New versions of miscellaneous MS tools from the latest SDK

[code65536]

These are some of the useful tools that I install on all my systems. From the latest SDK (exceptions: oscdimg is from the latest AIK and depends is from the latest DDK). This is not an addon, but people are certainly free to add this to an addon of their own.
http://rapidshare.com/files/190470559/2 ... stools.rar

2008/02/02 Edit: And depends 2.2.7000, too.

[ricktendo64]

Thanks dude, makecab and expand are definately updatepack material

Edit: Maybe not makecab cuz its not digitally signed

Questions:

is oscdimg.exe the public version of cdimage?

dpx.dll what exe uses it?

[code65536]

is oscdimg.exe the public version of cdimage?

Yes. Except for the different branding (oscdimg is redistributable, cdimage is "internal use only"), it's exactly the same as cdimage (you can do a byte-for-byte comparison of the resulting ISO to verify this).

Maybe not makecab cuz its not digitally signed

Has there ever been a signed makecab? I always install makecab using path precedence instead of outright replacing the old file.

dpx.dll what exe uses it?

It's a dependency of expand.exe (this is what depends.exe is for! )

[yumeyao]

thanks code.

never heard a signed makecab... oops
and have you guys ever noticed that when using LMX:xx, sometimes different versions of makecab/cabarc output different cab file?

[ricktendo64]

Crap! even expand.exe which if you look in the properties is digitally signed its flagged in setuperr.log

Code: Select all

Error:
El programa de instalación detectó que el archivo de
sistema llamado [c:\windows\system32\expand.exe] no ha sido firmado debidamente
por Microsoft. Este archivo no se ha podido restaurar a la
versión correcta de Microsoft.
Use la utilidad SFC para comprobar la integridad del archivo.

***

Error:
El programa de instalación detectó que el archivo de
sistema llamado [c:\windows\system32\makecab.exe] no ha sido firmado debidamente
por Microsoft. Este archivo no se ha podido restaurar a la
versión correcta de Microsoft.
Use la utilidad SFC para comprobar la integridad del archivo.

***

I always install makecab using path precedence instead of outright replacing the old file.

Can you show me a quick example how this is done?

[crashfly]

I think what he is referring to is putting in the path a location that has the newer executable *before* the path gets to the "older" one.

Example >

Original Path:
PATH="%SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;C:\Program Files\Utilities\Uniextract;C:\Program Files\Utilities\Uniextract\bin;"

Old file for makecab.exe is in "%SystemRoot%\system32".
New file for makecab.exe is in "C:\Utilities".

It would require modifying the path to look like the following:
PATH="C:\Utilities;%SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;C:\Program Files\Utilities\Uniextract;C:\Program Files\Utilities\Uniextract\bin;"


This way, when path precedence is used, the file in "C:\Utilities" is used before the one in "system32". Also as would be described by code65536, the only time this fails is if the calling program *specifies* the path for the file located in "system32". (Therefore not even using the path.)

[code65536]

I always install makecab using path precedence instead of outright replacing the old file.

Can you show me a quick example how this is done?

It's "method 3" of the guide in my sig.

Personally, I just create a switchless installer that copies stuff to %ProgramFiles%\Utilities (just set this as WinRAR's sfx extraction path). And I run "addpath pre %ProgramFiles%\Utilities" (addpath also happens to be one of the utils that I install into the Utilities dir) and I'm done. This is how I install all the little utilities that I use: upx, the entire sysinternals suite, expand, makecab, depends, windiff, md5sum, XP support kit tools, resource kit tools, various Unix utils, etc., etc. Just dump 'em all in this big Utilities dir and use addpath to add it to the top of the search order.

This method is obviously nice for command line utils, but it's also good for things that you can run like command line utils. Since all this stuff is now in the path search, I can launch things straight from the Run box and never bother with start menu shortcuts (e.g., Win+R > procexp to launch Process Explorer... that's actually faster for me than hunting around the start menu). And for a lot of tools, like depends, I always run from a command prompt anyway even though it's a GUI (since it's faster than launching the app and then hunting for a file with the lame open file picker... so CmdOpen in the dir containing the file to investigate and type "depends filename.exe", often using [tab] to auto-complete the filename in the command line).

[nomadturk]

Hmm,
I use these by directly copying via %OEM% folder structure.
Will that couse any such sign errors at new systems?

[code65536]

If they physically replace any files under the protection of SFC, yes (and the method by which you copy will not matter). Otherwise, no.

[redxii]

Personally, I just create a switchless installer that copies stuff to %ProgramFiles%\Utilities (just set this as WinRAR's sfx extraction path). And I run "addpath pre %ProgramFiles%\Utilities" (addpath also happens to be one of the utils that I install into the Utilities dir) and I'm done.

I do the same thing! Well, in a different fashion leaving the install location adjustable (default %programfiles%\Utilities). I have mostly GNU utilities (md5sum/sha1sum, wget, bzip2, grep, mkisofs, etc). Some are Sysinternals command-line utilities but for others I made a separate installer.

[code65536]

but for others I made a separate installer.

Ah, but I'm too lazy for that. I toss just about every little just-copy-and-use app (i.e., any app that doesn't require registry settings or some sort of explicit setup to use) in that Utilities folder and use the Win+R shortcut to run 'em. 290 files total.