595 replies to this topic

[bilou_gateux]

Help! Syntax error.

WBzip -x BootSDI.script <name_of_the_section_i_have_to_put_here?> zCopy.exe X:\temp

[Brito]

Simply download the latest beta exe from here:
http://www.boot-land...?...c=1104&st=0

Go to the download tab, choose thuun's web server on the top, and then select the script like here:


Then all you need to do is download the script.

Go back to the main window, select the script and select the option to enter edit mode - from there you'll find the attachments tab from where you can extract the needed file.

This is also a good way to keep your scripts updated and download the latest projects.

Things have grown a bit since batcher, don't you think?

[bilou_gateux]

Simply download the latest beta exe from here:
http://www.boot-land...?...c=1104&st=0

Go to the download tab, choose thuun's web server on the top, and then select the script like here:


Then all you need to do is download the script.

Go back to the main window, select the script and select the option to enter edit mode - from there you'll find the attachments tab from where you can extract the needed file.

This is also a good way to keep your scripts updated and download the latest projects.

Things have grown a bit since batcher, don't you think?

Thanks. And finally found the correct section name to use to extract zCopy.exe with WBzip.exe console tool.

WBzip -x BootSDI.script Folder zCopy.exe X:\temp

I still have a copy of this old program called batcher.

[Brito]

Glad you've worked it out!

[Oleg_II]

bilou_gateux
Sorry for not replying earlier - I was playing hard with newly installed XP (well, I still prefer W2k but couldn't make it run in RAM
I'm glad you've got it. And you can use WinBuilder to extract the files - WB is a small download it's very easy to use

What are you doing with XP in RAM is in this Forum too - MobileOS. Should we join the efforts

NIKZZZZ created a new utility that can be very usefull for this - ImageCreator
It's a beta here

Attached Files

•  ImageCreator.zip   243.54KB   579 downloads

[Brito]

What will image creator do exactly?

Can you post more details? this sounds very interesting!

[FeReNGi]

I use for more then a year the method of booting an SDI file and load a virtual disk with the programs on it.

This virtual disk is a VM ware disk loaded with vdk.exe (freeware). For that i also created a script that load it automatic and based on where your virtual disk is stored.

You can read all about it over here : http://www.911cd.net...amp;hl=Loadvmdk

The big benifit is not to rebuild the disk after a change but only the vmdk-file and store it on HD, USB, etc...
At boot time this file is automaticly loaded.

[Oleg_II]

Nuno Brito
I'll start translating instructions right now but can't promiss I'll do it very fast Anyway, the instructions will be available in a few hours


FeReNGi
It's not exactly the same thing If you want to compare it with something it's more likely Ghost v9-10 or TrueImage with hot-imaging. But not even exactly the same too

[Brito]

Thanks!

[was_jaclaz]

@Ferengi

I don't want to spoil the fun, believe me , but which is the advantage of using a SDI file?
(I kept off it as I didn't want to mix myself with XP Embedded, but I cannot see a reason to use it)

As aec reported, it is perfectly possible to use instead of the SDI a "normal" RAW disk:
http://www.911cd.net...o...c=19333&hl=

and you can use vdk for it too.

Besides, since the Win2003 loader uses the "/rdimageoffset=" parameter, one can boot, besides RAW images:
1) VMDK "flat" images
2) QCOW "flat" images
3) VirtualBox "static" images:
http://www.911cd.net...o...19155&st=23

jaclaz

[Oleg_II]

jaclaz
Well, if you are talking about BootSDI.script - it's not about it. In fact there is no real SDI involved, the script uses virtual file created by FileDisk (nearly the same as VDK). Why using "clean" FileDisk image and not VDK? Well, cause it's "clean" -original

And FeReNGi is talking about real SDI used along with VDK images for programs (good idea indeed but I personaly don't like auto search option - it takes time and resources, I prefer to make the choice myself

[was_jaclaz]

@Oleg_II

Yep, besides being the single most probable winner of the 2007 "Most improperly named .script of the year" contest, I know that BootSDI.script does not use SDI images at all.

I was referring to Ferengi post and to his SDI builder. (I just edited my previous post to make this more clear).

The idea of having separate images (for booting and programs) is very nice, but it can be independent from the actual format of images.

With the proper settings one could have a number of "boot" and "program" images that are DIRECTLY usable in the corresponding Virtual Machines.

jaclaz

[Brito]

...
Yep, besides being the single most probable winner of the 2007 "Most improperly named .script of the year" contest
...

[pscEx]

Yep, besides being the single most probable winner of the 2007 "Most improperly named .script of the year" contest, I know that BootSDI.script does not use SDI images at all.

Oops...
And I thought that from this topic I have an idea what SDI is and where it can be used for.

Can somebody explain SDI in two or three sentences.
You know, I'm a (hopefully experienced) app programmer, but my knowledge about booting, images, etc. is at the same level as my Chinese language experience.

Peter

[Oleg_II]

psc

And I thought that from this topic I have an idea what SDI is and where it can be used for.

And you have it

Please correct me somebody who knows better

In two words: SDI is a propretary MS compressed image and needs MS propretary drivers for creating and mounting.

We offer absolutely free alternative with nearly the same functionality (who tells me what is the difference?

[pscEx]

psc

And you have it

Please correct me somebody who knows better

In two words: SDI is a propretary MS compressed image and needs MS propretary drivers for creating and mounting.

We offer absolutely free alternative with nearly the same functionality (who tells me what is the difference?

With other words: You do not use Bill's SDI but you provide the same functionality and it works!

(I assume that it works. At least on my system with XP SP2 and W2003, German and English I did not find any issue )

Peter

[Oleg_II]

psc
I tested it on 4 available computers (3 different notebooks and one noname computer Just works

As for naming... Maybe I'm wrong... If you decide it should be renamed it could be

Linux is not Windows. But is it Operating System too?



PS New utility - ImageCreator - description is on the first page. The translation may have mistakes NIKZZZZ should confirm it later. Sorry, it's too late here, I have to get some sleep

[FeReNGi]

@Ferengi

I don't want to spoil the fun, believe me , but which is the advantage of using a SDI file?
(I kept off it as I didn't want to mix myself with XP Embedded, but I cannot see a reason to use it)

As aec reported, it is perfectly possible to use instead of the SDI a "normal" RAW disk:
http://www.911cd.net...o...c=19333&hl=

and you can use vdk for it too.

Besides, since the Win2003 loader uses the "/rdimageoffset=" parameter, one can boot, besides RAW images:
1) VMDK "flat" images
2) QCOW "flat" images
3) VirtualBox "static" images:
http://www.911cd.net...o...19155&st=23

jaclaz

SDI files is loaded into RAM.(2min boot time)
I can write directly to it. This way i DON'T need a ramdisk.
My SDI disk stored in RAM is my ramdisk

Booting from boot.ini is just 1min.

Same image can be used on CD-ROM, PXE server and direct from HD without any modication.
Benefit i don't have to change my boot.sdi. Only the virtual disk i need to update with newer version of software.

Boot time is very low this way !

[Brito]

Oleg, thanks for the detailed posting - it is very clear to follow and really helps people to understand how to use it.

Also liked a lot of the new tool to save back the changes on the boot image - splendid coding..

[FeReNGi]

Can somebody explain SDI in two or three sentences.
You know, I'm a (hopefully experienced) app programmer, but my knowledge about booting, images, etc. is at the same level as my Chinese language experience.

Peter

SDI -technoly is from Windows Embedded and now even used in VISTA.

Look at BOOT.SDI

SDI is a virtual disk (image) that can be mounted to a real system and works as an ordinairy disk where you can format, create partitions, boot from it, etc....

If you put the boot part of Winbuilder on a BOOT.SDI it will be loaded in RAM. Then you can store all your programs on a virtual disk (VMDK-file) At boot time this vmdk-disk will me mounted and NOT loaded in ram.
Do you see the benefit of not LOADING it to RAM but only use it when needed ?
This explains why i can boot i just 2 min (bartpe +vmdk-file) > 600 mb.

[was_jaclaz]

Ferengi,
pardon me, maybe I'm a bit thick, but I still fail to see the difference:

Scenario 1) with SDI image:
the SDI image is copied to RAM and booted from
another image (vmdk) is loaded on demand after booting through VDK

Scenario 2) with (RAW, vmdk, qcow or vdi) image, let's call it "other":
the "other" image with the same contents of the previous SDI one is copied to RAM (ramdisk.sys) and booted from
another image (RAW or vmdk) is loaded on demand after booting through VDK

Is there such a difference in speed as to justify the trouble of using proprietary software to manage the image?



jaclaz

[Oleg_II]

ALL
There is very important correction in instructions for ImageCreator utility!

FeReNGi
So SDI doesn't use ramdisk.sys? Can it work with Windows 2000?
Just curious because I like W2k and it doesn't work with ramdisk.sys...

[pscEx]

Ferengi,
pardon me, maybe I'm a bit thick, but I still fail to see the difference:

Scenario 1) with SDI image:
the SDI image is copied to RAM and booted from
another image (vmdk) is loaded on demand after booting through VDK

Scenario 2) with (RAW, vmdk, qcow or vdi) image, let's call it "other":
the "other" image with the same contents of the previous SDI one is copied to RAM (ramdisk.sys) and booted from
another image (RAW or vmdk) is loaded on demand after booting through VDK

Is there such a difference in speed as to justify the trouble of using proprietary software to manage the image?



jaclaz

I hope my brain worked correctly.

As it looks now:
Oleg's solution puts everything into RAM. According boot time is long and demand of memory is high.
Ferengi's solution just puts minimum OS into RAM. > short boot time, low memory. Everything else can be on VDMK or CD or ....

But I think that this is also possible for Oleg's solution.
Right?

On the other hand:
Here is not the right place to compete. I think that the two authors should PM and provide one solution (or two different ones with clear description 'who needs what')

Peter

[Oleg_II]

psc
We are not competing In fact the solutions are very similar and there is no faster or slower (you tried it and know this one is not slow at all At least I'm not saying which is best in functionality. This one is just available for free and without fass.

But if real SDI works for Windows 2000 I am going to use it myself in Mobile 2000 I just don't know

PS And I'm not an author 99% of todays script is made by NIKZZZZ

[was_jaclaz]

Peter,
what I am trying to understand is the difference (advantages/disadvantages) between the same image (with different format).

I give for granted that Ferengi's (but also Pavel's and Sanbarrow's - hope I didn't forget anyone) idea of separating "core" boot files from anything that is not needed in the boot process is winning, as FASTER and more practical, and there are several threads on the 911CD forum about that.

No intention to start a competition of any kind , if I gave that impression , please forgive me, I am just trying to understand better the two methods.

jaclaz