when starting to explore and prepare to build I came across something that I could not figure out, and I am hoping that you can help me.

The question is this: There are many plugins that reference "Sherpya".

I managed to figure out that Sherpya is someone who extends the original BartPE to include Windows features, and that there is Sherpya Software.

Do I need to include the Sherpya software in the Bart PE Build - in order for those plugins to work ?

You see, I don't want to master yet another system (Sherpya's) - and I would like to avoid any 3rd party plugins that require a 4th party (Sherpya's) add-ons.

I 'd be very grateful if you could Help me clarify this point.

HN

Err..., I think the answer is No, but I'm a bit confused on exactly what you mean as well. If you download the UBCD4Win, there's nothing else that you need and you can add any plugins that you like to it, if you want. The UBCD4Win is also a Windows "Live CD" so-to-speak, and the best one around.

Hello LittleBUGer,

Thanks for replying.

I'll try to clarify my question:

I need to include one additional plugin, which is very important to me.

When serching for the plugin, I began to notice plugins with .inf files that have something like the following WinRAR example:

[Software.AddReg]
0x2,"Sherpya\XPEinit \Programs","Utilities\WinRAR","%SystemDrive%\Programs\WinRAR\WinRAR.exe"
0x1, "Classes\*\shellex\ContextMenuHandlers\WinRAR",,"{B41DB860-8EE4-11D2-9906-E49FADC173CA}"
0x1, "Classes\.ace",,"WinRAR"
0x1, "Classes\.arj",,"WinRAR"
.
.
You see, there's some reference to "Sehrpya".

Apparently, Sherpya is working on a project called "XPE", which is intended to add such things as dynamic registry and other "full WindowsXP" support to Bart, and the result is impressive.

Hence : XP + PE = XPE

Sherpya and others - have been also writing popular plugins for BartPE Builds - as seen in this WinRAR example above (which is by someone else, not Sherpya).

My question is - I want to use the particular plugin template that I have found,
and I have the software files to put in this plugin.

However, Does that mean that I have to include yet more plugins that provide the support for Sherpya's (and other's) extention to PE ?

The guy who wrote the particular plugin that I need, which references Sherpya as in the above example - (and other plugin authors as well) - provide no explanation whatsoever about this.

It is as if everybody in the world, except me, already know everything there is to know about this...

Thnx,
Hard Nut

Sherpya is the creator of the XPE plugin along with many other plugins.

XPE is an explorer shell plugin & is not needed or compatable with the current ubcd4win version.



The registry example you posted above is nothing more than a menu entry for use in windows explorer.

You need to create a nu2menu.xml file to add the menu entry for your program to the menu in ubcd4win.



Look at any of the plugins included in the download as an example & use them for a guide on how to make the menu entries you need for whatever program you are adding.



Take a look at www.nu2.nu for more information on the nu2menu xml format.

Hi LittlBUger,

I have also built and tested the latest version of UBCD4Win.

I have many inputs about severe problems and performance issues.

However, I do not want to destract from the focus of this particular forum - and my question above.

So where can I take all that feedback to ?

BTW, yes, it's true... I am a complete newbie...

So, I probably have noticed plenty more than some of the folks who are veterans in this project,

and I also would like to emphasize that my comments should be viewed as constructive, taking none of the plenty of credit that this project deserves.

Hard Nut

Hi hilander 999,

Please allow me to explain that XPE has nothing to do with a shell.

In fact, the .xml file is identical.
It uses the same exact format of BartE, which is also used in UBCD4Win.

XPE is a complete add-on system, that enhances the BartPE environment and enables a "look and feel" which is much closer to the Windows environment.

For example, you can create desktop shortcuts and icons,
you can use context-menu handlers,
in fact - it looks and feels like a complete Windows installation, using the same shell as in Bart.

Hard Nut.

Close, but not quite. Bart PE by default uses Nu2Menu as the shell, XPE DOES use explorer as the shell....it does not use the same shell as a default BPE build. Explorer as the shell is the reason why XPE builds look so much like the "real" XP and generally take a long time to boot.

UBCD4Win uses GeoShell as our shell for the project. Because it isn't a resource hog like explorer is and allows for quicker boot times and can handle being booted on a slower older system. Our focus for the project is to create the best and quickest recovery tool. I think XPE (don't get me wrong it's good and I don't want to start a fight or anything) lost the vision and focus that Bart originally had for BPE......as a RECOVERY tool. You should really only be using BPE for that reason anyways, it isn't supposed to be a replacement OS or an easy way to pirate XP.

I understand you have tried your best to read up on everything, but you do not have all the facts straight.

IMO

I might add that hilander999 IS currently one of the leading experts in this area... it wouldn't be wise to argue with what he has said. He is the driving force behind UBCD4Win's current core components and has put together the existing core from many different sources.

Hello SteelTrepid,

We are in complete agreement, regarding XPE.

this is why I am trying to strip the plugin template that I found - from any "XPE" context,
and still be able to use the plugin - in original "Bart" context.

This is what my original question has aimed at - namely:
I have a plugin with a .inf file that references Sherpya, but I do not want to study nor use Sherpya's XPE system -

therfore I asked for advice on how to use that plugin (or rather - the lengthy rest of it - which is in BartPE format).

I'd still be happy if someone can help with this.

Thanks,
Hard Nut





Hello rdsok and hilander999,

Please allow me to clarify that Sherpya did produce one component, which is an alternative, or "replacement" shell to Bart's shell.

However, this shell is not mandatory for the XPE environment.

XPE can (and does) run with Bart nu2 shell just as well (albeit maybe less "fancy").

HN

I think you missed a lot of the points that were provided... namely not all references to Sherpya's XPE mean that XPE itself are required. The very example that you provided was one of those examples, it was simply used for the shell's ( ie explorer ) menu and that is all.

Therefore you will find many plugins that have similar references that are simply there to support the menu normally used with XPE. Plugins that do require XPE will generally explicitly mention it in the help or readme file that may be provided with it.

Since you mentioned the XML... lets cover it. As you already stated this is for the Nu2Menu... so in your example you have a plugin that supports both XPE shells ( ie explorer ) and the Nu2Menu menu as well. Generally this type of plugin will only need the XML file tweaked slightly to allow it to properly work in UBCD4Win... If the INF isn't done correctly the worst thing that will happen is that you will end up with duplicated menu items and will need to make a correction and rebuild.

To see examples of XML's that are properly structured for UBCD4Win... you need go no further than to look at a few of the existing plugins XML files to see how they are done. If you still can't figure it out... you will need to post the one you are having trouble with.

Learning the INF and XML stuctures will take time... but the only way to learn them is to try it yourself after reading what you can about them. You have already been given a link to the XML menu stucture info... that is where you may need to start.

Hi rdsock,

I think that you have just provided the answer that I was looking for

Namely, the pluging is written to support both Shells.

Here is the .xml file from the particular example:

<!-- Nu2Menu entry for WinRAR -->
<NU2MENU>
<MENU ID="Programs">
<MITEM TYPE="ITEM" DISABLED="@Not(@FileExists(@GetProgramDrive()\Programs\WinRAR\WinRAR.exe))" CMD="RUN" FUNC="@GetProgramDrive()\Programs\WinRAR\WinRAR.exe">WinRAR</MITEM>
</MENU>
</NU2MENU>

Please correct me if I have gotten it wrong.

Any suggestions as to lines that need to be commented out, or modified ?

Thanks !

Since I always think its best that a user learn a little while doing this stuff.. right now I'm only going to point you in the right direction but not give you the answer straight out ( at least not yet )... I think you will find this one real easy... so I don't think you will have to work hard on it...

Go into an existing Compression plugin that UBCD4Win has now... there are 2 right now, I'll select just one for the one to look at.... go to [UBCD4Win dir]\plugin\File\Compression\7-zip ... now look at that XML file and see if you can see the differences between the one you have and the 7-Zip one... obviously the command line for the menu should be different... but the other differences are where you want to focus...

I would post the 7-Zip XML here.. but I feel the wordwrap will make it more difficult for you to see the differences... and I'm not trying to make this one difficult from something like that.

If you can't figure it out.. just post back.. I don't mind providing the info.. I just think learning a simple thing like this is important

Hi there, rdsok... <I've returned rather quickly... >

Well, from looking at the 7-Zip example, it seems to me that the difference is nesting.

This means that 7-Zip is not immediately available from the main menu -
but rather -
you have to open one or more Popup Sub-Menus from the main menu - to get to 7-Zip.

Whereas in the "WinRAR" example - the application is available from the main level of the menu.

I couldn't figure out any other difference... Am I right ?

Is this cascading of sub-menus - available only in the UBCD4Win GeoShell -
or does the Bart Nu2 Shell - support such cscading menu also ?

Cheers!

You've got it... Nu2Menu supports the submenu's as it it... Since UBCD4Win has well over 150 utilities included with it.. it only make sense to utilize the sub-menus and categorize all of it to keep things organized a little.

So for the rest of the users that aren't following along, here is the WinRar XML changed to follow a typical UBCD4Win menu structure...



Now one last thing that isn't so obvious but I referenced before.... let's assume the above has an error in the way it was made... where the first "<MITEM TYPE="POPUP" MENUID="File Management">" is at... let's say it actually said "<MITEM TYPE="POPUP" MENUID="File">" instead... then the SortMenu option would actually break because the MENU ID that is referenced should have been File ( in the new example ) instead of File Management.... what would happen is that from that point on... SortMenu would no longer be able to run and the rest of the menu would then have duplicate entries... So if you even see duplicates... then you would just have to find the typo or whatever caused this to happen.

Thanks for the profound lesson, rdsok

One thing that is unrelated - but perhaps you can help -

I burnt the UBCD4WIN - but upon Boot - there was a cryptic "Shell Options" menu -

and I couldn't find anywhere - instructions on how to use it.

I just noticed that I had very little RAM left, and reponse times were terrible

Off-Main-Topic here, but can you help ?

That is part of Joshua's PreShell which provides a lot of different options at boot time... including setting the size of the Ram Drive that is needed since a CD isn't writable while booted into UBCD4Win ( or other PE build normally ). Currently there isn't a lot of documentation for it other than what is in its plugin folder. For a typical system with at least 256Mb of memory its settings are normally fine but you also need to know that the speed you see is also directly related to the speed of the CD drive itself.. which is the likely place to suspect your speed issues are coming from.

With a 256Mb system... using the default auto settings... you will have a 64Mb RamDrive ( B: ) and about 130Mb of available system memory with the default build. Of course increasing memory in the system or using a faster CD Drive will make a lot of difference in the overall performance.

I don't know if you are talking about the new MultiBoot or the new PreShell that 3.0 now has.

Since you say cryptic, that leads me to believe you are talking about the MultiBoot menu. Once you select to boot UBCD4Win, after a minute or two you will then see the PreShell menu. It will then auto start UBCD4Win after 3 seconds unless you move your mouse. If you move your mouse and/or want to change options, then do that and select start shell.
You mention having little RAM left, so if the system does in fact have little memory.....you will want to change some settings in PreShell. Once you click the "expert mode" box, you will be able to change many options. If the system has little memory, then change the RAM Drive settings.

No, I was referring to the Pre-Shell menu.

I have 512MB of RAM, so I found it very strange that there seem to be too little memory.

I didn't see any problems with my CD-drive, which, as expected when there isn't enough memorty -
was working like crazy - to swap the memory contents - after every mouse click of mine.

I then went on to select a different option in the Pre-Shell Menu.

This seems to have had the unacceptable result of the program - allocating a portion of my drive C: - as it's RAM-Drive

It has left a whole bunch of directories and files on my drive C:,
which is supposed to be under repair...

The entire Mozilla browser files and many temp files were left on the drive.

I take it you didn't take any time to read any of the available documentation before you blindly stated clicking around... you need to watch that and not try things until you understand them better. Blaming something like that on the software when you didn't take the time to learn it first isn't going to do any good either. For now... I suggest just using the default settings until you take the time to learn about the more advanced ones or ones that you don't know about at all.

I think part of the problem is the fact that the project starts with a default 2MB RAM drive......PreShell does this so we can support "crappy" systems. PreShell states this and evidently it can confuse people, that is if they don't understand and read the documentation for the project. Once PreShell starts booting the project, it then resizes the RAM drive to 64MB......well unless you click "expert mode" and change it.

From what else you have stated, evidently you created a "pagefile" or physical RAM drive. This feature is disabled by default unless the user enables it. It would be foolish to enable it by default......since this is a recovery CD, it could overwrite important areas of the HDD that a person could be trying to recover. This feature is ONLY included to help with older systems that have little memory.

I hate, don't want to be, and hope I'm am not "coming off" as a jerk.....just trying to educate you on the project. I honestly wish you would have asked a few questions before you "blindly" started messing with things. I really hope that you did not possibly lose anything on that system you needed.

Let me clarify and say that my C: drive is fine and well...

Gladly... I was testing the software on a computer that has no problems... and no harm has been done !

However...
It would have been very wise and nice to find somewhere a hint regarding your suggestion -

such as:

"Go to the folder where Joshua's PreShell software is stored - and serach some guidance there "

Apart from that - It would really be nice to understand why the default setting has proven so slow and heavy an memory - as it was -
to the point that the software was unusable in that setting.

I'm glad to hear that everything is ok.

The only thing I don't understand (which I've quoted above) is the "slowness" you talk about. The CD drive speed is the biggest factor in the boot time of the project. I also do not understand the "unusablitity" that you talk about. What else have you changed? What speed CD's are you using, or maybe you are using CDR-W's?? What are the specs for the system? The "slowness" of the project that you report concerns me and I would really like to know why this is happening.

Lets get away from descriptions that just have adjectives in it which don't tell anyone anything but a subjective point of view...

What do you mean by heavy on memory?... Specifically, how much memory are you actually showing being used?

When you say slow performance... give times to do something... is it just slow on boot time... or after the system is fully booted? If the later... give some actual information that can be used to judge this from.

Thank! that's the constructive approach that can help sort out the problem,
whether it is my own private problem, or some tweak that is needed in the PreShell.

I was using a CD-R (not RW) media.
My drive's read speed is 48X.
My memory is 512MB total. P4 CPU, 1.8 GHz.

Boot was "Normal",

However, after already running, it seemed that after every mouse-click - I have to wait a few seconds,
and also interesting - there seemed to be a delay in launching the CD-drive - i.e. the drive would start to work very hard - in order to bring up the required data - but only after some delay of a second or so - after I have clicked the mouse.

Things did not improve - as I was using the software - seemingly suggesting that there was no post-adjustment of the size of Ram-Drive - or of System Ram.

sadly, I didn't take exact notes of the numbers that appered on the screen.

P.S. It makes sense for CD-drives to take a while to accelerate and decelerate - before and after each "Read" operation, although I have experienced delays that were longer than that.

The unusually large number of approaches to the drive - after every mouse click, even just for displaying properties - after already having done that a few minutes eralier -
this does seem to suggest an inadequately small RAM Cache - in view of the 512MB resource.

On another note, if the system increases its RAM cache, it could be tweaked to prefetch data.

HN

Those aren't constructive numbers... they are still subjective.

A 48x CD is also going to be a bit slow... it will probably take from 3-5 minutes for the initial boot with one like that but each system is different. Since the project uses a Multi-Boot for the first part... its only after the part starts to boot UBCD4Win that I'm talking about.

But you need real numbers for us to judge anything from.


Its late now... I will probably not be back for some time.

Please read my message again, since I have edited it.

I think that there is a direction there.

I, too will retire for some rest...

I see I must be wasting my time... I've asked for real numbers twice and still you only provide subjective information and guess's on what is going on... good luck with whatever you try but I can't work this way.

The RAM drive is not for prefetch, it's simply a "writable" area for temp files. Almost anything you do requires a read to the cd drive and the only thing you can do about that is load the entire iso into ram but that also requires files from a Win2003 service pack file and a custom build, something that you shouldn't do until you're comfortable with the standard build.

Tom

Hi Tom,

This is a totally wrong approach ! I may be at risk here, if this approach is the way that BartPE has been operating all along, but please consider this:

A "Normal" Operating System tries to minimize access to the swap-file that resides on its hard drive !

And we are talking "hard drive", which is by far - faster than a CD-ROM.

There is memory management - for efficient "page" loading, and there are even 3rd party (even a nice freeware one) for memory defragmentation - all in an effort to use the "heap" in memory, and prefetched data - to the maximum, and minimize "paging" - and the swap-file on the disk.

Performance deteriorate considerably - when there is not enough physical memory, or when physical memory becomes fragmented (i.e. full of "small" spaces, rather than one "large" contiguous space) -

And then - performance deteriorates further - if the hard disk is fragmented - and so is the swap file.

A Ram-Drive should be a "Drive". I.e. - It should store program files !
"Temp" data should be taken from the rest of the memory - the "heap", and care should be taken - to maintain the memory well, and not to fragment it.

Now, when you say that "anything I do - requires Read-Aceess to the CD-drive - you are actually saying this:

a. The "Swap-file" is used to the maximum - rather than - to the minimum.

b. The Swap-file resides on a CD-drive, which is a lot slower than a hard disk - where swap-files normally reside.

No System can possibly behave reponsively and efficiently in such conditions !

Again, it may be that BartPE has always operated in this manner. I really don't know.

If it has, than perhaps one just needs to get used to the idea that working with a Boot-CD - is going to be slow (and perhaps - frustratingly slow)

Important: Why not assume the minimal RAM to be - 128MB ? An XP System cannot possibly work on a 64MB PC (to my best judgement).

I was trying to stay out of the way of the experts who have tried to help to you no end. Maybe I can state this in a level that will explain to you about how this project is supposed to work.

This is a Emergency repair and recovery disk. It in no fashion is meant in any way to be as fast as a real system. Every attempt at speeding it up has been done and compared to a year ago, it is about twice as fast as it was when I started using it.

You are comparing a Hard Drive based OS to a Live CD. The 2 are mutually uncomparable. It is like trying to get the same benchmark from a P2 200Mhz and a P4 3.08Ghz machine. It aint gonna happen.

With a HD based OS, you have the prefetch capability and a Page File to swap memory around and temp stiorage in the amounts of GB worth of data. With Bart PE, you have what is in the RAM and nothin else other than the 700MB on the CD to work with. Nothing else... You want to open a app, it opens after reading the disk. You open it again later, there is no files that it transfered to open faster. It has to re-read the disk again.

There is nothing you xcan do to speed up the disk at all when it comes to opening apps or anything like that. There might be in the future once everyone has 2 and 3GB of RAM to play with but until then, the project is desiogned to work on very limited systems.

If you can't work with this then there is nothing more that I can say politely.

I am not yelling at you, just voicing what has been explained to you repeatedly just in a consie way that your limited mind can understand.

I don't think you understand the concept of a bootable CD. I think you are expecting these BPE CD's to do everything that XP is capable of doing. While I do not know all the details about exactly how everything works, I severly doubt their is much memory management, etc. Everything is ran from the CD so anytime you go to launch a program, there has to be at least a slight delay for the program to be read from the CD drive.

My wife's computer is a P4 1.6GHz with 768 RAM, so I have a system close to what you are working with and the project has always worked fine with it. I've booted it with many P3's also and it has always seemed alright.

XP does have memory requirements in order for it to run properly. But BPE CD's are "mini" XP's so we can work with a little less. By using PreShell, Joshua has booted the project on a system with only 32 or 48 MB's of memory! A small RAM drive has to be setup, which doesn't allow you to run many of our AV tools......it is of course also painfully slow. But, if you ever find a "crappy" system like that and it needs help, spending all that time on it will eventually be satisfying if you can fix the system with the project.
As a side note----a few weeks ago a system was brought in because they said it was slow. We fired it up and it took a LONG time to boot into XP. Upon further inspection, they only had 64MB of RAM!!!

BartPE and UBCD4Win are NOT normal operating systems. They have always been designed as a recovery tool to access hard drives that are damaged in some way. For it to start installing programs or writing temp files to the hard drive defeats the purpose.

Have you tried Linux based boot CDs? They are just as slow. Regarding a 64MB PC, yeah, it's slow, but when you need to access a damaged hard drive, you learn to deal with it.

If you want to do a repair of a damaged drive using a normal operating system, then remove the drive and make it a slave in a different computer. That is not a practical option for most people. That's why BartPE and UBCD4Win are such great tools. Waiting for it to boot up and set up, is a small price to pay for a functional operating enviroment with repair programs and the ability to connect to external devices via USB or a LAN connection.

You are getting free support from very knowledgable volunteers. Yes, they can be cranky and snippy at times. However, if you take the time to look at some of the documentation provided before you ask, you will find the responses, you get to be better. No one wants a pissing contest.

Also, you don't need to use bold, underlining, italics and colors to make your points. Just type.

I'm kinda glad that you mentioned the slow boot time of Linux based CD's also James!

Tom had me download the latest version of Knoppix last week and I was trying to do a few things with that. I found it painfully slow, it was slower than the project!! I've always read the Linux CD's are supposed to boot faster, but maybe that's for smaller distro's?? Knoppix is too feature and eye candy filled to boot fast??

Dear Mr. baronvonfoxbat7734,

Thank you for welcoming me so warmly - to this forum.

My "Limited Mind", by the way, was just barely enough for me to achieve the following:

- High Degrees in Computer-Science, Electrical-Engineering, Physics.

- Inventing, or co-inventing several patented inventions.

- Founding and becoming CEO of a small high-tech company - based on one of said inventions.

I suggest that you shut-up and be humbled, and let us, who know something, continue this discussion without your beautifully-styled cheer-leading participation.

Hi SteelTrepid,

It is understood that a "Rescue CD" is not expected to perform nearly as quickly as a Hard-Disk based system.

It is also understood that it has been a goal of this project - to assist everybody alike - including those who still use older and/or weaker systems.

However,

Why not start each shell start with either an automatic, or, at least - a menu query - regarding - exactly how much physical memory does this particular system have ?

wouldn't someone running a very old and weak system - gladly live without the "Vista-Styled" Icons ?

It is possible to tweak and tailor the performance at shell-start time - to the particular actual PC involved.

And politely, I am repeating my question:

How fast or slow does this system run - compared to a BartPE CD boot system ?

I really don't know, because I haven't tested this.

If this system runs as quickly as a system boot from a BartPE CD - then obviously - the discussion ends, and we should all be satisfied with this achievement.

I'm always surprised at users that claim to have a high degree of computer knowledge and yet everything they say expresses either the opposite or at the least an incomplete understanding and then they have the audacity to contradict other users that have repeatedly shown their expertise in their work, actions and products they have made. For further proof of a lack of understanding, when asked multiple times to provide definitive information, they simply skirt the questions and provide only subjective remarks instead of actual data.

"I am not yelling at you, just voicing what has been explained to you repeatedly just in a consie way that your limited mind can understand."


Strangely, the above hasn't surprised you all that much.

Since you are a veteran and leader in this project, I would highly appreciate some response on your part, which condemns the use such style, as has been used above - against me.

Since that was not meant as a flame to discredit... it was a statement of opinion that many of us now agree with... nothing will be said about it.

Wow, I'm simply just staring at this thread in awe and I really don't know what else to say... We've explained everything to you Hard Nut, how it is, how it works, suggestions to make it work better, etc., and yet you still contradict us like you know exactly what's right and wrong and how exactly everything is supposed to work, even though you never used a Live CD before! Seriously, this is plain amazing and I'm sorry to hear that you've spent so much money on your education and life earnings/achievements as it seems to have not really paid off for you, and I feel that my IQ is now lower because of it... Awww... now my brain hurts from trying to comprehend such stupidity...

Your higher education has truely prevailed over my infintile mind as you have oh so elquently stated in your perfect post. I am not trying to flame or cause you harm in any way shape or form. As for my lack of knowledge... I am speechless. I am have no such higher education but yet I run cricels around the other techs here my department who have such degrees and certifications. I find no time to gain them but yet I can do much better than my fellow co-woprkers on hard issues here at work.

I am not trying to prove or disprove any ones intentions or intelligence. You have proven to not listen to anyone about any advice that has been given. Your lack of providing information has proven to be as equally a road block as your inteligance has proven to blind you to the simple. As i am not an expert nor a moron, i have the gift of being able to translate the compliacted to a form that simple people can understand. Obviously, this was not low enough for you to grasp as you still blather on about being pompous and more holier than thou.

You may have degrees in higher maths and computer science and such with patents and otherwise under your belt and run your own company. I have one question for you though, di you create Bart's PE or this project? No? Then i would shut up and humble yourself and listen to the fine experts here that are TRYING to help you with your issues.

As to inventions and knowledge... As an example. In the company that I support, there is an individual who hs a patent and is credited with creating a form of copy protection for CD's. I will omit the specific one due to privacy concerns I have. He was unable to get past basic errors and user functionality of Windows XP. Yet he has 2 PHD degrees in engineering... Degrees prove nothing of inteligance in certain contexts. They are a mask one wears when one is afraid of being made a fool.

BTW... Congradulations on your gratitous usage of the Bold command. It really acentuates your ignorance...

Let's not flame or attack people here!! Don't make yourself look like a jerk by "name calling", etc., because you are frustrated. I am a bit frustrated and just do not understand myself, but we gotta keep our cool. (I know I'm not always the best at that either!!)

I'm wondering what the "vista icons" you are talking about are?? Are you talking about our icons on the desktop or something else?

My apologies Steel if I have crossed the line from your prior post. I did not intend to. Just to defend myself.

Yea, sorry Ben. I was just completely flabbergasted myself. :-\

Well, without inputs regarding performance comparison between UBCD4Win and BartPE,

I set out to test and build a BartPE CD, including plenty of plugins, including "heavy" commercial ones, for which I own a license (e.g. Acronis TrueImage Corporate, Nero 6.6 etc.).

Bart's CD performance (bearing in mind that this is a CD-based system) was incredibly and surprisingly quick, fast and responsive, as compared to UBCD4Win project.

Now, of course I know why... This is why I started this discussion...

However, you know better.

As you had explained: you cannot learn anything from me...

It is up to me to read all the documentation... and learn all from you.

So, be it.

You are correct finally... we can't learn or help you because you still refuse to provide anything more than subjective statements instead of providing any real benchmarks or anything that may be of aid to see what is happening.

Just saying something is slow or whatever is not a piece of data that is useable, it is only subjective at best. This is all you have provided and yet you still insist it is our fault for not helping. If the scenerio was a call to your doctor, it would be like you telling them that you don't feel good over and over and when they asked a question you just restate that you don't feel good... going nowhere in the end just like what has happened here.

Looking back through this post I'm reminded of a saying that I saw recently... "The only consistent feature in all of your dissatisfying relationships is you."

In all of my builds of where I've compared the vanilla BartPE to the UBCD4Win (even when the UBCD4Win was still 1.0), I've never seen any speed differences, ever, and I bet I can safely say this for most of the members in this forum who have tested the same thing. I have no idea why your UBCD4Win runs as it does and why your standard BartPE "seems" to go faster. The only thing I can say is that you built your UBCD4Win wrong or there is something else interferring with it. Unfortunately, as rdsok stated, you never want to give any answers we can use, so it doesn't really matter anymore what you think. If you think your broken and improperly made UBCD4Win is slow, then don't use it, but also don't ask us for help if you really don't want to try our advice once we try to actually help you. :-\

Oh, and BTW... StoP wITh tHE bLue aND BolD LETTers All OF "thE tiME". IT ReaLLy DoeSn't HElp anYthInG anD makES yoU lOOK liKe aN IncompETANt chiLD. "ThAnK YoU" FoR YoUr TiMe.

This has got to be the most humorous thread I have had the pleasure of reading in this forum. Did anyone else notice how appropriate his handle was to the entire process that the thread went through?

Yeah, I did. After I read his response to my post, I rolled my eyes and decided not to even waste my time with a lost cause.