1 Reply by tstaddon

(3 replies, posted in DriverPack Sound)

Hi,

Just for reference I had this one bite me in the rear with Media Center 2005, fully patched, on a Dell DV051.

The way I worked around it was to download the Dell softpaq R132395 (http://ftp.dell.com/audio/R132395.EXE)

and install it AFTER uninstalling the existing drivers. It isn't enough to simply slipstream the INFs, you need the service applications as well.

The issue is that SigmaTel was bought out by IDT and particularly with MCE there's an OS hotfix issue meaning that if you try and apply IDT branded drivers they don't work properly so you must revert back to the older ones, and as it happens this softpaq does seem to be the most stable one.

Cheers

Go to forum: DriverPack Sound

2 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Guys, I'm still up to my eyeballs in work at the moment and haven't been able to get to the office yet, but can confirm it's working very nicely here in a hotel in Oxford, with unfiltered internet access. I have checked the McAfee logs on my local machine and nothing has tripped the policy so it's not there.

Sorry for the bump, but this'll remind me to check it when I get back to the office.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

3 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Or maybe how about accessing an RSS feed with the updated torrents?

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

4 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Okay, I give in. Major props to EVERYONE who's contributed to this project, for making it such an excellent (if not indispensable) tool set for any administrator. Count yourself lucky; even my wife gets nowhere by fishing for compliments, so you're in a very select group.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

5 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Sounds familiar!

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot, guess I am a noob after all!

[EDIT] I remoted into the PC this morning and yes it can access the website over the internet, if I perform a basic authentication to the proxy server. I am away on business so it'll be difficult for me to do extensive testing and report back.

On the subject of vetted drivers, Mr_Smartepants:

If you export the entire driver set (or a subset) from a working PC, as a custom driver pack, then prove on a vanilla install that you're only restoring the same drivers that have already been approved, the end result is a machine that has ONLY the vetted drivers on it in addition to the stock drivers - but which are integrated into the XP setup.

Yesterday I proposed this to a customer, to resolve a biometrics driver issue.

XP itself doesn't support either device out of the box so the usual way to handle it is to put the manufacturer's own software on the machine however if a company wants enterprise-level fingerprint logon it's not a good idea to have a OEM vendor-specific Winlogon integrated solution out there on PCs. IBM ThinkVantage, for example, not only integrates with the Windows GINA but it also installs a nonstandard TPM AND it is extremely difficult to force a machine with TVT_GINA restoring itself after every reboot, to use a completely different software stack for biometric authentication. Not only that, it really messes with some full disk encryption solutions.

The exact logistics are yet to be worked out but I did some testing for them last night and it's pretty clear, that with a driver integrated approach they can install XP to IBM desktops and laptops without ThinkVantage fingerprint software and their new solution will use the optimal drivers.

I'm going to talk to the deployment team at this customer, today, to (a) prove that my method is better, (b) combined with WinSetupFromUSB it'll give them a single base install that'll work on any machine, and (c) allows their enterprise biometric solution option OR full disk encryption solution to be vendor-agnostic. One day's worth of effort WILL save them weeks if not months creating multiple GHOST images.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

6 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

My only query is due to the fact that in THIS configuration on THIS network, the app worked fine in December and doesn't work in January, despite NOTHING changing - no new software installs, no software updates, no relevant changes to the firewall policy, no change to the proxy server...

You ask me not to explain the bleeding obvious, then you ask REPEATEDLY for information that I've already given you. OK....

"what version of DriverPacks BASE"

Pasted verbatim from the "download latest" page as it currently reads:

Release date    Application    Version   
Jun 15, 2010    DriverPacks BASE    10.06    download

I've already stated that on this thread it several times over, I am using 10.06, downloaded from this link. I even gave you the exact date I downloaded it from that link.
The software here does indeed tell me it is 10.06 so presumably the information on the download page is correct.

If I am not using the latest version then it's hardly my fault; the "latest" link would have to be out of date for me to be using an old release.

"(I have to Guess that this particular machine will resolve DriverPacks.net - that info was ALSO not provided)"

DNS resolves fine to the sites even if I don't auth to the proxy server or firewall. To actually browse the sites I need to client auth to the firewall or go through the proxy server. When I get the chance, I'll look into that further but based on your comment that might be a good place for me to start.

Bit more information:

The network in question has ~20 PCs connected to an AD network on a gigabit backbone, with two DNS servers. GPO settings for the proxy server (ISA) and with the firewall configured to block BitTorrent but allow other web traffic. Traffic through the proxy servers is heavily filtered on the basis that this is a security cleared organization and beholden to meet strict content and change restrictions due to the nature of the client base.

This is how I can be pretty sure, if we're obliged by our customers to adopt that policy, they are following similar policies internally so my issues would be their issues.

The machine in question is off the domain (I don't want the GPOs to lock it down) so I browse the internet via basic authentication in Internet Explorer; if I have to use PROXYCFG or client auth to the firewall I can (in theory) but in practice I am not supposed to do it by virtue of the fact this machine is off the domain and not AV-protected. Hence, I download the updates from elsewhere, and then copy them over to the PC in question.

That policy might sound odd to you, but it is almost STANDARD in the industries I work with the most. Some of those clients have Change Control that's so intensive that they will be using XP for at least five more years and still have Windows NT4 kicking about.

And they have to maintain STRICT build standards. Since the apps are all QA'd to the Nth degree the main headache for them moving forward, is going to be the ever-changing availability of the exact same hardware to go with their standard build. Because every time they have to load a new set of drivers, THAT is a month of change control. What they really want is a universal install image, with a preset bundle of drivers that will DEFINITELY work, regardless of the hardware, that has a specfic set of Windows Updates, doesn't update automatically, has specific applications, and is then locked down so it cannot be modified except by explicit, authorized means.

That is the opportunity I'm talking about. If Driver packs can be validated ONCE then these industries and clients will save themselves THOUSANDS of hours of expensive change control. They would probably be willing to pay for it.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

7 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Hi,

The only RAID controller I've seen recently was on a Dell Dimension 5200 but off the top of my head I think that was an Intel controller which worked fine when I slipstreamed the latest drivers - provided I *also* included the most RAID Monitoring utility as well. When I didn't do that, the POST screen sometimes reported an error with one of the disks when configured to stripe.

I'm guessing a similar principle applies with the NVidia RAID controller; drivers alone should suffice.

I have a batch file here which allows you to do stuff like query the WMI for specific versions of software and drivers, and you could probably use that to build up a combination check script, e.g. if controller driver=* and vendor=* then install this app after installing the drivers. I'm testing it today on IBM systems (14 different models, laptop and desktop) to remove the existing fingerprint software completely so I can test out a completely different fingerprint solution.

Incidentally, I thought I'd seen your handle somewhere... Your multi-OEM addon is the testes canes! To be perfectly honest I've only looked at it, but that's a class effort.

Hi OverFlow,

Got to say, in my experience over 90% of my clients don't have direct connections to the internet and 50% of those who go through layered firewalls and proxy servers by enforced policy, have all manner of issues with unmanaged Windows Updates and apps like Windows Live Messenger (check the Microsoft forums, I've posted a workaround for people having difficulty installing Windows Live Messenger under these circumstances). These issues can be compounded on machines that aren't joined to the domain, e.g. visitors' laptops.

Actually, last week was the very first time in 4 years that I went to a corporate site where direct access to the internet was a given.

Corporate customers of mine want to save hundreds of man hours on build management and could use this project IF they can be assured it will work "out of the box" on their network. Right now, based on the information you've provided, that kind of environment isn't considered so what to you seems to be a non-issue is in fact a monumental ball-ache for people like me who'd evangelise this package to those who'd throw money at you.

To give you an idea of the opportunity you're passing up - this year four small companies I know who are too small to go for an enterprise build management facility, went out and bought new PCs just because Windows needed to be reinstalled on an old machine and the downtime to them to wait for me to take it away, restore it to a usable state and ship it back, cost more than the new computer. I still got the work but they needed a working PC within 4 hours and I physically cannot get to them and complete the rebuild in that short a time.

I could rattle off some recovery disks for them, or put in corporate imaging, but it's not as if these guys aren't technically savvy. They simply don't have the time to mess about.

Of course, there is one other issue with the corporate environment - BitTorrent is blocked at just about every customer I've ever been to. I know small businesses with less than 10 people who use managed business broadband connections provided through a local service subsidised by the state, and even that has a block on BitTorrent.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

8 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

OK... (Deep breath) Let's try this again. From the top:

I was not reporting a bug with the software, I was SIMPLY asking if anything has changed since December 2nd, that would affect the code in DriverPacks BASE and cause something to happen NOW that wouldn't have happened THEN.

The reason for asking, is  simple:

The PC I am using, hasn't been changed since December 2nd (same desktop PC).
The OS hasn't been changed or updated since Dec 2nd. (XP SP3 vanilla).
The local software specific to DriverPacks hasn't changed in any way, shape or form since Dec 2nd.
The network configuration (IP address, proxy / firewall config etc) has not changed since Dec 2nd.
The PC has a LAN connection but no direct internet connection. Same as it was on Dec 2nd.
There's no antivirus or anti-spyware to interfere, and this hasn't changed since December 2nd.

The ONLY change I see here, is that when I click on the tab that lists the driver packs, IT HANGS. I don't even count that as a fault - I have a pretty good idea (from a development perspective) what might cause it.

Honestly - that is why this is not a run of the mill "I click on the updates button which I know doesn't work, and it doesn't work, I'm a noob and need the same RTFM+REINSTALL-LATEST suggestions posted to me in endless permuations until I go away" situation.

If you want to read between the lines, I'm asking, is there any code inside 10.06 ON THE CLIENT SIDE that is in the process of being rewritten on the basis that download links aren't available anymore. If there is then fine, I'm a happy bunny, do you need help with modifying it, and I'll tell my mates (people who do enterprise level rollouts where this tool would be extremely helpful) that an update is in the pipeline.

"Not one kind word in your posts, No offer to help, no donation, only a gripe."

Well, how do you know I wasn't going to offer my assistance? I do assist on other projects out there, and indeed champion several solutions. I might not always be in a position to help financially, but I have access to a pretty extensive test lab with access to dozens of machines of different makes and models, and I have several development tools, and I know plenty of sysops who'll happily buy tools if they'll work without hassle.

With RMPREPUSB, for example, I contacted the author directly to find out about the cost of licensing it for commercial use and I'm using an official license, and recommend it to anyone who asks.

If you tot up the amount of time I've spent using DriverPacks.Net, I've had about 3 weeks' worth of actual hands-on experience and recommended it to other people. Early doors. I'm already being moaned at for having the temerity to raise one query without putting my metaphorical hand in my metaphorical pocket first.

Sheesh.

And as for being kind... Sorry, I wasn't aware I was obliged to be "kind" to short-fused people on the defensive, who slap you in the gob and then hold the begging bowl out. Respect's a mutual thing.

"You wish to complain..."

Not about the software. The ONLY reason I'm even mildly irate is that I've already had to spell it out several times that I'm using 10.06, with a local repository, freshly installed in December, and I DO know about the removal of the direct download facility. I guess I just don't like having to repeat myself.

"failure to read instructions"

In what context? If you're talking about version number quoting, I have asserted I'm using the latest version as per the 'latest' download link but to be honest, the version numbers are irrelevant to the question.

If I'm right, it's a question of workflow within the code. Even if I was using 10.01 and saw this issue, upgrading to the latest version would not have resolved the problem unless 10.06 factors in the new workflow for checking driver packs locally held and OPTIONALLY checking if updates are available.

"Based on the fact that you cannot properly detail and issue I don't need you on the testing team (beta access)."

Man, you can't have a pop at me for not following a full QMS/SCM/SQA/ITIL compliant test cycle process if
(a) I'm not a tester and
(b) you don't want me to be one...

Ah, the ironies:

1. being told that there are conversations on a HIDDEN testing forum I can't access for an issue that as far as I can see (based on the VISIBLE threads and my experience as explained already) was already resolved in 10.06 and was not causing me an issue in December.  My fault of course, that I'm not psychic.

2. being told that I'm not needed for testing and the information I've given within a week of signing up to the forum is wholly inadequate... despite ALSO being told there's not enough feedback from existing testers who presumably have been with the project for months and know what you expect.

They know what info you need, and what format to provide it in, and they have access to the beta forums so they know what issues are already being discussed.

I don't.

You also say they're not giving you the info and you're not geting enough feedback. I can help you out on that front.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

9 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Thanks, but just for reference I am not a complete noob!

Ten years ago I was writing unattends in notepad from memory, slipstreaming manually and use third party tools primarily to save time... Five years ago I was writing SMBIOS scripts for driver deployment and I used to post BIOS modifications to enable fan control on certain PCs which had the functionality disabled in the BIOS.

You're right about people clicking on the update button and you're exactly right about the expected behaviour, but in this case DPs_BASE hangs as soon as I get to the page listing the driver packs i.e. before I even have the opportunity to hit the update button (not that I'd press it).

If I leave it on that screen for about five minutes it suddenly wakes up and lists the driver packs I've already downloaded and are already in the folder.

The PC I'm using it on is a clean XP SP3 build (XP Pro royalty gold OEM created from a VLK disk) that's on a home LAN that's not connected to the internet and the PC currently has no antivirus or firewall.

I downloaded the driver packs along with DPs_BASE, WinSetupFromUSB and NLITE installers to a pen drive on 2nd December using the latest links available and installed them all from that pen drive. They all worked absolutely fine for over a week.

I've had the PC switched off for about a month so I am absolutely certain that no software has changed on it in any way, shape or form since it was working. It is still connected to the same LAN.

From my perspective the code should check for a network connection, check it's connecting to the internet, check the download links are valid, and so on.

Something obviously isn't working the way it should because it doesn't take five minutes for PING to time out. I won't discount the possibility that the software is corrupt but in this case I'd prefer to download a later beta if one is available.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

10 Reply by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Sorry, I think you've misunderstood me.

Maybe I'm just unlucky and DP_BASE 10.06 is doing its own little "abort retry fail" because it's still expecting the downloads to still work and they don't.

The software isn't telling me it can't find the downloads - it is HANGING.

According to http://driverpacks.net/applications/latest, the current version is 10.06 and it was posted up on June 15th.

My local copy of DPs_BASE_1006.exe is dated 2nd December 2010 (which is when I last downloaded it from the "latest" link).
I have the wnt5_x86-32_1011.7z driver packs already in the DriverPacks folder.

The announcement on the front page news came FOUR MONTHS after 10.06 was released but I downloaded DPs_BASE_1006 from the Latest link, over a month later than the announcement.

The point I'm trying to make is, that (presumably) 10.06 is now over 6 months old, and the code that checks for updated driver packs using the old method is still in place.

No updated DP_BASE has been released since the download links were disabled but I did see something about a new release being in the pipeline (which presumably would not check for updated driver packs).

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

11 Topic by tstaddon

(29 replies, posted in Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base)

Hi

I've been using DP for six months but since December, every time I fire up the application, it just hangs completely when I click on the updates tab and it doesn't show the versions for the files that have already been downloaded.

The driver packs I downloaded in November are already in the folder - but if the application ITSELF is still hard-coded to look for the updates from somewhere on the internet and it fails to connect to that expected download location (because they're now only available via bt), I thought it would just say "no updates".

Not just hang indefinitely.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base