Jerry,

Thanks for responding to my post. I was quite concerned when my client couldn't install my FPW 2.6a application on a Win 98 machine, because I'm planning to send out a couple hundred shrinkwrapped CD-ROMs next week. It helps to know that there are people here on the 'thread ready to chime in with advice.

I'm feeling a better now, since my client got the app to install by running setup.exe from the DOS prompt (go figure). The .exe runs fine (now that it's installed), so I guess the problem is with the FPW Distribution kit and not with FPW 2.6 (thank you, God).

We're thinking along the same lines. Maybe all I really need for Win 98 is a DOS (gasp!) .bat file to create the directory structure and copy the .exe, .esl, and related files. My .exe file handles much of its own installation cleanup (it creates its own .ini and .fpw files), but I need to launch it with a switch ("/s" for "setup") the first time it is run. Can a batch file handle that?

I'm a little rusty with my DOS commands <grin>, but, if this idea can work, I'll just create a batch file on the CD_ROM ("setup98.bat" ?) for the enduser who have problems installing under Win 98. I'm sure I'll get a few phone calls, but at least I'll have a fix for the problem --and I'll still be able to ship the discs next week.

Thoughts?

Thanks again,

Arthur


===========================

>>I received a call from a client today who can't install my FPW 2.6a
>>application under Win 98. The setup disks were created with the FPW 2.6a
>>Distribution Kit. When he tries to run setup.exe, he gets a message that says:
>
>>"setup.exe is not a valid win32 application"
>
>Well for one thing under Windows 95 or 98 your don't really need setup.exe - just the foxpro support library somewhere the app can find it and the application. You could roll your on mini-install. I don't have Win 98 anywhere to test this with though...
>
>The only artcle I could find with that error message mentions changing the video display drive - but it was for MS Money under windows 95 so it may not be related.
>
>This would certainly be a bad way to find out it won't run 2.6 exes....