I386 in root to root!

[whitehat-dfx1]

Hey Alanoll and Flyakite!

You did an awesome job in creating Unattended Windows Installation. You touched every aspect so deeply yet so comprehendible the article is. Now I am clear in this area as I have ever been before. Thanks a lot.

Well after successful creation of multi-windows-boot media (Thnx 2 Flyakite),it was time to add some other utilities like partitioning, imaging, etc tools. So I moved on to partitioning tool addition-Acronis Disk Director 10 Suite. I created an iso file-Bootable Media Builder, nearly 24.2 MB in size. I thought I would take the bootable image file (*.bif) from it and contents from the iso image file to add it to my multi-windows-boot media.

But wait a minute! There was no visible file/folder in the iso file. I tried to search missing files and folders using ISOBuster.

It showed me three files namely-Recovered File 1.png; Recoverd File 2.png&Recoverd File 3.png under "Files found via their signature" section.

An interesting thing is that their sum of file size was nearly equal to that of iso file.(9.41MB+6.24MB+6.74MB=22.39MB~24.2MB).Have a look at their extensions "png"-Portable Network Graphics, used in graphics arena. I tried to extract them using inbuilt extract option in ISOBuster. It extracted but they were not present where I opted it to extract.

Another thing was that there was a "UDF Lost And Found" section too, having nothing. But when mounted in Virtual Drive it showed its File System as "CDFS".

As usual with any bootable CD/DVD or its image, there were two files under "Bootable CD" section--BootCatalog.cat and BootImage.img having size of 2.00 KB each. And BootImage.img file showing it as "No Emulation" type.

So cut the long story short, kindly suggest me a way to extract the files/folders present in the iso file so that I can add it to the multi-windows-boot media option.

I have a question, I hope you would reply. It is regarding placement of Installation Source Files in multi-windows-boot media.

Why are we using additional the boot folder--PRO (renamed $WIN_NT$.~BT) when we have the "i386" folder which could be renamed (like ixpp) and replaced under %cdroot% instead of placing it under %cdroot% as %cdroot%\Setup\XP\Professional\i386. And then just edit the required files to point it to the installation source files.

Or to put it the other way:

Take for example: Normal Windows XP Pro x86; why we take its "%original cdroot%\i386" contents to "%modified cdroot%\Setup\XP\Professional\i386", when we could have kept it in under "%modified cdroot%\" and renaming i386 to something like "ixpp" so that it would be "%modified cdroot%\ixpp" .

Simarly, i386 of XP Home to "%modified cdroot%\ixpp", i386 of 2K3 Enterprise to "%modified cdroot%\2k3e” ...

Then I guess we could have avoided the additional PRO-The Boot Folder, as the %modified cdroot%\ixpp would have acted as our boot folder for CD-Boot Text Mode and as well as With-in-Windows GUI installation source(launched from Windows).

To further clarify my point, take the Windows XP Professional x64 CD, it has following structure "%original cdroot%\amd64" as main installation source. Well i386 directory do exists in the XP Pro x64 as %original cdroot%\i386 but as secondary installation source for SOME files only. So see, installation source i386 (in x86) or amd64 (in x64) has been changed rather renamed as per our need only. So can’t we have our "%original cdroot%\i386" as "%modified cdroot%\ixpp”?

To further justify my point (I MAY BE WRONG), take the classic Windows NT (I have NT Server 4.0A) it has i386, MIPS, alpha and ppc under %original cdroot% for different architecture of processors. Again it reinforces that different SOURCE INSTALLATION directories can coexist within %cdroot%.

Following similar trend we could have "ixpp","ixph","2k3e","2k3s","2k3d",etc in %cdroot%. CANNT WE?

Simply saying-why wont we rename %cdroot%\i386 to %cdroot%\ixpp?

*******NOTE:"amd64" directory as installation source suggests that we can have "Boot/InstallationSouce" folder name as 5 or more lettered name.As you will generally come across websites that you have to rename it to something 4 lettered, which I think is un- implied compulsion.*******

I AM NOT SAYING WE MUST NOT HAVE "BOOT FOLDER".I AM JUST ASKING WHY IT IS SO THAT WE HAVE IT THERE?

Anyway Flyakite/you have saved me around 450-500 odd MB per OS in multi-windows-boot media in NT OSes as others don’t like magiciso.

(Imagine vagueing 450MB X 3 for 2000, 450MB X 2 for XP, 450MB X 4 for 2003,etc.... it would have taken whopping 4050 MB (4GB) of your then precious 4 GB DVD.

If it wasn't albatross in your throat, then include slipstreamed OSes plus their GOLD releases and x64 architecture OSes,then you would have to move 17GB DVD or BlueRay Disc. I haven’t calculated that much by the way.)

Thnx Flyakite for such a great article. Hats off to you Man! thumbup.gif

Plz help me in Acronis matter and if wrong in i386 matter plz plz plz.... correct me!

It would be nice of you.

Expecting Your Reply

whitehat-dfx1

[whitehat-dfx1]

Aah...Still No One!

Please Clear me on "Boot Folder Matter". ∫ ∂(Help)ⁿ→∞, {n} € ∞. Oh Sorry … doing some maths.

There's gotta be someone who knows the reason or something about -"why cannt we rename main I386 of

every NT OSes to something and put them in the root folder to make MultiBoot?"

"flyakites MultiBoot" solution works fine , but why should we have boot folders when intial OS CDs dont(uses same folder i386)?

Please get something for this "Inquisitive Thirst" of mine.

Clarification greatly appreciated in advance!

By the way, got success in adding Acronis True Image 9 and Acronis Disk Director 10 Recovery Cd images in

MultiBoot DVD.

Thnx anywayz.

Long Live MSFN Forum!

n Sorry it was "I386 in root to "b"oot!" not "I386 in root to "r"oot!". Sorry gals n pals.