"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=2254http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=5316http://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?
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"?
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
-arbitrary system files to produce an image & copy the appropriate
bootsector to it, properly
, the system will
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)