eraph wrote:Those are my thoughts too, n7Epsilon. But I'm also wondering if installed signed drivers contribute to the ~150 limit.

I think so. I'm actually thinking that could be the reason some people are complaining about unsigned files after using my pack.

A nice big security roll-up or two might do wonders to help cut down on CATs also. But I doubt there will be a hotfix to fix the hotfix issue seeing the number of fixes in SP1. SP2 shows around twice as many but I'm thinking SP1 updates are also included in that list. I believe with each service pack there may be only one CAT type file or database to cover all updates within it.

I was reading about SignTool and its commands and there's one that lets you choose a database to register the CAT into if I remember correctly. Maybe it's possible to make our own database to bypass the limit.

Well, I tried using /d on it, and the CAT file copies to the other directory inside CatRoot. However, QFECheck still wasn't being appeased. That being said, maybe if it's done earlier in Windows setup (nuhi tells me that the "Saving Settings" stage of setup is where WFP copies the files to dllcache) it will work.

mindwarper · Post by **mindwarper** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:25 pm

Hope that u do not stumble into any more problems with 1.3.0 development right now...

And hope that reinstalling yer new WD HDD goes smoothly as well...

Just 1 question I have for you concerning future relese of 1.3.0...
Since u plan to integrate WMP10, I wonder if it is still able to be processed by nLite after ingerating your pack into XP i386 folder...

Or is this an issue I should go ask over @ MSFN forum ?

Hope thaT I did not posted wrong here and that u are able to answer this question of mine, if possible...

greetzzz

Post by **RyanVM** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:31 am

nLite will treat WMP10 in my pack like WMP9 is normally treated. That is, if you tell nLite to remove WMP9 after my pack has been integrated, it will remove WMP10.

mindwarper · Post by **mindwarper** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:23 am

Well thanks Ryan, for your insightful reply !!!
Most useful indeed, was the thing I wanted to know hehe

OK hope that the 1.3.0 pack goes well for you now, I will patiently wait for you to make it available...
The reason, I have put here before..

mindwarper · Post by **mindwarper** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:26 pm

I hope you finish it by the end of this week, cos I want to get my PC up and running before my brother returns from holidays 1st august I believe...
Don´t want to get a riot with him about me using his PC, cos he´s very hard sometimes... But that takes things beyond this forum, so I will spare you the details then... he generally does not like me using his PC, cos he´s afraid of me "destroying" things...
If only he knew that it was me who installed his new harddisk and set up Windows and everything else...(his old Maxtor HDD crashed, like Ryan´s WD).

But even if u don´t get it by then, no problem, then I have to sort things out with my brother then... So take all time necessary, I do surely not want to presure you or any1 here...

greetzz

Post by **RyanVM** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:50 pm

1) Like it says in the thread which has been linked to numerous times from here, 1.3.0 will not have multiple different versions like previous releases had. Please read that before continuing to speculate.
2) As of now on my end, WMP10 is included. Period.
3) I'm still strongly considering making WMP10 a seperate addon which can be integrated via the GUI integrator. The way Siginet and I are doing this will make doing so very easy. Doing this will allow for smaller downloads of the main pack and choice for the user, so I'll most likely end up doing that prior to release.

EDIT: OK, I just split WMP10 into a seperate package. That should appease everybody.

MrNxDmX · Post by **MrNxDmX** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:29 am

EDIT: OK, I just split WMP10 into a seperate package. That should appease everybody.

Nice job Ryan.

mindwarper · Post by **mindwarper** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 1:08 am

Nice that is

So Ryan, tell us a bit more how it is coming that 1.3.0.
What have you left to do ?
And no problems in testing it ?

Just out of interest, no offense intended as far as pushing you is concerned...

Post by **RyanVM** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:13 am

It's all done on my end as far as I'm concerned. Two things remain:
1) Test it on a real system (going to happen when I install my new hard drive probably this weekend)
2) Get the graphical installer finished up. There's a few remaining bugs to quash & UI changes to be made I want to have Siginet do.

a06 · Post by **a06** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:37 pm

RyanVM wrote:It's all done on my end as far as I'm concerned. Two things remain:
1) Test it on a real system (going to happen when I install my new hard drive probably this weekend)
2) Get the graphical installer finished up. There's a few remaining bugs to quash & UI changes to be made I want to have Siginet do.

Great!
I'm looking forward to this release!

By the way, what was the end result of the problem with too many hotfixes (I think you mentioned no more than 150 or something?) - did you remove some hotfixes from the pack, or did you find another way to keep them all in?

suren · Post by **suren** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:52 pm

RyanVM said that there will be no update pack any more

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:18 pm

I did?

orcoxp · Post by **orcoxp** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:26 pm

RyanVM wrote:1) Like it says in the thread which has been linked to numerous times from here, 1.3.0 will not have multiple different versions like previous releases had. Please read that before continuing to speculate.
2) As of now on my end, WMP10 is included. Period.
3) I'm still strongly considering making WMP10 a seperate addon which can be integrated via the GUI integrator. The way Siginet and I are doing this will make doing so very easy. Doing this will allow for smaller downloads of the main pack and choice for the user, so I'll most likely end up doing that prior to release.

EDIT: OK, I just split WMP10 into a seperate package. That should appease everybody.

Cool, that an excellent work-around.

I actually had a crazy thought tho'
If we are limited in the number of updates...maybe integrate IE7beta and void any of the IE updates?

Well maybe we can get a noIE6 mod for this one like the noWMP thing?

watson81 · Post by **watson81** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:35 pm

orcoxp wrote: Cool, that an excellent work-around.

I actually had a crazy thought tho'
If we are limited in the number of updates...maybe integrate IE7beta and void any of the IE updates?

Well maybe we can get a noIE6 mod for this one like the noWMP thing?

I'm not an IE7 beta tester, but I do know that some companies don't like their betas to get spread around too much. In fact, sometimes a beta tester has to sign a non-disclosure agreement. I wouldn't be surprised if MS did that, and we certainly don't want to get anybody in trouble here. Like I said, I don't know the details of the IE7 beta program, so it might be perfectly fine by Microsoft.
However, personally, I would rather keep a beta program out of the pack.

Post by **RyanVM** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:02 pm

There's exactly a 0% chance of me including IE7 beta as long as it's not a public beta. I got it because I'm an actual MS beta tester (I've got Vista too), and I'd be breaking a lot of the rules I agreed to if I were to put it in the update pack.

ybm · Post by **ybm** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:50 am

When I was downloading the file for 1.2.2 to 1.2.2b Full, i asked for the authentication. I entered my username and password, but it was not proceeding further and the file is not getting downloaded. Wht to do?

Jeremiah · Post by **Jeremiah** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:36 am

RyanVM wrote:There's exactly a 0% chance of me including IE7 beta as long as it's not a public beta. I got it because I'm an actual MS beta tester (I've got Vista too), and I'd be breaking a lot of the rules I agreed to if I were to put it in the update pack.

I just wanted to take a moment to say how much I hate and despise of you at this moment.

As you see, I haven't been chosen (yet) for the Windows Longhorn (who needs Vista

) beta, and I am very jealous.

Oh, and nice update pack. Can't wait for 1.3.

Post by **RyanVM** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:40 pm

ybm wrote:When I was downloading the file for 1.2.2 to 1.2.2b Full, i asked for the authentication. I entered my username and password, but it was not proceeding further and the file is not getting downloaded. Wht to do?

You shouldn't be receiving any authentication prompts. Sounds like a problem on your end to me.

Jeremiah wrote:I just wanted to take a moment to say how much I hate and despise of you at this moment. As you see, I haven't been chosen (yet) for the Windows Longhorn (who needs Vista ) beta, and I am very jealous.

Oh, and nice update pack. Can't wait for 1.3.

I love you too, sweetheart. I've actually been a beta tester for awhile now. I also beta tested Win2K, WinXP, and DX6-9. At this point, I'm invited to do it without having to ask.

suren · Post by **suren** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:42 pm

Ryan, Please Please, Please Tell me, Where's the next version? Please

Post by **RyanVM** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:57 pm

In a super secret location that everybody but you knows about

Seriously, read the thread and your question will be answered.

Protagonist. · Post by **Protagonist.** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:45 pm

I'll just answer the question.

It is "in development". ok

Kelsenellenelvian · Post by **Kelsenellenelvian** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:43 pm

New version of unlocker came out... (1.6.7)

Protagonist. · Post by **Protagonist.** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:22 am

Kelsenellenelvian wrote:New version of unlocker came out... (1.6.7)

imjimmy · Post by **imjimmy** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:37 pm

I am a new user to this forum.

Just created a Bootable CD with 1.22 and then extracted 1.22b to I386.

Just finished installing it.Works like a charm!!!!

This is amazing.Thanks a lot for this.

Just wanted to know if this Pack 1.22 +1.22b includes the optional updates from MS also??

Thanks again..for this wonderful app.

he he..i hope you come out with the 1.3 version soon..I'm holding myself from installing apps...Will format pc and start again with the new version!

Protagonist. · Post by **Protagonist.** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:26 pm

imjimmy wrote:I am a new user to this forum.

Just created a Bootable CD with 1.22 and then extracted 1.22b to I386.

Just finished installing it.Works like a charm!!!!

This is amazing.Thanks a lot for this.

Just wanted to know if this Pack 1.22 +1.22b includes the optional updates from MS also??

Thanks again..for this wonderful app.

he he..i hope you come out with the 1.3 version soon..I'm holding myself from installing apps...Will format pc and start again with the new version!

Well I wouldn't wait for 1.3 before you install your programs. 1.3.0 is still quite a ways off yet.

Yes it includes the optional updates from microsoft. However starting with 1.3.0 not all will be included, only the ones most important because not all of them will "fit".

imjimmy · Post by **imjimmy** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:43 pm

Well I wouldn't wait for 1.3 before you install your programs. 1.3.0 is still quite a ways off yet.

Thanks for the info..I thought 1.3.0 was about to come this week itself. So maybe i should not wait.

Just had one question. 1.22.cab+ 1.22b.rar has size equal to 50 Mb only.

DOes this include all Updates from MS post SP2???
Most of the other packages that i have seen like Autopatcher etc..that claim to include all MS updates post SP2 are huge!

I used Windows XP Build 0 + SP2(270Mb from MS) + Ryan's 1.22 with Nlite. Then to the result i extracted 1.22b in I386.
The Bootable ISO of this is only 575 MB.
Does this sound ok? Is it not too small?Can someone who's used a similar method plz verify.

Many of the copies of Windows XP + SP2 that i have seen are 600 Mb or more..

Sorry for the questions.. Just a little confused..

canuckerfan · Post by **canuckerfan** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:51 pm

Is 1.3.0 really that far off?

RyanVM.net Discussion Board

Where's the next version?

"Access Denied" Error in Task Scheduler Update Pac

Idea for Update Pack

Re: Where's the next version?