Wouldnt it be possible to have WormKit incorporated in a beta update? This way one would only have to copy a dll module in the WA folder. This would be less of a hassle as it seems very few ppl actually use WormKit, many because they dont know how to use it (is my experience).

While I'm writing this I'm thinking Cyber would prolly have come up with this if he were allowed to do this...

n idea

While I'm writing this I'm thinking Cyber would prolly have come up with this if he were allowed to do this...

why not? wormkit is 'just a dll loader', right?

Ehrm, you only need to extract the WormKit ZIP file to your WA folder. Not really that hard.

It's indeed simple but I don't see the point of it either. WormKit also includes files that WormKit modules are likely to use, for example the madCodeHook library.

I think he wants the whole Wormkit package included, not just Wormkit.exe

That's not possible.

Ehrm, you only need to extract the WormKit ZIP file to your WA folder. Not really that hard.

And start your game with Wormkit.exe instead of WA.exe
Well, I know it's not hard, but my experience is that many ppl find it too much to do.

Anyway, yes I ment have the entire WormKit included in WA, it was a long shot and I feared I wasnt going to be possible...

These people you're referring to are either too lazy or too dumb, and in most cases its the latter. I've been patient enough (and I've seen many like me) to give every single person who asked me : "what is wk/rubber and where can I get it?" - a proper anser, sometimes even including a link to the wk site or here. Now the worst part is, couple of days later I see the same people with no wk/rubber not to mention the latest version.
My conclusion is - these people are just plain stupid, I can't even start to imagine why they bother asking if they have no intention of ever taking your advice.

So, why on earth would you want to help the helpless.

they never needed to file manage before, nor look after there start menu! a lot only know how to use and do basic things with the desktop. everything they install is usually placed automatically in the start menu or desktop, theres no need for any file management.

I think that people should have to do some sort of little test exercise on their first run with Windows. With a "Skip This, I can use my Computer already" option too.

Wait, from re-reading the OP's post, it seems he wants the Wormkit functionality to be integrated into the WA.EXE file, thus eliminating the need to use a seperate exe file. I seriously don't think it would work.

The easiest way to cater for lazy newbs would be an installer for WormKit that drops the files into the WA installation directory and creates a new shortcut on the desktop.

That doesn't save them from having to browse W:A's folder to activate certain modules.

It does save them from learning about shortcuts and changing them to point to wormkit instead of W:A.

The easiest way to cater for lazy newbs would be an installer for WormKit that drops the files into the WA installation directory and creates a new shortcut on the desktop.

guess what the rubberworm installer does :p

That doesn't save them from having to browse W:A's folder to activate certain modules.
guess what the rubberworm installer does :p
Well, if all module programmers would make installers, we could save everyone from thinking for theirselves ever again!

If that happened, it wouldn't work on linux any more.

Make sure it doesn't happen

How did you make WormKit work on Linux?

CyberShadow, did you have to buy a licensed version of madCHook, or did you spoke to his developer to get a free?

I use the license we bought for our company.

No, I'm saying W:A wouldn't run at all, because wormkit breaks it. Unless it would run without madchook if you built it in, in which case I whole-heartedly recommend it ;)

WormKit would run, but many modules still depend on madCodeHook, like wkFileOverride and Pisto's modules.