The latest Symantec Antivirus corporate edition with 06/07/2006 definitions now classifies the utility cmdow as Hacktool.HideWindow. Just an FYI since I know Bâshrat the Sneaky and other msfn based groups like using this tool.
326 2006-06-09 02:47:06
Topic: CLOSED: cmdow in DriverPacks BASE now classified as a virus in SAVCE v10.1 (7 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
327 2006-05-28 06:56:14
Re: [SOLVED BUG #84] M1: fails to copy the Intel .inf files to $OEM$ (50 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
Bâshrat the Sneaky wrote:
Fragbert wrote:razormoon wrote:Reproduced. Had both chipset packs in directory (the old renamed using new naming convention). I'm curious...could it be you renamed the old chipset pack with new name? Because there IS a new chipset pack released yesterday...
How many kb is your chipset pack?
I used the latest DP downloaded straight from this forum, v6.05
Nevertheless, please verify by checking the filesize. It should be 688/689 KB, depending on the rounding.
Yep. 688KB
328 2006-05-28 06:28:20
Re: [SOLVED BUG #84] M1: fails to copy the Intel .inf files to $OEM$ (50 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
razormoon wrote:
Reproduced. Had both chipset packs in directory (the old renamed using new naming convention). I'm curious...could it be you renamed the old chipset pack with new name? Because there IS a new chipset pack released yesterday...
How many kb is your chipset pack?
I used the latest DP downloaded straight from this forum, v6.05
329 2006-05-28 05:52:01
Re: [SOLVED BUG #84] M1: fails to copy the Intel .inf files to $OEM$ (50 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
Bâshrat the Sneaky wrote:
Almost impossible. Are you VERY sure you've put only the latest DriverPack Chipset in the DriverPacks directory? Which version does the UpdateChecker show?
6.05
330 2006-05-28 05:43:56
Re: DUPLICATE OF BUG #24 (7 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
Bâshrat the Sneaky wrote:
That's a weird error... I'd say your ISO/CD/DVD is corrupted.
Messed up on the line. I used the line from a method 1 install. Here is the correct method 2 line:
PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0055="nvatabus"
BUT this was in word using find->go to-> typed in the line. So scrolling down I did see a statement two lines down with a "==". We'll see now if that fixes it. 
331 2006-05-28 05:28:46
Re: DUPLICATE OF BUG #24 (7 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
razormoon wrote:
Deleting one of the extra '=' would work much better.
Method 2 is slightly quicker than Method 1 when it comes to setup.
Setup using method 1 will actually show what it's doing (copying driver files) during textmode minus the yellow progress bar.
Setup using method 2 will have you staring at a blue/green blank screen for about 5 mins after first reboot (after textmode).
As stated above when quoting the line, there is no extra "=" in the line in question.
EDIT: wrong line.
Line is PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0055="nvatabus"
332 2006-05-28 05:17:37
Topic: [SOLVED BUG #84] M1: fails to copy the Intel .inf files to $OEM$ (50 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
"Could not copy Intel Chipset drivers' .inf files from \$OEM$\$1\D\C\I\ to \$OEM$\$$\INF."
I have not modified any DP, using the latest chipset DP for use with the CP.
333 2006-05-28 05:07:54
Re: DUPLICATE OF BUG #24 (7 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
Bâshrat the Sneaky wrote:
Could it be that it's the same issue as the one described here?
Most likely. So just adding a ";" by the troublemaker line should fix?
The line in question is (according to MS word) PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0055="nvatabus" without quotes.
Another question - using method 2 I noticed it is exceptionally quicker to set up the install DVD image, however which method would be faster during the actual unattended setup?
334 2006-05-28 04:43:36
Topic: DUPLICATE OF BUG #24 (7 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
Setup cannot continue. Press any key to exit.
This is the first thing I see when running my unattended XP SP2 install. Only thing that has changed is that I'm using the CP. I renamed all current DP's accordingly, and used the newer chipset DP. Method 2 was the only option (a bug?) and I slipstreamed.
I've been using RVM's update packs and Bâshrat the Sneaky DP's for 6 months now without issue. This is the first time I've used Method 2, and I will try to revert back to Method 1.
335 2006-05-28 04:40:22
Re: SOLVED BUG #30: Critical Error! - No suitable slipstream module found (5 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)
Denney wrote:
Worked out something: Running DPs_BASE.exe without a DPs_BASE.ini file in the same directory causes this error. I generally delete that file after first running it to start with a clean slate. If you leave it there after the first failure, it runs fine...
Same issue here.