Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Can't find WinPE older version


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#51 ksanderash

ksanderash

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 162 posts
  • Interests:electronics, PCs, cinema, reading books, psychology, philosophy
  •  
    Moldova

Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:28 AM

I see. But why it gives wrong download size to your friend PC then?

#52 Holmes.Sherlock

Holmes.Sherlock

    Gold Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 1443 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbara, California
  •  
    United States

Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:44 AM

I see. But why it gives wrong download size to your friend PC then?


That's the mystery. All other but this WAIK download are OK

#53 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 11 September 2010 - 12:22 PM

Within this period, my friend has installed his OS several times. So, the presence of a specific virus does not hold good. Moreover, he downloads several GBs of softwares per day. They run flawlessly. So, file system corruption is not the reason.

Again the "So" does NOT stand.
Unless of course the SOURCE from which he installs it isn't ALREADY compromised by a Virus, or rootkit or whatever. :hyper:

The "Moreover" is also pointless, maybe EXACTLY because he downloads several GB's software per day (andother interesting pastime, BTW) AND because he had to reinstall his OS several times, he is more exposed to Virus, malware and filesystem corruption than anyone else on the planet (and of course re-installing several times one's OS may also be another form of pastime ... ;)).

An example of "logical" sentence is:

Since I just re-installed my OS on a wiped before dirve AND thoroughly verified immediately after the install that it has NO Virus or malware using tool (name one) AND tool (name another one) AND ran successfully CHKDISK AND first thing I tried to download from the internet was the WAIK AND immediately after downloading it checked again the system as Virus and malware free with the same tools AND ran CHKDISK successfully again, then I can exclude that the cause is a Virus of malware or filesystem corruption.


:)
Wonko

#54 Holmes.Sherlock

Holmes.Sherlock

    Gold Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 1443 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbara, California
  •  
    United States

Posted 12 September 2010 - 07:56 AM

Just downloaded the file from the link. The MD5 hash is:

b83fad8fd28e637b82cb4a6bef7d6920

File size is 1,442,787,328 bytes


Thank u paraglider for taking pain of downloading so large a file. I've just downloaded the mentioned WAIK, calculated MD5, measured its size & at last successfully installed it at my FIFTH try.

#55 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 September 2010 - 09:41 AM

I've just downloaded the mentioned WAIK, calculated MD5, measured its size & at last successfully installed it at my FIFTH try.


Am I allowed to add an "exactly as I was told by several members of boot-land since the very first day I posted about the problem I was having:

try re-dowloading it, you have a corrupted download

an advice I stubbornly refused to follow till now"
to your statement? :)

:hyper:
Wonko

#56 Holmes.Sherlock

Holmes.Sherlock

    Gold Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 1443 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbara, California
  •  
    United States

Posted 12 September 2010 - 11:40 AM

Am I allowed to add an .............


NO, u r not allowed to, bcoz sometimes u DELIBERATELY overlook info only to scold/mock/taunt/make fun of others.......still a clue is enough for Wonko

actually I've a poor net connection. So, on behalf of me, my friend does all downloads


I need to be DAMN sure before making some other(my friend) to download so large a file for the FIFTH time that it was not a mistake on my part.

#57 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 September 2010 - 12:04 PM

I need to be DAMN sure before making some other(my friend) to download so large a file for the FIFTH time that it was not a mistake on my part.


...and obviously in order to make sure you should have run the MD5 check (the other thing you stubbornly refused dong for several days - notwithstanding all the people advising you to do that), and even once the image resulted having a wrong MD5 AND a much smaller size than expected, you still refused to accept the fact that it was a corrupted/incomplete download.... :)

...I am only asking you to have for your (more expert than you, BTW) friends on boot-land the same kind of respect you have for your local "downloading" friend....:hyper:

I mean, until now - and obviously unless I missed something - you never received from a boot-land member any "deceiving" of "wrong" advice, I guess that after the initial "probation time" they do deserve that you start trusting them and their advice, simply §@ç#ing doing the tests that are suggested and reporting, BTW something that you should do ANYWAY, should you be willing to follow the "common sense advice" (something that is so UNcommon that we had to write it down - points #f):
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=9101

;)

Wonko

#58 Holmes.Sherlock

Holmes.Sherlock

    Gold Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 1443 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbara, California
  •  
    United States

Posted 12 September 2010 - 12:20 PM

...and obviously in order to make sure you should have run the MD5 check (the other thing you stubbornly refused dong for several days - notwithstanding all the people advising you to do that),

...I am only asking you to have for your (more expert than you, BTW) friends on boot-land the same kind of respect you have for your local "downloading" friend....:hyper:


I respect all members here, understood?????? I've NEVER EVER claimed that I know more than what they do. I think u understand plain English though mine is not as good as urs.

And, now read it slowly.

I started this thread when I make him download the same file thrice & failed. Now I was silent for long as u can see it from the timings of my posts. Just a 2-3 days back, I made him re-download (FOURTH time) & then posted the snapshot. Within a few hours paraglider, dera, voyager & great Wonko replied to that. Being sure that it was a corrupted one, I re-requested my friend to download it FIFTH time. Only today morning I got the WAIK, tested it @ 1:30(my local time) & made the post letting all the members know that I finally got the success stating them the reason. Now, if u still continue to think that I've no respect for members "more expert than me", then I can't help.

#59 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 September 2010 - 01:01 PM

As I read this thread, you have been told twice, on the 19th and 20th August to compare the MD5 of the downloaded file with the known one.

This would have logically caused that as soon as you have downloaded for the fourth time the file, you would have run the MD5 check on it.

INSTEAD, on the 9th of September (i.e. as soon as you got the fourth download) you posted again WHINING that the WAIK did not install for you and DID NOT post any result of the MD5 check.

I had to remember you :hyper::
http://www.boot-land...?...12176&st=32
that what you were told was NOT:

download again and try installing it

but rather:

download again and run a MD5 check on the file BEFORE doing anything else, since if the MD5 is different the download is broken


And finally you posted that info, that once again confirmed that it was yet another corrupted/incomplete download.

And again it took a number of posts to convince you that the ONLY way out was to check the downloading procedure and downloading hardware and software and then attempt again another download (that luckily went through allright :)).

In a nutshell:
  • Advice received: Run a MD5 check on the download, first thing.
  • Action performed: Attempt to install the download WITHOUT checking it's MD5 (and failed) ;)

Now, please compare with points #f3 and #f4 of the "common sense advice" (which mind you it's not at all compulsory, it's just a guideline :)) and tell me that you have followed them, or at least that by NOT following them you did not expect that someone could get mad at you, as in:

nothing can upset more a willing helping member that someone that asks for advice and later does not try the given suggestions and/or does another thing



:)
Wonko

#60 ksanderash

ksanderash

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 162 posts
  • Interests:electronics, PCs, cinema, reading books, psychology, philosophy
  •  
    Moldova

Posted 12 September 2010 - 01:09 PM

Geronimo! Ha-ha, I'm glad that downloading friend came through such not easy task :hyper:

So much noise about a broken download...

#61 Holmes.Sherlock

Holmes.Sherlock

    Gold Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 1443 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbara, California
  •  
    United States

Posted 12 September 2010 - 01:24 PM

And again it took a number of posts to convince you that the ONLY way out was to check the downloading procedure and downloading hardware and software and then attempt again another download (that luckily went through allright :hyper:).


I posted the MD5 result as soon as u reminded me. So, u should have no hard feelings.

#62 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 12 September 2010 - 01:34 PM

So, u should have no hard feelings.


I haven't, rest assured. :)

It's just part of my current occupation.

:hyper:
Wonko

#63 crashnburn

crashnburn

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 111 posts

Posted 29 September 2016 - 02:07 PM

Is there any way to get the Win PE 1.2 (that was based on Win 2003 Server)? Or make a PE based on Server 2003? 



#64 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 29 September 2016 - 03:38 PM

Is there any way to get the Win PE 1.2 (that was based on Win 2003 Server)? Or make a PE based on Server 2003? 

What do you mean?

PE 1.x (the original MS WinPE) was not available to the public (which is one of the reasons why both BartpE and Winbuilder were created), both Bart's PE builder and several Winbuilder projects like LiveXP are compatible with Windows Server 2003 sources.

The point may only be if you have those source OS install disc.

JFYI:
http://reboot.pro/to...the-difference/

 

 

:duff:

Wonko



#65 crashnburn

crashnburn

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 111 posts

Posted 02 October 2016 - 03:48 AM

What do you mean?

PE 1.x (the original MS WinPE) was not available to the public (which is one of the reasons why both BartpE and Winbuilder were created), both Bart's PE builder and several Winbuilder projects like LiveXP are compatible with Windows Server 2003 sources.

The point may only be if you have those source OS install disc.

JFYI:
http://reboot.pro/to...the-difference/

 

 

:duff:

Wonko

Yes. Based on my googling it was not released to public but made available to few OEMs etc. 

I did find someone had posted leaked links on MSFN, but that was deleted/ removed so figured someone here might have them. :) ??

Well XP & 2003 were around similar time, but I need 2003 based PE.. (I have ISOs and some genuine licenses).. 

Why? To try and Repair a 2003 instance that has BSODs using SFC etc (why is a long story of old business apps on it)

 

So can I find one or make one based on 2003, with SFC etc in it? If so, how.. is there a How To/ steps somewhere?



#66 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 13330 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 02 October 2016 - 02:11 PM

So can I find one or make one based on 2003, with SFC etc in it? If so, how.. is there a How To/ steps somewhere?

Of course you can find one, we call that WAREZ, but you should instead build yourself one, .

And of course you do not *need* a 2003 based PE to repair a Windows 2003 install, you *need* a 2003 install CD/source and *any* PE would do.

Running SFC (why?) won't normally work in a PE anyway, although some builds may have it working, but SFC is depending also on the specific version of the files, i.e. if the OS is SP1, a SP2 SFC may (or may not) work, etc..

The correct approach is IMHO that of repairing the OS until it can run SFC internally (and still you will need the original, correct, source CD), SFC is a tool to verify the integrity of a system, not a repair tool in itself, the BSOD(s) that you are experiencing may be cause by a zillion of reasons, and SFC may - maybe - provide a remedy for a very small subset of them (corrupted or replaced files among the ones it verifies).

For the record - however - the ERD Commander 5.0 (Winternals ERD Commander 2005) boot disk was a (better) PE 1.x based on Server 2003, the 30 day evaluaton version is still available, though currently it used a stupid installer/downloader (untested):
http://www.chip.de/d...t_35181963.html

 

 

 

:duff:

Wonko



#67 Tripredacus

Tripredacus

    Frequent Member

  • Expert
  • 234 posts
  • Interests:K-Mart-ian Legend
  •  
    United States

Posted 05 October 2016 - 09:06 PM

Yes. Based on my googling it was not released to public but made available to few OEMs etc.


I wouldn't be surprised if it was available to all OEMs. If there was any limiting factor, it would then be Direct/Royalty OEMs... even so it is a large number, much bigger than "few" represents. ;)

I'm certainly glad WinPE 2.0 was so much better.

#68 crashnburn

crashnburn

    Frequent Member

  • Advanced user
  • 111 posts

Posted 13 October 2016 - 06:29 PM

I have all kinds of 2003 Install CDs/ ISOs and DOS Recovery Console in it (unlike 08), but they do not give a way to run SFC or pretty much any commands. Crappy! 

Well, if it wont run via PE then crap! Yes, specific versions, so lets see. I might run SFC from HDD, but cant run it without being in Win 2003

I will post specific BSOD and all info I found about the BSOD with you. 

Of course you can find one, we call that WAREZ, but you should instead build yourself one, .

And of course you do not *need* a 2003 based PE to repair a Windows 2003 install, you *need* a 2003 install CD/source and *any* PE would do.

Running SFC (why?) won't normally work in a PE anyway, although some builds may have it working, but SFC is depending also on the specific version of the files, i.e. if the OS is SP1, a SP2 SFC may (or may not) work, etc..

The correct approach is IMHO that of repairing the OS until it can run SFC internally (and still you will need the original, correct, source CD), SFC is a tool to verify the integrity of a system, not a repair tool in itself, the BSOD(s) that you are experiencing may be cause by a zillion of reasons, and SFC may - maybe - provide a remedy for a very small subset of them (corrupted or replaced files among the ones it verifies).

For the record - however - the ERD Commander 5.0 (Winternals ERD Commander 2005) boot disk was a (better) PE 1.x based on Server 2003, the 30 day evaluaton version is still available, though currently it used a stupid installer/downloader (untested):
http://www.chip.de/d...t_35181963.html

 

 

 

:duff:

Wonko

I do have some old ERD Commander iso lying on my Zalman. lets see. Any other OLD warez I can/ should look for? 

This is 30 day eval of MS or of ERD? (Downloading)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users