Jump to content

Looking for CDImage v2.52


JASpurrier3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, I know there is a REAL CDImage v2.52 out on the internet somewhere. I have studied the ISOs and found out that CDImage v1.47 and OSCDIMG v1.45 are similar (almost the same). I am working with the Official MSDN (not Billgates!) release of Vista. I decompressed all of the files and then used CDImage and OSCDIMG to compress the files into a UDF iso. The ISO sizes are exactly the same, but the actual data in them is not the same. First, after making the basic changes in version and date (1.47->2.52), I compared the files and found many different changes.

My Command:

CDImage.exe -lLRMCFRE_EN_DVD -t11/02/2006,12:00:00 -h -u2 -o -m -betfsboot.com C:\LRMCFRE_EN_DVD LRMCFRE_EN_DVD.iso

Is this correct?

A few changes between the two versions:

Offset: 8B875h

MSDN: 6c1be000MS UDFBridge

Mine: L R M C F R E _ E N _ D V D

Offset: 8B919h

MSDN: CDImage UDF media

Mine: Sample UDF 1.50 media

Offset: 8B93Dh

MSDN: Contact jmaxson or arunku

Mine: Contact danlo or nathann

Now, searching through the rest of the ISOs, all of the files contained within are "marked" at the same offsets, but minor byte strings all around are changed (around 4000). I was wondering if this could be due to the version of the UDF (current version in CDImage is 1.50, other programs go up to 2.6) or just due to little "hashes" that makes each version of CDImage unique. I also tried compressing the same group of files a second time with all of the same settings and the ISO had the exact same MD5. So, time does not affect the actual makeup of the ISO. Is there anyone with some suggestions?

My goal is to harness the ability to compress the group of Vista files myself and still have the same MD5 on the ISO as the original.

Edited by JASpurrier3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


LLXX, thanks for the info. I saw the other Thread and it was under the wrong category. My question has nothing to do with "Multi-Boot CD/DVDs", but thanks for the concern. The other thread is also filled with outdated posts, why add on to an already dead topic in the wrong category?

Nitroshift, thanks for you concern with Warez, but I do not condone the use of warez. Either way, it doesn't matter which version of Vista I use because they all have the same data at the same offsets. The BillGates version is Pre-RTM anyway; it's like using a Beta or Release Candidate which is not warez.

Anyone else have anything constructive to say about CDImage v2.52?

Edited by JASpurrier3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'BillGates' version is a pre-RTM, thats true. However, its only a pre-RTM in the sense that it is the actual RTM that was warezed before the actual RTM was actually sent to manufacturing, with a few chages added so you can activate it (at least for a while). It's warez. So no, it's not like using a Beta or Release Candidate, because its neither a Beta or Release Candidate. If your not legitimately licensed for it then its warezed. So if you are using it and your not legitimately licensed for it then you are condoning the use of warez.

LLXX, thanks for the info. I saw the other Thread and it was under the wrong category. My question has nothing to do with "Multi-Boot CD/DVDs", but thanks for the concern. The other thread is also filled with outdated posts, why add on to an already dead topic in the wrong category?

Nitroshift, thanks for you concern with Warez, but I do not condone the use of warez. Either way, it doesn't matter which version of Vista I use because they all have the same data at the same offsets. The BillGates version is Pre-RTM anyway; it's like using a Beta or Release Candidate which is not warez.

Anyone else have anything constructive to say about CDImage v2.52?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, this is great. A real moderator is going to close this Thread because a bunch of forum users, consisting of a Senior Technician and Senior Member, feel like presenting opposition toward topics that contain even the smallest unfavorable attribute among all things.

I do not mean to slander ANYONE because that is not the kind of person I am. I also do not wish to be apart of the Computing Community for reasons related directly to the kind of behavior exhibited here.

I am not the kind of person who goes around MSFN looking for posts to criticize other members. Up until now, I have been shown kindness and support from this site. I would like to thank MSFN for creating a website dedicated to Microsoft. I attribute almost all of my range of abilities in Unattended Installs and Windows components to this site because it is one of the most comprehensive resources on the internet.

You, the people of MSFN, have been given a great opportunity to spread information to others less informed than yourselves and to learn from others who have much experience in the field.

By posting these responses on the thread, you are showing me and the entire MSFN community how superior you think you are to us. There is no more room in this world for arrogance and you are just living up to our unwanted reputation.

We, the Real Computer Users, are looked upon as anti-social, conceited human beings. Why is it that everytime the topic of computers comes up, every single PC Guru has to let everyone else around know the extent of his or her knowledge. To tell you the truth, NO ONE CARES. If you have an insecurity that can only be eased through Arrogance, we, the computer users, will be doomed to fail socially for the rest of time.

Stop challenging other people to knowledge battles because in the scheme of life, IT DOES NOT MATTER. We are taught from Preschool, "Love your neighbor and yourself." I know no one is perfect and I am the first to admit I am not perfect, but until we get over the Need To Impress Other People, we will always be known as "Computer Geeks."

I don't know about you, but I don't want that title. I have fought my whole life to live past the reputation preceeded by so many others. I will not be a "Computer Geek" because my Love of Life Comes First.

I don't care if I know more about Computers than you. I don't care if you know more about Computers than me. Life is too short.

Thanks for treating me as the world treats you.

-JASpurrier3

Edited by JASpurrier3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, this is great. A real moderator is going to close this Thread because a bunch of forum users, consisting of a Senior Technician, MSFN Junkie, and Senior Member, feel like presenting opposition toward topics that contain even the smallest unfavorable attribute among all things.
Me? I didn't oppose... :whistle:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm,

seeing as i haven't closed the post yet i think you might be wrong, but spooky is correct, this isn't an RC build this isn't RTM, why aren't you trying to figure this out with a MS release build? to anwser you inital question, you won't be able to get the same MD5 as the original ISO. what reason would you have for doing this? if you can provide a valid reason i can keep the post open but using warez builds as reference provides no valid reason to keep this post alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha. OK, let me try a new approach.

1. I have an ISO of Microsoft Vista Files.

2. I want to decompress those files.

3. I want to then compress those same files and create an ISO.

4. I want the NEW iso to contain the same MD5 as the OLD iso.

I can only do that with the official CDImage v2.52. Where is CDImage v2.52?

I see no reason why I can't create an ISO myself with the exact same MD5 if I am using the exact same file and the exact same tool. (I DON'T HAVE THE TOOL!)

(This has nothing to do with specific releases, my example was to make it EASIER to comprehend.)

Any questions?

Let's pretend I have the official MSDN release of Vista! That does not change my question, method, or even original examples of code from my first post. Why are we fighting about this?

*****MY QUESTION: Does anyone have the official CDImage v2.52?*****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I tried OSCDimg before and it did not work. The reason is CDImage v2.52 compresses the file a little differently than all the rest. The length of the ISO made is exactly the same as OSCDimg, but there are random little bytes that are changed. I actually viewed it in a Hex editor. The signatures are also different. CDImage v2.52 puts a string in the ISO that says, "Contact jmaxson or arunku". OSCDimg v2.45 puts in a string inthe ISO that says, "Contact danlo or nathann". That and other minor differences are the reason I need the Official Version of CDImage v2.52.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's pretend I have the official MSDN release of Vista! That does not change my question, method, or even original examples of code from my first post. Why are we fighting about this?

Besides the warez/non warez problem, isn't CDimage supposed to be:

CDIMAGE 2.52 CD-ROM and DVD-ROM Premastering Utility

Copyright © Microsoft, 1993-2000. All rights reserved.

For Microsoft internal use only.

:w00t:

Please don't take it as an "opposition", I am just curious.:unsure:

I may be completely wrong, but I read the "For Microsoft internal use only." as something that prevents anyone but internal Microsoft people to use the tool.

And on the other hand, one that is a Microsoft internal wouldn't need to ask for it in the forum..... :whistle:

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaclaz,

that is very true i didn't even notice it,

CDimage is an internal MS Tool,

OScdimage is available for public use, should be used by consumer and enterprise IT folk. OSCDimage works perfectly well, just use that. Unless of course you work at MS :)

closing thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...