251 Reply by Helmi

(4 replies, posted in Software)

h_azza91 wrote:

ok thanks for the quick reply. could you direct me to a forum that deals with warez?

Err, wut?

Asking about Last XP (which I cannot recommend using, same for all the other warez versions of XP, as long as you care at least one bit about security and integrity) is one thing but not acknowledging your fault trying to redeem your sins, in fact even asking outright for a warez board is another.

Of course we could not, to answer your question.
We can, however, terminate your account if you do not stop with the warez business right away...
mad

Go to forum: Software

252 Reply by Helmi

(5 replies, posted in Software)

nLite, for instance, must not be used in Corporate Environments based on its EULA.

Also, if you just want the RVM packs, nLite may be a bit overkill.
Generally, I see nothing wrong with having multiple choices as long as it does not make the decision  too difficult wink

Go to forum: Software

253 Reply by Helmi

(8 replies, posted in Feature Requests)

Stoner wrote:

Currently when extracting the driverpacks you get a progress bar for each pack, I think it would be awesome if there was just one screen saying "driverpacks are decompressing/installing please wait" or something similar.

This would actually mean a great step backwards as that's the situation we've had two years ago or so wink

The progress bar features was added due to great demand.

Anyway, you may like this:

http://www.wincert.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=4801

Go to forum: Feature Requests

254 Reply by Helmi

(12 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

What does that .BAT say?

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

255 Reply by Helmi

(55 replies, posted in News)

mr_smartepants wrote:

1) Keep driver signing intact, and hope we don't blue-screen at T-34.

Who dares, wins, eh?
We might try. Means, no work now but work when BS occur and are being reported.

2) Break driver signing, but guarantee no blue-screens.

Never got the big deal about signed drivers anway.
Ok, users need to disable the SignedDriversPolicy to not have the signed ones (but possibly older) be preferred over newer, but personally, I see no loss in doing so.
OTOH, means the INFs need to be restructured to drop off duplicates.
This is to be repeated each time a new version is released that splits off some more HW, right?

3) Drop hardware from the supported list.

Not a valid option if we stick to our "all drivers, all HW included" policy.
Moving them off to the legacy pack doesn't fix the problem unless you were to only use that DPG pack (and not have several versions of split driver in there, either).


Personal tendency towards 2) with a "why not give 1) a try first" hint.

You forgot 4), though, send a silent assassins squad to NV HQ and have them take care of the problem properly... wink

Go to forum: News

256 Reply by Helmi

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

You could do that, but you could also re-run BASE again and have it do the task for you.
It will automatically detect it's been slipstreamed before, undo any changes and re-slipstream the new packs.

It's just as easy as slipstreaming into a virgin source, really!


BTW: The next version of BASE will feature a new option that lets you easily create a driver update disc that enables you to update drivers within your current Win installation (so no reinstall required).
Stay tuned for this and other great features smile


EDIT: D'Oh, beaten by Erik! wink

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

257 Reply by Helmi

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

Yeah, it's a little tongue-in-cheek from our boss, Bâshrat the Sneaky wink


PS: Just a little advice for future posts:
If you are posting screenshots that contain a lot of text and little colour (like most screenshots do), you will achieve better quality and less size by using PNG compression rather than JPG. The latter is more intended for photographs than few-colour graphics.
Not that yours are really unreadable but you may have noticed the strong compression artifacts around the high contrast borders such as text to background.

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

258 Reply by Helmi

(6 replies, posted in Software)

Moved to Software - where it belongs smile

Please use that Forum to publish all your own creations - we really appreciate your effords but we even more like to see them being put in the right place wink

Go to forum: Software

259 Reply by Helmi

(4 replies, posted in Other)

They are probably not dropping you off because of disk usage but rather used bandwidth.
Disc usage you can easily control (simply don't give the customer any more...) but exceeding the BW limit means they either have to throttle your site or temporarily take it down (which is a perfect way to scare customers away...).

Can't give you any advise on hosters, though...

Go to forum: Other

260 Reply by Helmi

(12 replies, posted in DriverPack Graphics)

OverFlow wrote:

the underscore indicates taht it is cab compressed windows doesnt care if it is cabbed wink

But 7-Zip compression probably gains from working with uncompressed files rather than those that would get "double-compressed".

You can easily extract such files all by yourself using the 

expand

command in the command prompt.
Likewise, 

makecab

lets you CAB files, should you want that.

Go to forum: DriverPack Graphics

261 Reply by Helmi

(210 replies, posted in Software)

Kewl icons!

That being done, you may want to start working on a DP icon and logo/banner wink

Go to forum: Software

262 Reply by Helmi

(7 replies, posted in DriverPack Mass Storage)

Yeah, D+L gets changed to DL, that is not a bug but pure intention.
Too bad it also does it with urls...

Go to forum: DriverPack Mass Storage

263 Reply by Helmi

(1 replies, posted in Hardware)

What do you mean by "what all inf's"?

If you know the chipset of your laptop, you can then DL the proper chipset/mass storage driver from the manufacturer's webpage and slipstream the INFs included in that one.

OR you could use our DPMS and have virtually all INFs provided already.
I just don't think they work well with nLite as the txtsetup.oem files have been stripped, but they do work if you use BASE after nLite (read our guides/tuts!).

Go to forum: Hardware

264 Reply by Helmi

(4 replies, posted in Hardware)

Have you been using the DriverPacks on your install disc or have you not?

You could give the new SAD a chance, that might cure your problem, if not, it's hard to tell what else it may be with that sparse an info you have provided.

If you are not using the DriverPacks best idea would be taking it to Dell's support wink

Go to forum: Hardware

265 Reply by Helmi

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

http://forum.driverpacks.net/viewtopic.php?id=3157

'Nuff said...


***CLOSED for redundancy***

Go to forum: Feedback and Support - DriverPacks Base

266 Reply by Helmi

(59 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

Us2002 wrote:

"It does not help placing the files in a different dir, as setup will search them all."
I know (DS, ver, date, nDS, ver, date) but if 2 drivers are for same ID and are same version and date, which will be installed?  May be first founded?

Yeah, I would think so.
Though, the question is, if it's same date and same version, most likely the checksum will be identical meaning the files are bit-identical or absolutely the same, so it does not matter which will be picked.

And if they are not, one should inquire what are the differences albeit same date/version and why...


RogueSpear wrote:

Is there really a need to mess around with this excellent DP by adding this sort of stuff to it?

Personally (and I think I wrote that before), I'd also favour two different packs, one for CRTs and one for LCDs so users not needing one or the other can easily throw that out.
OTOH, if they have been pruned for duplicates, you could easily include both packs for comprehensive display support while not having any double entries or some such.

Best of both worlds, IMO.

Plus, makes it easier to maintain the LCD pack (assuming CRT is legacy and won't get updated ever again) because of the reduced file size.

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

267 Reply by Helmi

(103 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

Great, but which version?

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

268 Reply by Helmi

(107 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

As we try to use unaltered drivers whenever possible, could you at least (if not additionally to the RS.com link) link to the place you got it from so we can check it's legit?
Not saying there's reason to mistrust you, just a precaution.

Helps keeping track of changelogs, too.

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

269 Reply by Helmi

(8 replies, posted in Feature Requests)

OverFlow wrote:

I kill autorun myself... wink we are so alike in our config preferences... lol

As Jaak once put it: "Great minds think alike!" wink

Not trying to be self-praising here but there seems to be a certain tendency among the team members big_smile

Go to forum: Feature Requests

270 Reply by Helmi

(59 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

Nah, it's not off topic as it would affect the Monitor pack.

If there are two versions of the same driver (old and new) with naturally the same HWIDs, Windows will automatically pick the newer one - no problem there.
However, if there are two drivers that differ from each other not only in version/date, then it will still pick the newer one, however, this could be the wrong one.

It does not help placing the files in a different dir, as setup will search them all.

Sometimes, it may help to specify some super-generic IDs (only vendor and no device given for instance).
Yes, you will lose Driver Signing (assuming, that's what DS means, WHQL is the better term, IMO), but that is a small price to pay, IMO, if it means that this is the only way to actually make the driver install correctly AT ALL!
WHQL means nothing anyway, we've seen beta drivers get it, we've seen drivers that constanly BSOD get it.
Only problem is that WHQL'ed drivers will be prefered to non-WHQL'ed, even if older (IIRC).
That means you will have to disable the Signed Driver Policy as well as the Unsigned Driver Policy - again, not much of a sacrifice, IMO.
I've been doing so for years and have yet to experience one single disadvantage.

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

271 Reply by Helmi

(59 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

Unless your name is Nvidia, if you have different HW, you'd asign them a different HWID, that's the whole point of it.
If the drivers are NOT compatible, yet HWIDs overlap, you will run into problems with the DriverPacks if you include both drivers (we do have such problems with NV, btw).
If you have the wrong HW and the wrong driver gets chosen (which will happen if HWIDs overlap; you cannot change the order in which drivers are being processed once the ISO is created), you may BSOD (for Kernel drivers at least).
Only way to get around this is to create an ISO that has the HWID for the device that you do not have removed.
Then, of course, it will no longer be universal.

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

272 Reply by Helmi

(59 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

Ok, I see now.

As for NA and EU versions of the driver, are there any differences?
This is the first time I have heared of regional drivers (well, apart from scanner drivers due to some obscure taxing by the EU) apart from translations of GUI and manual.

As for tools, there are some posts on the forum about it.
Can't remember all links right now, but you should focus on the Software forum and maybe give these two a try:
http://forum.driverpacks.net/viewtopic.php?id=3148
http://forum.driverpacks.net/viewtopic.php?id=3018

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks

273 Reply by Helmi

(1 replies, posted in DriverPack Graphics)

You're not the only one who needs them...

There's already another thread about this, no need to open a second one.

Usually, the trick would be to either try it again ([CTRL]+[F5] to hard reload the page) or wait it out.

And no, we don't have any official mirrors...


***CLOSED for redundancy***

Go to forum: DriverPack Graphics

274 Reply by Helmi

(34 replies, posted in Other)

Yes, we've had the torrent discussion several times now.
Thing is, torrents would still be distributed at least one time (fro the pack creator to you for instance), because you cannot assume that everyone who creates a pack also has the additional upload and or up time (preferrably 24/7) to spread them via bittorrent themselves.
So, you'd have to set up some sort of FTP access on your own machine that we could use, plus you'd need to be available 24/7 as a pack may be finished any time of the day seeing our team is international (timezones).

Personally, I find all DLs to work perfectly well and fast.
As a similar problem has occured with our old host, may I suggest playing around with your proxy settings?
Last time, disabling your proxy worked for a lot of users, while for those having the same ISP as me, enabling proxy was what cured the glitch.

Also, hard reloading the webpage using [CTRL]+[F5] can help switching you to another mirror of the CDN.

Go to forum: Other

275 Reply by Helmi

(59 replies, posted in 3rd Party DriverPacks)

Alright, if this is just a driver archive, then please don't call it DriverPack because that implies it was created according to our standards and can be used as one.
That would save less experienced users a lot of trouble and us unnecessary support issues (re: Finisher).

As for pruning, I was assuming that if two packs that both deal with display drivers are combined, there may be some files overlapping in different dirs.
In order to save space, all duplicate files (i.e. drivers for same HWIDs but different versions as well as byte-identical files (checksum)) need to be found (there's tools helping you) and deleted so only one version remains.


As for the CRTs, samlab ONLY updated LCDs, you combined both the old monitor pack (which contained both CRTs and LCDs) with his new and comprehensive LCD pack.
Therefore, if you did not update CRT drivers, then they were not updated at all.

If you also did not prune duplicate files, then best you did was extracting both packs, merging folders and repacking.

Sorry for the harsh words, but that hardly justifies a version update and does not gain anything really.
I am always very happy to see users contribute but there are certain standards that need to be met.
If you fail to do so, all you achieves was making yourself a lot of work with no usable outcome.
I'm not trying to discourage you, just making you aware of possible futile work. That would really help no one.


As for the .BMP, you are correct, I only spotted it in 7zip.
Maybe it's a glitch, what version are you using and what compression settings?

Go to forum: 3rd Party DriverPacks