Jump to content











Photo
* * * * * 4 votes

pe21


  • Please log in to reply
190 replies to this topic

#176 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 30 January 2009 - 02:27 AM

i think you should wait with portableapps. Because:


Hi Filip,

I do not know how I missed your post! ... :cheers: ... until now.

I have just posted a new project based on PortableApps.com!

The reason to do this is to split this project, so that PortableApps.com can go away... finished from pe21. What do you think?

I have also removed Opera and FreeCommander as default installs. Replaced by FAR as the only program to be always included.

In splitting this project, I was able to find a lot of untidy junk which was easy to clean from the new project because it is very basic. I think it will be harder to tidy up this pe21 project. Wise man say, 'It is more dangerous to walk down the hill than to climb up it!"

I am now using (occasionally) the winpe.wim from Win7 WAIK. You should have a look. I cannot use the base winpe.wim because unable to install the optional OS packages to the .wim when running pe21 on my XP machine. So I keep one fully-packaged Win7 winpe.wim to use - not sure which packages are actually required.

BTW. I have included your website link on the new project. I now think that I should have asked you in the first place. Is it OK? I may be able to put it on the winbuilder.net server. Let me know what you think. I can 'pull' the new project off. It all hinges (depends) on your PortableAppsMenu Installer. I also included 7-zip and FreeCommander, which do not install, and also Abiword which does silent insstall ... I'm fairly sure...

Thanks again. B)

#177 Filip Hasa

Filip Hasa

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 408 posts

Posted 03 February 2009 - 01:03 PM

Hi allanf,

may be in future you can include PortableApps.com back to project. :cheers:

I think about new project. But it will based on VistaPE much more then before. I spoke with NightMan. And He will use x86/amd64 utils (devcon.exe/setresolution.exe) compile his script under amd64 (it is autoit). It will be really easy to transfer to use WAIK.

I found new page (for me) with portable x64 software. www.portable64.com

I think that it to early for publish this project.

I am looking forward on new release of VistaPE ;o)

#178 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 03 February 2009 - 03:52 PM

OK Filip. You showed a keen interest in developing this pe21 project - in directions I hadn't thought of.... sad to see you go off to the mainstream. ... :cheers: ...

Best wishes ... B) ...

#179 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 02:32 PM

Slowly getting there...



... a totally new GUI. ... :poke: ...

#180 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 February 2009 - 03:43 PM

OT, but not much, NOT to be intended as a critic to the good work you did and are doing :poke:, and not wanting to gatecrash the party :poke: , but may I remind you that FAR 1.8 and later is Open Source, whilst 1.7x is a Shareware 40 days trial? :poke:

Which version is used for x86?

Which version is used for x64?

I haven't checked the actual .script, but it seems to me that whilst there is on the FAR site:
http://www.farmanage...ightly.php?l=en

a nightly currently v2.0 alpha build 764 (2009-02-07) is available for x86, it seems like there is no build of the Open Source x64. :poke:

Does the x64 still use the "Far171.b2198"? :poke:

Is the source for x64 version available? :poke:

If for x64 the only version is 1.7x it may not be advisable to "base" the project with FAR as the only File Manager.

Maybe it would be possible to have an option for another (completely Freeware) file manager.

Though not completely OFM:
http://www.softpanor...OFM/index.shtml

wouldn't 7-zip be a good "base" filemanager?

7-zip is not only an archiver, it is also a File Manager! :)

jaclaz

#181 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 05:01 PM

Which version is used for x86?

You've had me searching far and wide ... :poke: ...

The initial proposition was http://farmanager.co...80.b300.x86.rar, and ...

Which version is used for x64?

http://farmanager.co...1.b2198.x64.rar

I quickly found x86 and x64 versions at http://vovan.dankov.net - the referral certainly came from Wikipedia where it was mentioned as a website for v.2.0 alpha - but now I cannot find the Wikipedia 'External Links' listing for it. http://en.wikipedia....iki/FAR_Manager ... :poke: ... except in google's cache if your fast. http://209.85.173.13...5...t=clnk&cd=6

Anyway, just as quickly as I found some links to both x86 and x64 in what I thought was the latest and greatest 'FAR 2.0 build 690', they disappeared. My Russian is not much good, and it seems to have been an 'alternative' FAR dvelopment site. The link for x86 appeared briefly in pePA.com (V.001).

Is the source for x64 version available? :poke:

I feel that I am supposed to know the answer to that, but I don't.

If for x64 the only version is 1.7x it may not be advisable to "base" the project with FAR as the only File Manager.
...

wouldn't 7-zip be a good "base" filemanager?


Well. After the latest release of FreeCommander started misbehaving in WinPE2.1, and then the "now-you-see-it-now-you-don't" of FAR v.2 ('alternative'), I had gone to A43 as a non-optional file manager. And 7-zip would be just as good.

In the end, though, I have decided to have no non-optional programs at all, and leave it to the user to chose A43 or the earlier FreeCommander. Sadly no FAR, and no x64 File Manager... except... ahhh 7-zip!

Thanks!

#182 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 07 February 2009 - 05:45 PM

BTW. The link in google's cache to v.2 alpha unofficial doesn't lead to the same place it did when I clicked it a few weeks ago! ... :poke: ...

As for the original proposition and the official nightly builds, I had to discount them because Windows doesn't natively unRar AFAIK. If there is a zip out there anywhere, I'd like to know.

Thanks

#183 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 February 2009 - 06:16 PM

BTW. The link in google's cache to v.2 alpha unofficial doesn't lead to the same place it did when I clicked it a few weeks ago! ... :poke: ...

As for the original proposition and the official nightly builds, I had to discount them because Windows doesn't natively unRar AFAIK. If there is a zip out there anywhere, I'd like to know.

Thanks


I know I may seem a bit "singleminded", but 7-zip (and it's command line version/ library) can unRar files allright.

Or am I missing the problem? :poke:

jaclaz

#184 risolutore

risolutore

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 311 posts
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 February 2009 - 06:31 PM

if you like Z T r e e W i n Win32 File Manager Version 1.74 October 10th, 2008
http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm

#185 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 07 February 2009 - 07:25 PM

if you like Z T r e e W i n Win32 File Manager Version 1.74 October 10th, 2008
http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm


Please, re-read previous posts. :poke:

The problem at hand is finding a FREEWARE (and possibly, but not necessarily Open Source) filemanager running on BOTH x86 and x64.

Suggesting a Shareware/30 day trial filemanager that is 32bit only seems to me.... :poke: :poke:

jaclaz

#186 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 08 February 2009 - 12:07 AM

Or am I missing the problem? :poke:


No. It's not a 'problem'. It's just a thing - a challenge, maybe - that I set for this project. Winbuilder is not allowed to call any programs other than those available in the WAIK or Windows natively. (Now you have me wondering if there is a tool in the WAIK to unRar - I better have a look ... :poke: ...)

I had considered placing an UNRAR program in the build and using it to unRar Far Manager at boot-time - but have been distracted lately.

So, my reason for not including the official FARs - x86 and x64 - was not the licensing. However, now that you have pointed it out - it makes the proposition of including Far Manager a even more less likely... unless I can track down those unofficial 'alternative' Far managers again.

Regards

#187 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 06:06 AM

UPDATE, 11 Feb 2009: A new thread was started for a new series of pe21.

http://www.boot-land...?...ost&p=58854

Thank you.

#188 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:03 AM

Yes, that's easy. When I logically looked at the (previously 'visually bad') snippet:
A line like

Run,%ScriptFile%,section,#2,#3, ...
is passed to the script engine with
  • #2 as first argument becoming #1
  • #3 as ...
Therefore when coming back from the actual 'Run, ...' the previous #2 is now #1 etc..

And for your 'loop' it is used and obsolete. Therfore the next part of you loop has to be done with #2 as first argument.

I know that I'm not good teacher.And I hope that you understood in spite of that?

Peter

BTW for .script developers who do not know this right now: #? which you do not pass to a 'Run' to a run are lost!
Therefore, if you have #1 and #2 defined, code like
Run,%ScriptFile%,myprog,#1

 Run,%ScriptFile%,yourprog,#2
will pass an empty string to yourprog, regardless of the contents of #2 when you entered the snippet.
Therefore you always have to add possible #? in your 'Run' line, even if they actually are not used.


@psc

I guess that you could never really understand it. So now you have the opportunity, you decided to break it. What a joke!

... :) ...

Regards

#189 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:19 AM

@psc

I guess that you could never really understand it. So now you have the opportunity, you decided to break it. What a joke!

... :) ...

Regards


This 'logic' has been the reason that since WB 075 beta I introduced the parameter stack.

The whole 'parameter index' issue is forgotten now.

Peter

#190 allanf

allanf

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1256 posts

Posted 19 April 2009 - 10:29 AM

This 'logic' has been the reason that since WB 075 beta I introduced the parameter stack.

The whole 'parameter index' issue is forgotten now.

Peter


WHAT? :)

I adapted it for 076 and it's working fine. Now, for no reason whatsoever, you decided to break it. What's the story?

Have you ever tried to run a project other than your own?

I understand that you are simultaneously developing winbuilder and your own projects so that they work hand-in-hand, and doing your best to exclude other projects so it seems. First VistPE. Then NaughtyPE. Now pe21. Congratulations.

Regards :)

#191 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 20 April 2009 - 09:03 AM

I adapted it for 076 and it's working fine. Now, for no reason whatsoever, you decided to break it. What's the story?

When you adapted for 076, everything is ok.

As I wrote, the parameter stack has been introduced in 075 beta.

And that has been BEFORE 076

Peter




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users