Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country


Posts posted by zamarac

  1. Check if you have displaying the icon enabled in the options.


    That's the ISO9660 file system icon !??


    Thanks. Now I have the icons checked. Split icon now shows up in "Bootable Disk" folder, the package was re-downloaded today. But the extracted folder contains the same Acronis.img, not 2 split files, and the image is impossible to read: once mounted with ImDisk, it doesn't contain a valid file system. So no extents... When extracted separately from the folder - again no extents. When "Show Extents" is selected - no extraction...  :lol:


    Also, may I suggest to show extents UNDER Acronis.img file (as expended folder) similar to any mounted archive, rather then in a separate window.




    Also, when I try to extract the same Acronis.img separately from left pan (assuming, may be this will give 2 extents), it asks for payment - how then you expect us to test the changes you make?  :rolleyes: And that file is also called Acronis.img that raises the question whether its content is the same as of Acronis.img from "Bootable Disk" folder - how to check that?




    As to Acronis_Media folder called ISO in the left pan, you mentioned to have downloaded Acronis 2014 ISO. Can you explain, why for ATIH2015_Linux.iso that folder is empty, but for ATIH2014_Linux.iso it is full with files?

  2. The screenshot here shows there is no split to extents as claimed. If you refuse to answer valid on-topic forum member questions, we'll need to discuss what is the actual purpose of this thread - ISOBuster package advertising?


    If you feel offended in any way by any previous interaction, unfortunately - me too by the attempts to hijack to ISOBuster another thread I started. But it shouldn't prevent a normal discussion on topic in this thread of any interested parties. Always think of - who is the first offender...  :)

  3. The El-Torito standard does not include anywhere in boot catalog a field for the SIZE of such images (though it includes a field for "Size to be initially loaded")


    It looks like there were attempts made to discuss El-Torito standard supplements. I wonder if that standard was / is ever reviewed, so this discussion can become even more useful if these reviewers are invited. It sounds reasonable to periodically review any standards that are still in use.



    I addressed the earlier mentioned 'open issues' of points 4 and 5 and I went ahead and split up the Acronis image into two extents.

    Let me know what you think.


    I'm glad we can discuss this topic without hijacking other threads. Note, all discussions on this forum are public.


    As to your invitation to "let you know", I don't see Acronis image split into two extents in the last ISOBuster revision. Also, can you explain why Acronis_Media folder at the left pan's top is empty, and why its called ISO folder?  :)



  4. Temporarily, try this modified batch (this is really @§§ed :w00t:, it will list on "normal" .iso's with a "small" no-emulation bootsector the EFI image twice).


    Once the results are clearer, I may re-write the thingy with some more checks to avoid double detection (and possibly with some better structure).


    I wonder if the results are clearer by now to "re-write this thingy" as promised?  :ph34r:  It sounds like a useful free tool for folks interested in the subject.  :P

  5. I'm claiming amnesia next.


    Don't do that!!! Thanks for your detail replies! :angel


    I know, I'm always asking silly questions.  :realmad:  Though they tend to attract quality answers... and such topics become instant hit. Say, this one was read 700 times for the last 5 days - it might be a forum record given its not a new OS, major update or device announcement. When I imaging, how many people will learn from it useful skills and in-depth understanding of the subject nowhere else discussed for the next 2 years - it drives me crazy to ask even more questions, of course stupid ones.  :whistle:


    It also shows btw, how many folks are interested to keep booting various service images to RAM from HDD - the option so familiar with Grub4DOS on BIOS PCs, but much less available on UEFI PCs due to under-developed tools - instead of following the MS footsteps of now suddenly booting everything from USB Flash, even though for years they blocked that option either.  :ph34r:


    User interest shows, booting disk images on UEFI systems requires a lot more boot tool developers attention, both in Linux and Windows world, especially given the fact PC & laptop sales are growing again.  :thumbup


    Not sure I fully understand your comment about BIOS support by UEFI files on a 64-bit PC. On one hand, it means that the 64-bit Linux ISO is likely to work on BIOS 32-bit PC as well - is that correct? But it won't on UEFI 32-bit PC?

    UEFI is a firmware just like BIOS is. PCs with UEFI firmware "can" emulate BIOS.


    If you have a concern about whether or not said ISO can boot on the x86 locked UEFI hardware, I MAY still have that board available to me to test with, providing you can give instructions on how to make the boot media.


    Thanks for interesting overview. :)  In this thread we were exploring primary boot options available in Acronis ISOs keeping in mind that UEFI emulation of BIOS features via CSM is not always available on every PC despite required by standards. Did you find an answer to your earlier WinPE question from the pic I posted?  :unsure:


    As to testing Acronis ISOs boot compatibility with UEFI 32-bit FW, that would be nice! I found some ad links to trial install ISOs mentioned here (slow speed). You can try latest Linux and WinPE ones, they seems to be clean, just follow download instructions in bold.

  7. Time to learn some basics?


    By the way: the 64 bit Acrornis dat*.dat UEFI files works at a 64 bit machine with a BIOS too.

    No need for the 'BIOS' files at a 64 bit machine.

    The 'BIOS' files refers to 32 bit machines.


    You can laugh, I was never a big fan of CDs & DVDs in terms of booting power - too slow and at times costly to make.  :)


    Not sure I fully understand your comment about BIOS support by UEFI files on a 64-bit PC. On one hand, it means that the 64-bit Linux ISO is likely to work on BIOS 32-bit PC as well - is that correct? But it won't on UEFI 32-bit PC? How about WinPE ISO - can it work on both, and how to find out looking at its structure - possible?


    Does it mean that on 64-bit BIOS PC, the Boot Catalog points FW to UEFI floppy instead of BIOS floppy? If YES, is it a typical approach for Linux based ISOs? But the BIOS floppy contains other files apart from *.dats. Does it mean that on a BIOS 64-bit PC only UEFI floppy is useful?


    Since USB Thumb is treated as Hard Drive rather than CD-ROM (I didn't know that  :huh: ), is it possible to use the Linux ISO's 2 El-Torito images (BIOS and UEFI) on a USB Thumb in any way - either by copying the images or extracting their content? This may be needed, if Acronis is NOT installed on a user's PC, so no way to prepare Acronis USB Thumb from the program GUI, but a user can possibly download Acronis Linux ISO and extract it onto a bootable USB Thumb - possible? Would it work the same way for a WinPE ISO?

  8. That post you have found the x64 EFI boot file but not what architecture the WinPE is.


    Is that what you're looking for?  :rolleyes: Where would it show "the ability to boot on x86 and amd64 platforms interchangeably"? I can see only UEFI & BIOS support.




    The 64 bit UEFI firmware reads the El Torito boot catalog, mounts the EFI referenced FAT floppy and lauch the EFI application \efi\boot\bootX64.efi.


    Thanks for extreme clarity - as always brief.  :D  So the EFI.img is in fact the El-Torito floppy image placed on the ISO, and it has a boot catalog? Is this catalog placed in a certain file inside the floppy, or just in a few sectors in the floppy's bootsector that were referenced to as BootCatalog.cat earlier?


    But in case of ACIH2015_Linux.iso there are 2 El-Torito floppies on the same ISO - one is for BIOS PC boot, and another is for EFI boot - correct? So how the system finds the right floppy to deal with? Does it mount both (or all) floppies first, and then look for specific files in each?


    How this structure is different from a bootable Acronis2015_Linux USB Thumb? Any principal differences in booting Linux from ISO compare to a USB Thumb in UEFI and BIOS modes?

  9. Anyways, questions of my own regarding this WinPE5 image. What is its architecture? 


    If you're asking about Acronis WinPE image, ATIH2015_WinPE5.iso structure was shown in this post. This is 64-bit ISO to my understanding. My question was, how it boots in UEFI mode (even when burned as a CD, though booting it as ISO is more interesting) assuming its Fat-formatted EFI volume is inside El-Torito floppy - is it?





    Files on which bextract.cmd works fine (and latest posted Isobuster does not):

    Kav rescue disk 10
    has seemingly a "eltorito.img" on sector 228 sized 25225 bytes

    Acronis Antimalware CD
    has ISOLUX.BIN on sector 228 11691 bytes

    Files on which bextract.cmd DOES NOT work (and Isobuister also *somehow* fails):
    2OS 3.16
    (isobuster gets it seemingly "wrong" in size as 2 Kb, AND it recognizes it as MagicIso bootsector, though it is seemingly an ISOLINUX)

    2OS 8.10
    (isobuster gets it seemingly "right" in size, 14 Kb, AND it recognizes it as MagicIso bootsector, AND it is seemingly a modified ISOLINUX, BUT isobuster extracts only the first 12 Kb)






    About reboot.pro site being for sale and/or decreases of traffic... What I post, nonsense as it might be, tends to be "specific"




    All this staff above you keep posting is irrelevant to the thread topic. You don't behave this way on reboot.pro forum - why? You don't try to disrupt discussions over there, neither hijack threads. Is it because popularity of reboot.pro is so low now, there are no new developments, and its owner attempts to sell stolen forum members contributions failed miserably? Sorry you didn't get your cash.  :}  Is that why you try to raise popularity of reboot.pro by damaging reputation of msfn.org forum - disrupt popular discussions here? I know you're around for awhile here, but things were never so bad at reboot.pro. So desperate now? As admitted, you were paid a moderator fee on reboot.pro until removed on forum members strong demand, but still keeping your share? While you're just an ordinary member here - so may be trying to extort some deals from msfn.org team by hijacking hot threads?  :lol:

  11. My goodness, you're a character aren't you ?

    I strongly disagree with your comments.

    I will retire from this thread.


    Everyone in this thread is a character, you're simply not familiar with that. :)


    If you "strongly desagree", why your last version:

    - produced no improvements in the area you claim it did? Can you post a screenshot proving otherwise, using same checksum package?

    - introduced new bugs like desyncing left and right program pans, and also removal of settings allowing to stop scanning hard drive at each restart - instead of simply opening the last open image at program restart, or at least offering such settings?


    If I'm mistaken - pls show were. This is not "my" thread, but its not devoted to paid program testing either. If you're willing to offer real improvements relevant to subject of this thread (no other ISOs discussed) with no artificial barriers I'll be glad to test it further.  :yes:



    I'll check a few other .iso's I have around and see if I can find "unexpected" behaviours and report.


    Pls do it on ISOBuster's forum if there is one, but certainly outside of this thread. Your above post was reported to moderation team. Btw you never explained the purpose of inviting such discussion here to begin with, and it doesn't look clear cut to me. You can't do whatever you want in blatant disregard to forum rules - regardless what you think about yourself. Especially when trying at the same time to teach moral in many other threads, like you have any.   ;)


    Acronis.img needs to be "explorable", hence separated into 2 files or extents.

    I'm more concerned with giving an as good as possible representation of the content.

    Hence my idea to maybe split it up in two extents. Then you have one file, but IsoBuster allows to see the different sub-parts (extents) to possibly extract those seperately

    The different images as they are shown by IsoBuster are in a way different floppies. 

    The floppy icon as is shown is in fact a folder.


    I don't see any changes in this version, especially on points 4 and 5.  :boring:


    As to floppy been a folder, we are definitely on different pages. Your floppy says "Bootable Disk", and you called it El-Torito floppy in several places here. It looks like an image for users, not a folder.  :rolleyes: In this case, what ISO folder means in your GUI?


    If its not a single El_Torito floppy, I don't see "use case" to extract it as an image. Regarding file system & driver see Img (File Format). If an IMG contains other images, ImDisk can mount it as a regular disk, then other images inside. Intuitive is the key for a paid GUI package, especially when facing competition from a free batch (if jaclaz would be interested to finalize it after a dinner - if he had a dinner).  :yes: Valid argument for multibooters, probably less for data recovery.


    There are new annoying bugs in your new version (may be on purpose B) ), but I don't want this thread be hijacked to ISOBuster. Note, out testing and suggestions are free, while your package needs update or enhancement.


    What about asking specific questions here?


    Going back to the topic of this thread. Presence of what is called 2 El-Torito floppies in the ISO raises the questions:


    - How the burned Linux CD boots on UEFI and BIOS PCs - what is the boot sequence for each hardware type?

    - Would one need to extract or copy each IMG to a USB Thumb to make it bootable after copying the mounted ISO content to it?

  13. IsoBuster


    I don't know if content of ATIH2014_Linux.iso is different than ATIH2015_Linux.iso in terms of files discussed, but its definitely reflected differently by ISOBuster. It might be interesting for you to understand WHY, because Acronis.img in one is shown as ISO, and in the other as FAT .


    Acronis.img needs to be "explorable", hence separated into 2 files or extents. As the images exploration stands right now in Linux:


    >file \BootImage(Linux2015).img

    x86 boot sector, Acronis Startup Recovery Loader BOOTWIZ .SYS, code offset 0x42, OEM-ID "BOOTWIZ0", sectors/cluster 8, FAT  1, root entries 16, Media descriptor 0xf8, sectors/FAT 159, heads 255, sectors 325337 (volumes > 32 MB) , serial number 0xf1fc2ee9, label: "           ", FAT (16 bit)
    >file \BootImage(Linux2014).img
    x86 boot sector, Acronis Startup Recovery Loader BOOTWIZ .SYS, code offset 0x42, OEM-ID "BOOTWIZ0", sectors/cluster 8, FAT  1, root entries 16, sectors/FAT 140, heads 16, sectors 285374 (volumes > 32 MB) , serial number 0xbe3065a3, label: "           ", FAT (16 bit)
    >file \BootImage(PE2015).img
    DOS floppy 1440k, x86 hard disk boot sector
    >file \Acronis(Linux2015).img
    Meaning, Acronis.img is NOT explorable, doesn't contain a valid file system.
    As to exporting Bootable_Disk floppy shown in ISOBuster GUI, can it be exported & saved as a single IMG file (Floppy.img) instead of a folder structure? One can mount this file by ImDisk, and see the files inside it, i.e. Catalog.dat, Acronis.img, BootImage.img. Then these images can also be mounted by ImDisk if needed.
    Regarding file naming, is it reasonable to name Acronis.img as AcronisBIOS.img, and BootImage.img as AcronisEFI.img, or they are listed that way on the CD?
  14. IsoBuster


    I tested just a little bit, and it looks a lot better now. Still some questions remain:


    - wouldn't be better to allow extract Bootable Disk as IMG or FOLDER, rather than extracting it as folder only? It remains to be tested whether its possible to directly copy such BootableDisk.img onto another ISO or USB Thumb to make it bootable, or it needs to be extracted onto such Thumb

    - while inside the Bootable_Disk floppy files seems to be shown with proper sizes now, the structure discussed above doesn't match. It was mentioned that what was named Acronis.img before is in fact a bootloader that points to BIOS image next to it - where is this image now? At the same time what is listed now as Acronis.img can't be explored in Windows despite listed as FAT

    - Outside of Bootable_Disk floppy, in ATIH2014_Linux.iso the Acronis.img is not listed separately, and Acronis_Media .iso (if its really an ISO) content is equivalent to Acronis_Media folder. While in ATIH2015_Linux.iso the Acronis_Media.iso is empty, and Acronis.img is listed separately. Why is that?

    - in ATIH2015_WinPE.iso the Acronis.img is shown in Bootable_Disk floppy, but not listed separately, so its content is unknown





    While inviting IsoBuster to the discussion was IMHO a good idea, ISOBuster package deficiencies were not the only ones we stumbled upon in this thread. Even more questions were raised about inability to boot WinPE ISO in UEFI mode, and all of them are relevant to this thread. So may be inviting other known personalities who can address "lost CD mount" issue would be suitable?  :whistle:

  15. Thanks to zamarac  ;) mixing liberally different versions there is a lot of confusion  :w00t:.


    I do recognize jaclaz... Still having sanity issues?   :}  Did YOU give IsoBuster the link to WinPE ISO, while talking about ISOBuster issues it doesn't have with this particular ISO?     :thumbup




    Each ISO title is clearly identified in ISOBuster headline, so its hard to get confused. And links to all 3 discussed were given in the above single post for a reason to easily find them. Btw, I suggested to download all 3 trial ISOs for testing ISOBuster to make the relevant issues evident. Regarding Slitaz.iso 30Mb, here's one mentioned in the thread she linked, but there are others around.



    So why is in this particular image the 'no emulation' 'image' 'BootImage.img' in fact a FAT file system ?

    Suppose I make a workaround for this case. Can I recognize that the size is wrong ? Or should I trigger on the name ("isolinux" ?) and then do an extra check ?

    In a situation where there is a loader and a FAT image, how do you suggest I list this (assuming I can detect it) ?

    Split in two files ? image-name.loader and image-name.img ?

    Is this something very much linked to Acronis ?


    I'd say, the issue is NOT Acronis specific, but rather resulting from changed landscape of ISO booting methods not accounted for in ISOBuster and similar packages thus far. You likely developed ISOBuster for exploring ISO's without particular accent on how they boot, partly because at that time they booted uniformly on BIOS PCs. Now it changed, so different Service ISO makers use somewhat varying solutions to boot them on BIOS & UEFI hardware. Accounting for BOOT method and images becomes a major requirement for ISOBuster's update. Not surprising, it might be needed to change how things look (visual file representation), even if earlier users find it unfamiliar. Since when learning new things was considered "a problem"?  :)


    The batch above has comments showing image is checked against known standards and strings to ID its type, size, file system among other things. It doesn't mean this is the only way to do things, but it leans toward generic approach. "How to" question is rather related to the task to make the algorithm as generic as possible (not specific to Acronis). Later in this thread we might look at similar in service purpose Paragon trial ISOs as another example of UEFI ISO boot, and test if "generic" clause holds.  :wacko:




    The other thing, it would be nice if an image listed as ISO or Floppy in ISOBuster, would be possible to extract not to a folder, but as ISO or Floppy. Right now an attempt to extract something listed as Bootable Disk above using the option "Extract Bootable Disk" produces a folder structure, not to mention the disk content is likely wrong.

  16. IsoBuster


    WinPE ISO has only one small boot image, its evident from this post pics. I suggest to download two Linux ISOs, since they each contain 2 images, but the content of Acronis_Media ISO inside the Linux ISOs as depicted in ISOBuster is different: 2014 ISO contains duplicate content of same name folder, while 2015 ISO is empty. It may be related to how ISOBuster reads the ISOs. This is in addition to "other" image missing issue.


    While you think that El-Torito floppy content is not important, since all files are located on CD somewhere anyway, if fact it is important. This is because once that Floppy is extracted as an IMG, it can then be copied to a USB Thumb where content of Acronis ISO is also extracted, to make the Thumb bootable. So its quit important to understand how all these files are linked to each other, and what's actually inside this Floppy and each file inside it, as some adjustments may be required. I still "think", both actual images might be inside this floppy. In WinPE ISO, there is also a problem in booting it in UEFI mode, so its handy to figure out content inside the floppy.

  17. IsoBuster


    I don't know what ISO you were referred to, but this post has links to all 3 different ISOs depicted in various places of this thread. They all have different content, so I had to download all 3, but in each ISO extra files or image (in Linux ISO) were found by "Find missing" feature. 


    Is it possible that both full size images the "Find Missing" identifies in Linux ISOs are in fact inside the single El-Torito Floppy, and what we need is to identify correctly the size of that floppy and files inside it, and extract the floppy in a way that would allow to explore both FAT images inside it?


    What do you mean by "wrong" size?  :unsure:


    I know duplicate was "expected" in unspecified cases. "The wrong size" clause came from comparing 140Mb size of the mounted by ImDisk ISO or IMG with actual content size of EFI folder - sorry its correct size now. :}  ImDisk options don't play any role here.


    Is it possible that both full size images your batch identifies are in fact inside the single El-Torito Floppy, and what we need is to identify correctly the size of that floppy, and mount it by ImDisk in a way that would allow to explore both FAT images inside it?


    Btw, this thread was read 300+ times for the last 2 days. This shows actual community interest in booting Acronis ISOs directly from HDD instead of extracting their content to a USB Thumb.


    But I most be missing something, why does Linux put the other stuff on there ?

    Kindly enlighten me.


    When jaclaz invited you here, I'm sure he felt confident enough to answer these questions, so he did.   :thumbup  


    UltraISO indeed can't see the "other" image when exploring the ISO. But it can extract it as "boot file" .bif from a mounted ISO, which sounds in contrast with what your definition of CD boot image is, i.e. El-Torito Floppy.   :huh: Also, jaclaz's batch can similarly find both images and mount with ImDisk. It appears that one image is used to boot the ISO in BIOS mode, and the other in UEFI mode. Both images are possibly referred to from "fake" files in the El-Torito floppy, or comprise the content of these IMG files inside the Floppy, if ISOBuster reflects their sizes incorrectly. In this case the Floppy is pretty big.


    As to "Find missing..." feature, ISOBuster indeed produced the "other" image and more in both Linux and WinPE ISOs. As was mentioned earlier, the "other" image was not referenced in the CD structure (in a certain way may be?).





    If El-Torito Floppy content is correct (let's assume it is) then the disc is bootable.


    Is there a way to mount and explore images it contains after extracting the floppy - it appears to be sized and hence extracted incorrectly as per jaclaz? This way we might be able to figure out how the boot sequence works for different FW modes. I know, jaclaz already gave his "opinions" about it.  :)




    One might assume that the ISOs have dublicate Acronis_Media structure for "uniformity". It looks like "Acronis_Media" internal ISO is used in UEFI Mode in 2014 Linux and WinPE ISOs (but its content becomes either redundant or not detectable by ISOBuster in 2015 Linux ISO), while "Acronis_Media" folder is used in BIOS mode in both ISO types. 

  20. jaclaz pointed me to this thread. Can somebody put some clear points in front of me?


    Which is great, hopefully he'll do the same for other relevant parties, and as well provide "clear points", what the problem seems to be with ISOBuster at exploring combo UEFI/BIOS Acronis ISOs. :yes:  You can download without issues the clean trial ISOs someone posted, just follow safe download suggestions


    As to your questions:


    - renaming the ISOs to DSK produces the same file structure in ISOBuster

    - scan file system options are On by default, hence EFI Fat is visible. But the "other" image (extractable by UltraISO as .bif from bootsector of a mounted by ImDisk ISO ) is not, which you can test yourself by using jaclaz's batch jointly with ImDisk

    - what do you mean under "shows El-Torito Information"? Which folder do you refer to on what screenshot? Is its content shown by ISOBuster sufficient to boot the ISO in BIOS and/or UEFI modes? if only in one mode, where is the "other" image?





    Thanks for the useful ISOBuster tool! This thread tells more folks about it.   :)

  21. this is really @§§ed :w00t:


    It appears to be a step in right direction (with certain limitations).  B)  For ATIH2014 and 2015 Linux.iso it allows to create 2 images with ImDisk. It remains unclear however, whether the 1st image (equivalent to bios.bif) in fact is sufficient to boot the CD in BIOS mode. Any optimal way to verify that using a USB Flash or CD? As to the 2nd image (efi.img), its size is wrong resulting in mounting a CD instead of floppy.




    As to ATIH2015_WinPE5.iso, the batch identified twice the same EFI image, still causing questions about how BIOS mode boots?





    It's working in BIOS mode, with certain limitations.


    Well, both drivers are at a higher level. Windows core boot files are running already.

    The current issue is more basic:

    Create a virtual disk: let windows loader find bcd, boot.sdi and boot.wim.


    Can you give a link on how its working in BIOS mode for Win8.1 install from ISO? Also, can you look ones more at this post - there're some more interesting questions we may need to entertain.


    As to the "issue been basic", may be someone let Sha0 know what's discussed here, and he might want to comment (or even suddenly offer the "basic" solution)?  :P

  22. It is still not clear at all (to me) how can UltraIso later "show" the contents of the .bif (which actually are the contents of the first FAT image, most probably it simply scans the file to find a recognizable BPB :unsure., I'll have to check with some dummy data.



    Similarly, is it clear (to you), why UltraISO can show the content of ATIH2014_Linux.bif (what I call bios.img), but not the content of ATIH2015_Linux.bif (which is surprisingly only 2Kb in size compare to ATIH2014_Linux.bif at ~300Mb and ATIH2015_WinPE.bif at 4Kb)?   :)


    And how these ISOs boot in BIOS - by using BOOTWIZ? I wonder why there is a need for 2 Acronis_Media structures in the 2014 ISOs that seem exactly the same, and why in 2015 Linux ISO the 1st Acronis_Media looks empty in UltraISO - may be it simply can't read its content?


    Contrary it took several years to appear a ISO file windows driver.


    Grub development rejeted El-Torito loopback in the past.


    Are there any signs of someone even looking in that direction or to installing Win8.1 from ISO, as the problem seems to be similar? I'm a bit shocked to learn, once MS offered Win install from USB, no-one seems to ever bothered to adapt WinXP install from ISO approach to Win7/8 without extraction, despite it may be a very simple adaptation of WinVBlock (it started for 7 and died?) or FiraDisk.  :whistle:


    And that is despite HUGE interest from the public... Our "Migrating Windows from BIOS HDD to UEFI VHD" thread on this forum was already read 800 times for the last 2 weeks - imaging, how many peeps will benefit from it for the next 6 months until Win9 comes in, and then?  :D Similarly, Acronis disks, whether we like it or not, are extremely popular, and huge number of folks would be happy to boot them from ISO on UEFI systems (which are now the ONLY new PCs available), or at least have some means to transfer to USB Stick without hard to comprehend known aggregate tools.  ;) That's were jaklaz's batch comes handy - if some clarity about ATIH.iso boot sequence in UEFI and BIOS modes is introduced as well.


    Btw, in the interesting link you mentioned, the guy said to map El_Torito image and boot UEFI Linux ISO via ELILO, but not via Grub2. Is it possible to call ELILO from Grub2 to replicate that - may be its the way to boot more images with Grub2 via ELILO? How to install ELILO for that purpose?



    But it is not set in stone - try describing your use case on grub-devel.


    Its possible, though I doubt they didn't hear about Grub4DOS popularity and distinctions. Regarding Burg, which was called a "Windows friendly" Grub2 replacement, it was mentioned it has a different object model, but what was exactly different about it compare to Grub2? Might be its a serious obstacle in implementing image map support in Grub2? I guess Burg development stopped due to lack of interest in Linux dev community to support anything beyond Linux distros.

  23. Neither Linux nor PE supports the loopback device.

    As for today, I dare to say: there is no ISO file PE UEFI way.

    Well, last ressort, follow the manufacturer approach: burn the ISO file to a real CD.

    And use a hex editor to extract the boot images in doubt.

    There is no GUI solution supporting all cases.


    Is this glass half full or empty? In the past, such "no solution" statements prompted active development. As to using a hex editor - nah, after being offered such nice "teamwork" batch most users won't do that. It may be the only tool now available for migrating boot images, when transferring UEFI Acronis ISOs onto USB Thumb. Can't say I was very relaxed though, but you may be. That's why dat8.dat and dat9.dat dark secrets remain untold - I wonder, where that grub.cfg menu came from... probably from a hex editor...     :lol:


    Isn't wimboot available today? I'm writing a half-assed Tutorial about it, then will follow it to try myself. But how it can affect ISO boot in UEFI mode - hasn't boot.wim been used to boot WinPE for a long while?     :angel

  24. I am not sure to understand what you mean by "BIOS.IMG" :unsure:


    As mentioned here, each ATIH2014_Linux.iso contains 2 images: efi.img for booting on UEFI PC, and (eltorito)bios.img for booting on BIOS PC. While EFI Fat section is visible in ISOBuster under certain settings, bios.img AFAIK is NOT - neither in ISOBuster, no in UltraISO. However, the BIOS boot file can be extracted to bios.bif by UltraISO from the ISO mounted by ImDisk, while EFI boot file can be extracted in Windows either by ISOBuster (under Pro license), or via your free batch - thank you.






    Once the bios.bif is extracted, it can then be imported back to UltraISO, and reviewed or saved to bios.img or folder structure, but the bios.img is still not mountable via ImDisk (due to unknown offset?). That's why fully baked jaklaz's free batch ideally needs to point to two images (not one) or may be one bigger image comprising both?    :realmad:




    With ATIH2015_Linux.iso situation is a bit different: not only you can't see bios.img, but also UltraISO extracts instead what appears to be efi.bif or pointer file from the bootsector of Linux ISO mounted by ImDisk. Still its not mountable by ImDisk (due to unknown offset?) and neither importable back to UltraISO. I assume, its due to one of the reasons: 1) bios.img is absent in bootsector; 2) latest UltraISO is not yet capable to extract it. Nonetheless, the Linux ISO is expected to boot from both EFI and BIOS modes, so it likely needs 2 boot images?


    ATIH2015_WinPE.iso also appears to have only one boot efi.img. But both Linux and WinPE5 based 2015 ISOs were tested to boot well in both BIOS and UEFI modes. Hence the question: how do they boot in BIOS mode?  Is it possible that both these images are in fact inside a single bigger ElTorito boot image (another ISO may be) hidden in a bootsector?   :o

  25. YES - now the batch works well for small and large EFI.img files! However, it still remains "quoter-assed", since while you were fixing it, the 2-nd problem shown up - it does show size and offset for EFI.img, but not for BIOS.img:whistle:


    As to ATIH2015_WinPE5.iso, it indeed shows EFI folders in multiple places probably for "MS quality assurance" in addition to a small efisector boot EFI.img with one file:  \efi\boot\BOOTX64.EFI .







    As said, the PE based .iso is likely to use an approach for EFI similar to the "standard" Windows 8/8.1 .iso's (which is a "1.44 Mb floppy image" even if the "type" is "No-emulation").


    It would be nice, if that particular approach for booting it with Grub2 becomes known?     :P

  • Create New...