[sr1sws]

Has anyone figured out what the heck is broken with UBUSB when building an image on Vista or Win7? Why the @#$% does a CD work and the USB does not (prelogon file not found) from the same UBCD4WIN session/build???

Steve

[rdsok]

Use the forum search... this has been covered already...

[sr1sws]

rdsok, on May 1 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

Use the forum search... this has been covered already...

Yeah, believe it or not, I did. For at least the hits I found, they say "it's broke on Vista, don't use it". Not particularly helpful, especially since Vista's been out for 2 years and Win7 will likely drop this year.

If you know of a specific post that answers the question, please feel free to enlighten me.

Thanks!

[rdsok]

Then I'd suggest you learn to program since you have already read the answer to your question concerning Vista etc. At this time there is no other answer.

[chuckr_jcr]

sr1sws, on May 2 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

Vista's been out for 2 years and Win7 will likely drop this year.

Windows 7 RC dropped April 30 for MS subscribers.

It will be dropped for the regular folks on May 5....

Along with the dropping of their new "Virtual PC" Beta...

M$ seems to do OK with their 'droppings'...

This post has been edited by chuckr_jcr: 02 May 2009 - 11:39 PM

[turbine_blade]

The original question has not been answered. The first post asked why a CD-ROM built on a Vista computer will work, but the equivalent UBUSB version does not work when built under Vista.

This is a specific question that deserves a direct and specific answer.

Yes, one can search the forum for some time, and find multiple answers.

I read this forum almost daily, and I was not aware of the issue because it just did not matter to me. Then, I tried building 3.50 on a Vista laptop with my XP source. The CD-ROM was good, but the UBUSB version failed with the Joshua Prelogon problem.

My answer was to say to myself "screw it" and go back to the XP laptop for building. I suppose I could have installed the virtual XP PC under Vista, but it is hardly worth the trouble when I have multiple computers at my disposal.

Cheers

[sbaeder]

turbine_blade, on 03 May 2009 - 05:32 PM, said:

The original question has not been answered. The first post asked why a CD-ROM built on a Vista computer <b>will </b>work, but the equivalent UBUSB version <b>does not work </b>when built under Vista.

This is a specific question that deserves a direct and specific answer.

I also finally said "screw it, but then went back and am starting to do some more digging into this...I'm running out of time, and it loos like when I ran the "good" usb to test it, it actually writes files to the directory! (I am seeing all sorts of files in the good USB's MININT area that aren't in the "bad one" (since it doesn't boot all the way

I'll try to get back to this later, now that I have two "working" UBCD4Win areas (one on an XP Pro machine and the other on a Vista X64...Even little things can cause bizzare changes - like for instance, if you were going to use the USB ONLY, so you didn't build the ISO - just did the other steps...then you will miss out on a lot of the "post processing to "squash" the size of the INF files (i.e. the comments get stripped out, and no spaces on either side of an equals sign, etc.) and there is step "39", which re-touches the date/timestamp on the files to match the original uncompressed version of the file (the .IN_)

OH WELL...BUT, I do think that this needs a BIG WARNING !!!, since it is frustrating to build up the ISO image, and do all the testing on it in a VM, then try to use the UBUSB tool, and find that 1) a lot of the options just aren't available (why is it that we can't use SYSLINUX on Vista) or do the kicker ISO, etc...but even worse that 2), it just plain won't run (because of some mysterious PreLogin error that NO ONE cares enough to track down to the root cause...

I said:

Q: Dr. - It hurts when I bang my head against a wall
A: Stop doing that!

[pcuser]

@sbaeder, you seem to be a real gem... Are you for real or are you just a troll???

Quote

OH WELL...BUT, I do think that this needs a BIG WARNING !!!, since it is frustrating to build up the ISO image, and do all the testing on it in a VM, then try to use the UBUSB tool, and find that 1) a lot of the options just aren't available (why is it that we can't use SYSLINUX on Vista) or do the kicker ISO, etc...but even worse that 2), it just plain won't run (because of some mysterious PreLogin error that NO ONE cares enough to track down to the root cause...

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of builds I do to your one build to make this process as easy as it is for you this far? I'm sorry it frustrates you so much that a couple of features that you'd like to see implemented aren't finished yet, you should've seen it a year ago.

Quote

2), it just plain won't run (because of some mysterious PreLogin error that NO ONE cares enough to track down to the root cause...

Joshua is the only one with the PreLogon source code so I have no idea what file it's looking for. Maybe he doesn't have a system that can reproduce the error. Have you offered to donate a Vista x64 system to him so he can atleast reproduce the problem?

Do you think that we're made of money and have all the free time in the world on our hands???

[sbaeder]

pcuser, on 09 July 2009 - 03:55 AM, said:

@sbaeder, you seem to be a real gem... Are you for real or are you just a troll???

I said that I would be off on vacation and gone for a while...Just now back, and digging out of all the accumulated stuff - so, I'm not a "troll"...

pcuser, on 09 July 2009 - 03:55 AM, said:

Do you have any idea how many hundreds of builds I do to your one build to make this process as easy as it is for you this far? I'm sorry it frustrates you so much that a couple of features that you'd like to see implemented aren't finished yet, you should've seen it a year ago.

Yes, I have a good idea, and hope you also realizer that in playing with this to get to this point, I have also done literally 100's of builds...I have dug into the systems, and gotten isolinux as the CD menu for multi-boot, and also done a lot of other clean-ups on multiboot. I just need more time (and YES, I know all this takes a lot of time) to really clean it up an make it work well with the DOS UBCD as well as some other tools I use, etc.

This was where I basically discovered that it didn't work well with Vista (which is what I use now for all my home computers, but having a bootable tool to work on other computers I am asked to help "repair" is a good thing to have, and something "fun" to work on...

pcuser, on 09 July 2009 - 03:55 AM, said:

Joshua is the only one with the PreLogon source code so I have no idea what file it's looking for. Maybe he doesn't have a system that can reproduce the error. Have you offered to donate a Vista x64 system to him so he can atleast reproduce the problem?

Do you think that we're made of money and have all the free time in the world on our hands???

No need to throw insults or get nasty. The original poster asked a legit question...But all he go in return was a "go search the forum"...That wasn't helpful. I would be happy to work with him to get a real (or virtual X64 based) environment for him to work on. But that's not the only way to debug this - is it...

As I started to say in the above posting, what I'd like to do is to compare a real XP machine and USB the works with one that doesn't. This is also a bit complex, since you have to work backwards - i.e. are the files in the installation the same, then, is the created BartPE the same, then is the output from the UBUSB the same...

Look for more in a week or two.

[rdsok]

Quote

No need to throw insults or get nasty.

Then don't start it yourself... What you said is very troll-like. Trolls are known to criticize other's work but then actually do nothing to address the issues they are talking about and they never contribute anything of any real use.

Quote

The original poster asked a legit question

Yes they certainly did... BUT that doesn't mean that every time a question has been asked that each forum thread needs the full explanation. That is exactly what the forum search is for so the user can get all of the info that has already been provided without having to repeat it over and over. Just because a user may have a valid question should not excuse them from reading any existing help whether its in the form of a manual or a forum.

People have seemed to have lost what I'll call simple etiquette. They seem to feel others should do all of their reading and research for them and spoon feed it to them even when its for a freeware project such as UBCD4Win. They now seem to get upset without real reason other than their own selfishness needs when they are reminded of their responsibilities in reading what is already available to them.

The people that actually do try volunteering their help on forums such as this one do not mind it when a question is asked, but there are still limits that must be set. Users also have a responsibility to first research their questions and not take advantage of those that are volunteers by asking questions which have already been answered. These users should also not become upset when they are asked to search for existing information since that is their responsibility. Its only after that point that asking questions to clarify whats already been posted or not... that they are not considered to be abusing the purposes of a forum.

A person that is new to forums may not and isn't really expected to know all of that... but they should never get upset when they are reminded of it either.

[sbaeder]

rdsok, on 25 July 2009 - 05:38 PM, said:

What you said is very troll-like. Trolls are known to criticize other's work but then actually do nothing to address the issues they are talking about and they never contribute anything of any real use.

Sorry if it came off that way, and maybe I could have stated more clearly why I was running out of time...I was going on a 3-4 week vacation. My intent and purpose was not to start getting all pissy with folks.

rdsok, on 25 July 2009 - 05:38 PM, said:

People have seemed to have lost what I'll call simple etiquette. They seem to feel others should do all of their reading and research for them and spoon feed it to them even when its for a freeware project such as UBCD4Win. They now seem to get upset without real reason other than their own selfishness needs when they are reminded of their responsibilities in reading what is already available to them.

I agree 100% some common courtesy is always welcome, as is trying to infer the best intentions...sometimes in short communications like these, that isn't always easy...

BUT, NOW, on to some (I hope useful) information...
Using "winmerge" (a pretty nice diffing tool) this afternoon, I tried to ruin it just after making a plain vanilla, ISO using all the defaults...Just install the UBCD4WIN, and BUILD...using same XP source and doing it once on my Vista (x64) and the other on the D drive here on an clean install of XP with SP3).

Here is part of the diff report where the "Z" drive is remote mounted from the vista box...

Compare D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE with Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE        7/26/2009 10:34:30 PM
Filename       Folder                   Comparison result               Left Date               Right Date      
MSCOMCTL.OCX   I386\SYSTEM32       Binary files are different      6/6/2002 11:13:00 PM    4/3/2008 10:20:14 AM

So, I looked at the logs to see WHY the MSCOMCTL.OCX was so different...Hives and some of the other diffs might not make any difference...found the first instance in the log where it comes from the OEM1 directory. That made sense, and it comes from the installation. BUT, there was another instance where it was copied in, and this time, from the C:\Windows directory...

DecompressOrCopy file "D:\UBCD4WIN\PLUGIN\DISK\SECURITY\IDSUITE\COMDLG32.OCX" to "D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\COMDLG32.OCX"
DecompressOrCopy file "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\MSCOMCTL.OCX" to "D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\MSCOMCTL.OCX"

Tracking down which inf file was doing this isn't too hard, just look at the lines above, and find the directory... sure enough in the "plugin\Disk\Security\IDSuite.inf file is the following

[SourceDisksFiles]
*.exe=a,,1
*.chm=a,,1
*.txt=a,,1
comdlg32.ocx=2,,4
%11%\comctl32.ocx=2,,4
%11%\mscomctl.ocx=2,,4

Not 100% sure why this is here, or why the comctl32.ocx file isn't in the log file here, but that will have to wait for a later date...Duty calls (this time) and I have to go off for a two week business trip, so I won't get back to this for a while...

BUT, someone could try building things on vista without this module and see what they get (or patch up the file with the OEM1 version?). One other thing I did notice in the diff and in searching the log was that the there was one other file copied from "C:\Windows"

DecompressOrCopy file "D:\UBCD4WIN\OEM1\!SYSTEM-CORE(024)\FILES\WINDOWSSHELL.MANIFEST" to "D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\WINDOWSSHELL.MANIFEST"
DecompressOrCopy file "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\EMPTYREGDB.DAT" to "D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\EMPTYREGDB.DAT"
DecompressOrCopy file "D:\WXPCCP_EN (E)\I386\KEYBOARD.INF" to "D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\INF\KEYBOARD.INF"

This might have some other type of ramification...There were also a few instances where there were other "diffs"... So in the spirit of providing other information that might be useful to others, here is the whole list of diffs from the BartPE directory. I'm sure that there must be some other reason why there are differences in the hiv's created and the logs, but as I siad above, that will have to wait for me to get back to this (or for someone else to pick up where I have left it (for now)...

Here is the entire diff file in "csv" format...

Compare D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE with Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE
7/26/2009 10:21:24 PM
Filename,Folder,Comparison result,Left Date,Right Date,Extension
DEFAULT,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Binary files are different,* 7/26/2009 9:13:36 PM,7/26/2009 9:04:44 PM,
SOFTWARE,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Binary files are different,* 7/26/2009 9:13:36 PM,7/26/2009 9:04:43 PM,
MSCOMCTL.OCX,I386\SYSTEM32,Binary files are different,6/6/2002 11:13:00 PM,* 4/3/2008 10:20:14 AM,OCX
MSI.DLL,I386\SYSTEM32,Binary files are different,4/14/2008 5:42:00 AM,4/14/2008 5:42:00 AM,DLL
SETUPREG.HIV,I386\SYSTEM32,Binary files are different,* 7/26/2009 9:13:35 PM,7/26/2009 9:04:43 PM,HIV
petmphive.LOG1,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:44 PM,LOG1
petmphive.LOG2,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:30 PM,LOG2
petmphive{782b0fd9-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TM.blf,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:30 PM,blf
petmphive{782b0fd9-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TMContainer00000000000000000001.regtrans-ms,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:30 PM,regtrans-ms
petmphive{782b0fd9-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TMContainer00000000000000000002.regtrans-ms,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:30 PM,regtrans-ms
petmphive{782b0fdd-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TM.blf,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:44 PM,blf
petmphive{782b0fdd-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TMContainer00000000000000000001.regtrans-ms,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:44 PM,regtrans-ms
petmphive{782b0fdd-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TMContainer00000000000000000002.regtrans-ms,I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32\CONFIG,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:44 PM,regtrans-ms
setuphiv.LOG1,I386\SYSTEM32,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:31 PM,LOG1
setuphiv.LOG2,I386\SYSTEM32,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:31 PM,LOG2
SETUPHIV{782b0fe1-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TM.blf,I386\SYSTEM32,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:31 PM,blf
SETUPHIV{782b0fe1-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TMContainer00000000000000000001.regtrans-ms,I386\SYSTEM32,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:31 PM,regtrans-ms
SETUPHIV{782b0fe1-7a46-11de-b521-001fe24edec2}.TMContainer00000000000000000002.regtrans-ms,I386\SYSTEM32,Right only: Z:\New_UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32,,* 7/26/2009 9:04:31 PM,regtrans-ms
INFCACHE.1,I386\INF,Left only: D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\INF,* 7/26/2009 9:18:44 PM,,1
EMPTYREGDB.DAT,I386\SYSTEM32,Left only: D:\UBCD4Win\BartPE\I386\SYSTEM32,* 7/26/2009 4:06:26 PM,,DAT

[pcuser]

If the options to choose syslinux or create a kicker cd are unavailable (greyed out), why would you also need a "BIG WARNING" that they're not available?

[Lucky Luke]

Hello
I speak english very badly

Traduction :
Unable to generate a key with UBUSB under Vista or W7.
As against this works very well if one generation from XP Home or Pro

Sincerely
Georges



Impossible de générer une clef avec UBUSB sous Vista ou sous W7.
Par contre cela fonctionne très bien si on fait la génération depuis un XP Home ou Pro

Bien cordialement
Georges

[hilander999]

Quote

EMPTYREGDB.DAT,I386\SYSTEM32,Left only

Does EMPTYREGDB.DAT exist on the USB drive that fails to work?

EMPTYREGDB.DAT is required when using writable media such as a USB drive.

[sbaeder]

pcuser, on 27 July 2009 - 01:03 AM, said:

If the options to choose syslinux or create a kicker cd are unavailable (greyed out), why would you also need a "BIG WARNING" that they're not available?

You're still missing the point...Yes, I "got it" that those functions weren't supported - Not sure WHY, but Hey - OK, I could live without those if the thing worked...

The request for a "warning" is more for the whole process not really having been "vetted" well on Vista - maybe not just the UBUSB part...