Difference between XP PE & Live XP

This may seem to be a stupid question:-

What are the technical & functional differences between XP PE & Live XP?

Additionally, I'd like to ask u while "making an USB stick XP bootable", can there be any other method apart from what listed below?

• Tranferring XP setup to USB stick
• Transferring XP PE to USB stick
• Transferring BartPE to USB stick
• Transferring XP PE to USB stick to boot from a Ramdrive created by W2K3 SP1 RAMDISK.SYS & SETUPLDR.BIN
• Booting an XP HDD image with Firadisk/WinVBlock drivers installed
• The method illustrated by blackbalfur in Tutorial section
  http://www.boot-land...showtopic=12428

Please correct me if I have made any mistake. Basically, I want to know the different methods available to transfer different flavors of Windows XP to USB stick / USB HDD.

You have to say the least a "queer" way of cataloguing items.


1. It is NOT possible UNLESS you use the tricks/methods you can find here:
http://www.msfn.org/...p?showforum=157
2. and 3. are EXACTLY the same
4. is a modified way of 2. and 3.
5. Is a modified way of 6.
6. the method illustrated by blackbalfur is just the last (in time) incarnation of one of the various methods eveloped originally by Dietmar:
http://www.911cd.net...o...c=14181&hl=
of which he proposed at least 5 variants and has an awful number of derivatives.

There are more, like, among possibly many others:
Euhenio's MobileOS:
http://www.boot-land...?...ic=1218&hl=
Dhilip89's ETBOOT
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=3890
XPCLI:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=3717

And of course "Live XP" (which is "live", but NOT "XP"), is just one of the n "flavours" of PE 1.x created through Winbuilder.


A more suitable way to list things may be advised.

Use "standard" naming.
XP PE is easily confused with XPE (which is Sherpya's XPE):
http://oss.netfarm.it/winpe/

There are:

• PE 1.x that include MS WinPE 1.2, 1.5 and 1.6 and ALL flavours of BartPE originated builds and ALL flavours of PE coming from XP/2003 source
• PE 2.x that include MS WinPE 2.0 and ALL flavours of PE coming from Vista :ph34ar:/2008 source
• PE 3.x that include MS WinPE 3.0 and ALL flavours of PE coming from Windows 7 sources

From XP/2003 sources you can have:

• PE 1.x
• Recovery Console
• Setup/Install
• "Full" OS

The difference is that 1.,2. and 3. are started from SETUPLDR.BIN (they are PE's of some kind) , whilst 4. is started through NTLDR (a "Full" of some kind).

ANY of the above 4 can be either:

• flat (where files are all in the filesystem, and no image of any kind is involved)
  or:
• ramdisk/filedisk based (an image of some kind, like a HD image or .iso is used in the process)

There are obviously further variants, hybrids, like thuun's PantherXP:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=4729
http://pantherxp.net/

The lines can be drawn between:

• anything that is "volatile", i.e. uses the /minint switch, i.e. saves NOT changes to the Registry (if not with workarounds or "external" methods) is a PE of some kind (and includes Recovery Console and Setup/Install besides PE's 1.x)
• anything that is "persistent", i.e. uses NOT the /minint switch, i.e. saves changes to the Registry is a "Full" of some kind

Both the above can be divided in:

• flat
• ramdisk/filedisk

The original MS WinPE is a Pre-installation Environment, it was developed to easen the instal procedure ONLY, it is VERY basic, has CMD.EXE as shell.
BartPE was developed to make people that had not access to the original MS WinPE licensing have the same (or better) amount of tools. It was aimed ONLY as a Pre-installation Environment or as a (much evolved than Recovery Console) Recovery Environment.
Then the project or basic ideas went "out of control" and PE's became to all effects and "alternate Operating System", and "everything" was added to PE's.


Wonko

And of course "Live XP" (which is "live", but NOT "XP"), is just one of the n "flavours" of PE 1.x created through Winbuilder.

"Live, but NOT XP" - what does it mean?

From XP/2003 sources you can have:

• PE 1.x
• Recovery Console
• Setup/Install
• "Full" OS

How does 2. & 3. differ?

Does the original MS WinPE form the basis of all Winbuilder based projects?

Is there any difference between calling a flavor of XP "Live" & "PE"?

Is the MiKiCun XP (shown below) also a Winbuilder based project or is it a project which is going around somewhere else?


So far I know, WinPE 1.x was a CUI based environment where as BartPE, which operates on the same source files to produce the build, provides a GUI. How this transition was possible, i.e. is there any official M$ documentation floating around to guide the developers to play with the core OS system files? To put it in a clearer manner, if, today, I collect some arbitrary system files to produce an image & copy the CD bootsector to it, the system won't boot. So, what's the logic behind which was applied during the creation of BartPE which trims the actual distro down, adds some more functionality & moreover, produces a GUI?

Again.

"Live, but NOT XP" - what does it mean?

A PE is NOT XP: it is a PE (if PE 1.xx) built from XP or 2003 source (i.e. the install CD or .iso image for XP or 2003)

There is NO such thing as a "live XP", the winbuilder project "LiveXP" is a (VERY misnamed) "LivePE" (that has NO reason to exist since a PE is ALWAYS "Live").

ANYTHING with "XP" in it's name that actually is a "PE" is mis-named, just like you wouldn't call a donkey "pig" or a pig "donkey", even if they both are mammals and have four legs they are DIFFERENT, and you use DIFFERENT names for them in order to properly DISTINGUISH between them, additionally it is pointless to call a pig "swine pig" or a donkey "equine donkey" .

How does 2. & 3. differ?

Build #2 and try it:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=2254
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=5316
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=9258
Run #3 (which is the actual install CD or .iso image for XP or 2003)
You should be able to see the differences.

Does the original MS WinPE form the basis of all Winbuilder based projects?

Obviously NOT.
Winbuilder projects build, exactly like Bart Pebuilder ones, from the OS sourece (again the actual cd or DVD or .iso image which you use to normally install the given OS, XP, 2003, Vista , 2008 or 7)

Is there any difference between calling a flavor of XP "Live" & "PE"?

Yes/No.
It depends if you want:

• to be understood easily by other people
• to be exact in calling things with their names

A PE is NOT a "flavour of XP" and is ALWAYS "Live".

Is the WAREZ XP (shown below) also a Winbuilder based project or is it a project which is going around somewhere else?

Do you really think that from a lousy screenshot one can say what is what?
Undoubtedly it is WAREZ , just for the record a quick google search shows that is a Reatogo based built (obviously pre-made and illegally re-distributed).
Now go and wash your mouth with soap.

So far I know, WinPE 1.x was a CUI based environment where as BartPE, which operates on the same source files to produce the build, provides a GUI.

There is NO such thing as "CUI", there is CLI, Command Line Interface:
http://en.wikipedia....-line_interface
and GUI, Graqphical User Interface:
http://en.wikipedia...._user_interface

How this transition was possible, i.e. is there any official M$ documentation floating around to guide the developers to play with the core OS system files?

You appear like thinking that the "transition" happened inside MS (whilst it actually happened OUTSIDE it, thanks initially to Bart Lagerwej)

To put it in a clearer manner, if, today, I collect some arbitrary system files to produce an image & copy the CD bootsector to it, the system won't boot.

To put it even in a clearer manner, if I collect non-arbitrary system files to produce an image & copy the appropriate bootsector to it, properly, the system will boot.
What does this mean?

So, what's the logic behind which was applied during the creation of BartPE which trims the actual distro down, adds some more functionality & moreover, produces a GUI?

• BartPE doesn't "trim down" ANYTHING.
• BartPE does NOT add ANY functionality to ANYTHING.
• BartPE does NOT produce a GUI.

• The size of the BartPE build depends on how much things you want to add to it (plug-ins and MS and/or Third Party Programs).
• The functionalities of the BartPE build depend on how much things you want to add to it (plug-ins and MS and/or Third Party Programs).
• The fact that BartPE uses a GUI is simply because it uses a GUI shell (unlike original MS PE's which use CMD.EXE as a shell, i.e. a CLI)

Wonko

Obviously NOT.
Winbuilder projects build, exactly like Bart Pebuilder ones, from the OS sourece (again the actual cd or DVD or .iso image which you use to normally install the given OS, XP, 2003, Vista , 2008 or 7)

Well, I didn't talk about the source used to build WB based projects or BartPE. I wanted to mean how all these projects were conceptualized. Consider the situation, a large OS like MS Windows comes out for the first time in the year YYYY without any documentation from the original developers regarding how to build a PE out of it. Now, some geniuses like Bart (not mocking @ all as Wonko may think of) makes this impossible possible which invariably means that he(or persons like him) may have got some clue on how to do this. What that can be? I don't know whether I've been able to make u understand my point.

Is the WAREZ XP (shown below) also a Winbuilder based project or is it a project which is going around somewhere else?

At least count on me that I was COMPLETELY ignorant about the XP being a warez. In layman's term, what I've understood is that the XP ISO is not distributable.

Do you really think that from a lousy scrrenshot one can say what is what?

Painting a picture with words is not an easy task. If u try describing the difference between a CAT & a DOG to someone who has never seen them, after ur earnest of the efforts things won't be clear to him/her apart from the fact that both of then are four-footed, two-eyed, furry, soft animals almost of same dimension(generally; I'm not a student of bio-science). But a picture would help, no-doubt.

There is NO such thing as "CUI", there is CLI, Command Line Interface

Then, what is it?
http://in.answers.ya...16042006AAa88aH

To put it even in a clearer manner, if I collect non-arbitrary system files to produce an image & copy the appropriate bootsector to it, properly, the system will boot.
What does this mean?

I've already tried to explain at the very outset of this post.

.... makes this impossible possible which invariably means that he(or persons like him) may have got some clue on how to do this.

invariably is a HEAVY adjective.

Do you think that Bart "stole" some classified info from the MS guys?

Or is it more probable that he simply studied the behaviour and found (in the sense of "devised" or "developed") a way to replicate such behaviour?

Do you think that Nuno (when he initally developed batcher and early scropts) "stole" anything from Bart or from the MS guys?

What that can be? I don't know whether I've been able to make u understand my point.

Rest assured, you have NOT.

At least count on me that I was COMPLETELY ignorant about the XP being a warez. In layman's term, what I've understood is that the XP ISO is not distributable.

No, this has to be cleared.
Microsoft (as well as most other Commercial Software companies) attribute to their work a Copyright (I hope I don't have to explain you the concept of copy-right) and accompany their software with an EULA or "End User License Agreement" that usually prohibits the re-distribution of EACH and EVERY single file included in the software product.
There are exceptions, such as freely redistributable libraries or .dll's, and also "microsoft originated" software that may be re-distributed under certain conditions and also other people or companies allowed to re-distribute it or parts of it.
Obviously there may be "gray-zones" and "particular" cases or "debatable" ones , but a bootable PE distro? Ow, comeon!

Then, what is it?

Oh my! Yahoo Answers!



Yahoo answers is where mainly inexperienced people who have NO clue whatsoever about what they are doing ask otiose questions, regularly answered by mostly equally completely inexperienced people who normally post something that is either:

• incomplete
• misleading
• plainly wrong

The answer that says that CUI is the acronym of Command Line User Interface says it all (it would be CLUI , unless of course you have a single word Commandline ).
http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/acronym

CUI is NOT an acronym used by ANYONE but :

• ashok r
• John S
  
• possibly a handful of their friends, relatives (and Yahoo answers users)

However, if you don't trust me, continue trusting ashok r

this is belongs to unix operating system

Since XP and all PE's and all MS DOS and Windows Operating Systems are NOT "unix", don't use "CUI" for them, but use "CLI", which is the recognized acronym.


Wonko

Do you think that Bart "stole" some classified info from the MS guys?

Do you think that Nuno (when he initally developed batcher and early scropts) "stole" anything from Bart or from the MS guys?

U've guided & are guiding me a lot. Still, with due respect to ur knowledge, I'll suggest/request/advise u NOT to obliterate the meaning out of one's words in an open forum. It hurts the person u r accusing as well as some other viewers also start thinking on the same line. Thoughts are induced, especially in forums where people are to share their ideas.

However, if you don't trust me, continue trusting ashok r

No question of NOT trusting u. I asked for a clarification, it wasn't a challenge. Again, an incident of CONVOLUTED thought process that occurs in u & questions ur SANITY all the time.

On the topic, and being obvious myself, I'm affraid

Both XP PE and Live XP are just abbreviated names used by people for the convenience. These are not academic definitions. I know only one, MS official, that's Windows Preinstallation Environment, and its short form -- WinPE.

As for definitions, CUI can be:
Character-oriented User Interface
Customizable User Interface
Common User Interface

I'd stand on that CLI is the right one for Windows talks, but I'm not a smarty-pants (is this definition ok?), so I prefer simply to say command-line
Not anybody on the internet do know these CLI, CUI, MUI, and so on, and so forth We are people, not cyborgs, eh?