Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Feature request in win7pe


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#26 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2011 - 06:25 PM

Do you mean that it is installed BEFORE windows is booted or the first time after the windows OS is up and running? That would make a huge difference in the things that the OS assumes are present already and things that the "hot plug" would look for.

If you are booting off a USB, then what happens the FIRST TIME you insert a SECOND flash/usb drive?

#27 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:01 PM

Question - why is there a version of M$ file winlogon inside the script (the one started by the "Ux" executable that I have no clue where it came from...[edit - yet again, another autoit script...time to get out the decompiler]

While it may not be a major infraction, it is still a MSoft file we are distributing (probably without permission?)...Could it come from the source or even host?

#28 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:03 PM

If you are booting off a USB, then what happens the FIRST TIME you insert a SECOND flash/usb drive?

That depends, i would guess, on the fact, if one leaves the stick attached or removes it once the wim is loaded.
In the first case, i don't know. Will get back at you, once the PE has loaded. In the second case i presume the same behavior, as with a CD boot and no stick attached during boot. i.e. like described above.

:(

#29 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:17 PM

Question - why is there a version of M$ file winlogon inside the script (the one started by the "Ux" executable that I have no clue where it came from...[edit - yet again, another autoit script...time to get out the decompiler]


#Region

#AutoIt3Wrapper_Compression=4

#AutoIt3Wrapper_UseUpx=n

#AutoIt3Wrapper_UseX64=y

#EndRegion

If @OSBuild < 7600 Then Exit

$WINLOGONPID = ProcessExists("winlogon.exe")

If $WINLOGONPID = 0 Then Exit

ShellExecuteWait("net.exe", "start themes", "", "", @SW_HIDE)

DllCall("UXInit.dll", "none", 13, "Int", $WINLOGONPID)

; DeTokenise by myAut2Exe >The Open Source AutoIT/AutoHotKey script decompiler< 2.10 build(161)

So, correct me if I am wrong here, but this just does some checks, and if winlogon is running, then starts themes, and does the UxInit call...back to the running winlogon...

SO again, why do we need to provide winlogon here in these scripts? This is definately one from SP0 and maynot be best choice in all cases...

#30 vvurat

vvurat

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 323 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:26 PM

Because it is a patched version. Read here. Howto enable Aero basic Theme in WinPE 3.x

#31 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2011 - 07:53 PM

Just a comment - as written, the script on it's own doesn't make sure that the D3D code (directX) is selected or installed...To be a real :( script, it should either call out the requirements - OR use Require_File to add them if not already added...But this is minor (so far)

#32 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2011 - 08:08 PM

Because it is a patched version. Read here. Howto enable Aero basic Theme in WinPE 3.x

Which was what I suspected, hence it is really illegal to distribute (at least in the US)...Making the changes on your own is a choice individual have to take, but distributing modified code without permission isn't really "cool" to do...

Scott

#33 vvurat

vvurat

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 323 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 08:19 PM

I am not against warez, reversing, patching if it solves your problems :( You can not move any step if you think so much legally. Use or not your and Wonko's problem. I am not living in US. Maybe it is not a country of freedom in dreams.

#34 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 29 July 2011 - 09:17 PM

I am not against warez, reversing, patching if it solves your problems :( You can not move any step if you think so much legally. Use or not your and Wonko's problem. I am not living in US. Maybe it is not a country of freedom in dreams.

My point was that you could still make use of this functionality WITHOUT redistributing M$ code...The issue is you can certainly tell people how to do something, even provide a tool to do it for them, but doing it for them, and providing the results is what gets you into trouble...Why wave a red flag in front of a Bull?

By the way, since the winlogon in the install area is already "patched" so to speak, is there any reason you can't just use that one instead? (i.e. running the patching code against the winlogon.exe that came from the install.wim was flagged as already patched. But it is larger...

Scott

#35 vvurat

vvurat

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 323 posts

Posted 29 July 2011 - 09:34 PM

i did not understand how can it be already patched. most of the people around are not capable to patch their files themselves thats why coder puts inside the script. it will need extra effort to explain how to patch and put inside wim. As always i said i do not see any difference to distribute the patched file and to tell the user how to patch the file that he should not patch because of legality issues. It is just the life guard of the content server to say "i do not have any illegal content in my shares" and a way to transpass crime to end users. They only think to save their a.s

All ways are acceptable on the road of success if nobody hurts. Micro.... hurts of it? I think no. Also benefit of the most is better than the benefit of less.

#36 ludovici

ludovici

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 610 posts
  • Location:France
  •  
    France

Posted 29 July 2011 - 11:19 PM

THanks medevil for your great test and your good question;)
And welcome to my friend Vvurat, i am agree; it's not easy to develop a script; winpe take me 1/2/3 hour by day, understand the mechanism of seven is a good challenge.
The little dll hack without importance Without this file no theme
Sorry, i can't actually participate...tomorrow playa;)

#37 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 30 July 2011 - 02:43 AM

i did not understand how can it be already patched. most of the people around are not capable to patch their files themselves thats why coder puts inside the script. it will need extra effort to explain how to patch and put inside wim. As always i said i do not see any difference to distribute the patched file and to tell the user how to patch the file that he should not patch because of legality issues. It is just the life guard of the content server to say "i do not have any illegal content in my shares" and a way to transpass crime to end users. They only think to save their a.s

All ways are acceptable on the road of success if nobody hurts. Micro.... hurts of it? I think no. Also benefit of the most is better than the benefit of less.

philosophically, I can't argue, but LEGALLY - that's a different issue...

It is fairly easy given the original AU3 code that patches the winlogon.exe to just patch it on the fly in the script! If it is easy enough to do (took me about 2 hrs of playing around since I was learning as I went as well as tracking an issue where AdAware prevent the exe from running, but not the AU3 file :ranting2: and then you have a new, cleaned up script that is LEGAL as well as easy to use!

Doing some final testing on it now - but with a VirtualBox and not real HW, not sure transparency is really supported...

#38 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 30 July 2011 - 11:13 AM

Ok, i have now managed to created a build, which works revers to before. :ranting2:
USB-Sticks without any known file types work fine, those with known file types do not. :white_flag:

:happy_dance:

#39 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 30 July 2011 - 05:20 PM

Hey, except for the autorun dialog, still opening in he back at first run, which is clearly an explorer issue ...
USB-Hotplug works now flawless with any kind of stick!

Now to the hidious task, figuring out what exactly did the trick. :whistling:

:whistling:

#40 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 31 July 2011 - 12:34 AM

I can't get WMP to display a video, unless the graphics driver is installed. So no picture, just sound.
Does anyone know if WMP should be able to do so or not.

:whistling:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users