That is, there are official channels to download USP5, as there are official ones to download SP4. There _are_ official channels to acquire this package. The release of this package is done under G's authority, not Microsoft's. The necessary compilation is not authorised by Microsoft, but by G. The actual service-packs (it is at subversion 18 or something) are made, from what can be assumed, leaked copies of the same tools, or work-alike tools, that Microsoft itself uses to make service packs. What is unofficial about it is the assembly of MS fixes into a service pack, with various decisions being made about what fixes to include and which ones to exclude. If you hand-fix something like Windows NT 4 or earlier, you specifically have to go into registry to fix the service pack level.Įsc1010 advances the theory that because USP5 is 'unofficial', that it 'must have trojans and viruses in it'. But looking at the fix-pack level is what fixes do, so if you really need to install something, it won't work unless you can correct the service packs. You can, for example, take Windows XP SP2 and make it pretend it's SP6. I have done this on a number of occasions. Setting the SP level is pretty much a registry setting. While you can slipstream the rollups and later fixes, you can't undo the damage in the rollups, and the non-servicepack slipstream contains a full copy of the original fixes, which are run again over the installation, simply to create the CAT files. Drivers.cab in SP5 removes a lot of dead code that exists in SP4 and earlier: drivers that are no longer referenced anywhere. It corrects errors in rollup 2, by rolling back a fix to an earlier form. First, it includes more than just SP4 + rollups. Like much of this culture, it is an attempt to make things better than the original. Files are specifically checksumed, and one simply can not input what was not pre-signed. The SP5 was done with an unreleased toolset that is very similar to what microsoft uses to produce service packs of that era. I have had a passing role in many installations of SPs and such. I wrote fixes for time zones and for the large-font bug. You see, BartPE had a crowd of people looking at issues in it. Microsoft waved the Licence/FUD thing when people who had WinPE licences were bitterly complaining that confuring WinPE was much harder than PE, and the resulting product was more expensive. It was better supported, and had a lively community of supporters. In essence, you can make a bootable Windows environment off a wider range of sources (eg XP Home), then the official WinPE (Pro or Server only). Microsoft wasn't even supporting this DOS, but that was the recommended way of doing things. Until this happened, people were using MS-DOS 6.22 diskettes (that is, something that was 10 years old!) to do this functionality. Windows XP SP2, for examples, supports a 'minint' environment, which can be booted from a cdrom. But in the end, many of these work-alikes have surpassed their original targets, and have in themselves become things to emulate. Much of the free software is expressly 'non-official', in as much as they are work-alikes of commercial packages. Were everything of this nature, then it pretty much would not be save to download any freeware, or in fact, any software from the internet, commercial or otherwise. I am generally rather disappointed by comments that because it is 'not official', that it 'must be full of trojans and viruses'.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |