How to remove 72h limitation ?
#51
Posted 21 June 2011 - 07:12 AM
#52
Posted 21 June 2011 - 07:19 AM
If it works, thanks a lot everyone !
Edit : WoW ! i'm an advanced user now ^^
#53
Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:13 AM
#54
Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:40 AM
#55
Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:35 AM
#56
Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:40 AM
#57
Posted 21 June 2011 - 10:26 AM
http://www.ltr-data.se/opencode.html/
MSDN page about QueryPerformanceCounter:
http://msdn.microsof...4(v=vs.85).aspx
I don't have Windows 7 files at hand, so I can't check if those APIs are used or not.
#58
Posted 21 June 2011 - 05:49 PM
Does anyone have an idea, how to set the uptime to something like 71hours?
#59
Posted 22 June 2011 - 06:56 AM
But, no idea about how it works.
#60
Posted 22 June 2011 - 10:48 AM
I had full XP and Win7 restart on me, after less than 24 hours. That doesn't mean, that there is a limit, that doesn't allow a Windows to run longer than 24 hours. OS do crash sometimes.
I wouldn't go as far as to ask, that as proof at least 2-3 PE have to restart after the same uptime. It would be good enough for me, if the reset was verified to happen, exactly after 72 hours uptime.
#61
Posted 22 June 2011 - 11:26 AM
Microsoft itself tell that WinPE has a duration limitation, so ...
#62
Posted 22 June 2011 - 01:41 PM
Boy, do I hate this deja-vu feeling...I wouldn't go as far as to ask, that as proof at least 2-3 PE have to restart after the same uptime. It would be good enough for me, if the reset was verified to happen, exactly after 72 hours uptime.
http://reboot.pro/7646/
Wonko
#63
Posted 22 June 2011 - 06:27 PM
Not as much as me!Boy, do I hate this deja-vu feeling...
Can you confirm from a own test that (PE of your choice) does reboot after 24 / 72 / XX hours? No?
Do you have at least a problem with the supposedly limited uptime? No?
What business do you have, annoying people in this thread? Go play somewhere else!
#64
Posted 22 June 2011 - 06:40 PM
Yes and M$ also tells that PE1 have a 24hour limit, still doesn't mean that NaughtyPE will reboot after 24 hours, despite being a PE1.Microsoft itself tell that WinPE has a duration limitation, so ...
So far we only have hearsay that such a limit exists. Joakim did not get a reboot and i couldn't force an early reboot.
#65
Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:27 PM
As said earlier I tried with patched wininit.exe and wpeutil.dll. Meaning I renamed the ascii strings (all of them). By doing this the system cannot shutdown/reboot in a normal way because some api is deactivated as well as a relating rpc server not available. Only way of shutting down the system with these patched files, are to kill the shell process (or winlogon.exe). My test vm ran for 112 hours until I shut it down;
Patcher;
http://www.mediafire...2hour_patch.zip
That's for x86, but you can easily do it yourself. Just remember to update the checksum in the pe header after renaming the strings..
#66
Posted 22 June 2011 - 07:37 PM
Yes.Can you confirm from a own test that (PE of your choice) does reboot after 24 / 72 / XX hours? No?
A "standard" PE 1.x will reboot after 24 h if not "fixed".
No.Do you have at least a problem with the supposedly limited uptime? No?
No, my part time job is annoying people on *any* thread . (still better than the job about re-issuing the same otiose questions you could have verified yourself allright, BTW)What business do you have, annoying people in this thread?
@joakim
Nice work !
Wonko
#67
Posted 22 June 2011 - 08:31 PM
While you are better at it that I am I consider it a part of my "job" as wellNo, my part time job is annoying people on *any* thread .
I guess this is OK - to clap for someone who is creating "warez" - i.e. on purpose circumventing the intent of the creator of the software by means of a binary modification of their code...But I would have expected better from you@joakim
Nice work !
Wonko
On the other hand, KNOWLEDGE about how a particular thing is implemented isn't a bad thing..."Guns don't kill people, people kill people"...
Scott
#68
Posted 22 June 2011 - 09:21 PM
I guess this is OK - to clap for someone who is creating "warez" - i.e. on purpose circumventing the intent of the creator of the software by means of a binary modification of their code...But I would have expected better from you
Well, NO.
WAREZ is unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted material.
This is "hacking", which can be perfectly legal, BTW.
There are specific provisions by the Law in most countries that allow - in certain cases - this kind of patching.
This might be a valid example:
http://reboot.pro/7646/page__st__9
Please also note how the 72 hour limit is NOT part of the EULA:
http://www.msfn.org/...up/page__st__36
http://www.msfn.org/...up/page__st__38
And can hardly be defined a "technical limitation".
Since the purpose of the PE and of WAIK is EXPRESSly that
for purposes of diagnosing and recovering Windows operating system software. For the avoidance of doubt, you may not use the Windows Pre-Installation Environment for any other purpose, including without limitation as a general operating system, as a thin client or as a remote desktop client.
The 72 hours limit is an ARTIFICIAL (NOT technical) limit that may prevent in some cases the use of the tool for the ONLY scope for which it is licensed, and as such is IMHO well covered by provisions aimed to leave some "freedom" to users.
A related thread you may have missed:
http://reboot.pro/9627/
Now an interesting point is whether the actual WAIK_License.rtf is "covered by itself" and thus by attaching it on MSFN I actually posted "WAREZ"
Wonko
#69
Posted 22 June 2011 - 09:51 PM
As always, I stand corrected in a tighter definition of the terms...To me (in a broad, loose sense), WAREZ means copyright infringment, and not just redistribution...and it refers to the SW (noun), not the verb/action of redistribution...But point taken.Well, NO.
WAREZ is unauthorized redistribution of copyrighted material.
This is "hacking", which can be perfectly legal, BTW.
Yes - it MIGHT be legal, and even if not explicitly part of the EULA, it is still against what I would call the "spirit" of the agreement...i.e. MS wants to limit how long any given PE can remain "up"...There are specific provisions by the Law in most countries that allow - in certain cases - this kind of patching.
This might be a valid example:
http://reboot.pro/7646/page__st__9
And can hardly be defined a "technical limitation".
You say PO-TAY-TOE and I say PO-TAH-TOE...technical IMHO doesn't mean that it has to be that way due to the laws of Physics/Nature, but that it was something conscious or unconscious put in by the author to help make sure that his wishes are followed...A Pre-Environment is not a full OS...and a limitation like this it is reasonable to expect that this was intended behavior, and not just an accident on the part of M$Since the purpose of the PE and of WAIK is EXPRESSly that
The 72 hours limit is an ARTIFICIAL (NOT technical) limit that may prevent in some cases the use of the tool for the ONLY scope for which it is licensed, and as such is IMHO well covered by provisions aimed to leave some "freedom" to users.
But (again as always)...I love the banter and sharing different points of view on a complex issue that has many, many shades of gray...
Over and out (on this one...)
Scott
#70
Posted 22 June 2011 - 10:04 PM
You say PO-TAY-TOE and I say PO-TAH-TOE...
Wonko
#71
Posted 23 June 2011 - 12:47 AM
#72
Posted 23 June 2011 - 06:09 AM
Now to the more interesting part;
As the shutdown procedure did not forcibly kill any process, I believe that we can programmatically create a solution using the winapi. I have to be honest enough to say it will not be a first priority for me right now, and not second either... So possible solutions I can think of right now;
- Adjust the timer
- intercept the shutdown api
- modify the namedpipe
#73
Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:09 AM
At work, our use of WinPE is exactly how Microsoft imagined it : boot from network by PXE. But in some cases, we need not to reboot a computer several days long. And that stupid limitation prevents it.
I think i can modify it, according to the fact that :
- Microsoft didn't really forbid it
- It's not used in a different way
I don't know if you understand everything i say, nevermind
joakim : can you explain what you're talking about with "checksum in the pe header" ? I know what a checksum is, of course, but not the pe header.
Thanks
#74
Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:22 AM
Maybe you should adjust the title of the thread and switch 24 with 72..
#75
Posted 23 June 2011 - 07:57 AM
.... or make evident that it is expressed inMaybe you should adjust the title of the thread and switch 24 with 72..
Maybe "fast latin time"?
Wonko
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users