How to make a patched Windows 7 64 bit image - with a few clicks! (32bit added)

You can do either.
Either copy the drivers directory into the 'Drivers' dir, or actually install them as part of the process with a silent option.

Putting them into the Drivers dir will be as if Windows had them there from the start. See a few posts previous for success.

As soon as I get my blog sorted I'll get some more detailed instructions up.

It's a simple case normally of extracting them from the zip (or whatever) they are downloaded in, and pasting them in there. It'll do the rest. Nvidia drivers (or any files ending with an underscore) are a bit of an exception as you need to expand them first: http://superuser.com/questions/63773...stallation-dvd

Okies, I will have a play - on a side note the x86 integration was really really really quick (did it after reinstall). - I managed to make the multi x64/x86 ISO - how easy is it to patch it with your tool - Or am I better off making 2 ISOs and then merging them after your tool does its thing.

I have just made an updated ISO (image 3 pro only) in a clean install of windows.

The first difference is that it it gives details of adding packages up to and including 247 then 248 to 262 just say processing. what does that final part mean where it just says Processing 248 of 262 - Processing 249 of 262 etc? does it mean those ones didnt actually get added?

Also new is that 245, 246 and 247 do NOT go to 100% they are kb2957503 which gets to 65.6%, kb2957509 which gets to 65% and kb2961072 which gets to 21.1%. None have ever done that before.

ISO size ended up at 3.983 GB strangely smaller than usual.... lets see how it goes on install

Doh! deleted the contents of the RAM drive before I transferred the ISO. Now I just did it again and the processing list with no 100% started at 120 to 262 and ISO is 4.5488 GB ???

Okay the install after the restart said 123. so it seems to me that any which just say Processing 248 of 262 - Processing 249 of 262 - 250 of 262 dont go in.

That being the case the ISO I managed to delete... would probably only have had a handful of updates which didnt integrate and because of SIS the image actually is smaller when it works.

Ran this last night, patched the full iso so image is now just over 5GB - installed in a VM today and only showing 14 updates to apply so i am happy :)

x86 done

Code:

---

OSCDIMG 2.56 CD-ROM and DVD-ROM Premastering Utility
Copyright (C) Microsoft, 1993-2012. All rights reserved.
Licensed only for producing Microsoft authorized content.


Scanning source tree (500 files in 52 directories)
Scanning source tree complete (877 files in 205 directories)

Computing directory information complete

Image file is 2795634688 bytes

Writing 877 files in 205 directories to .\User\FinalISO\W7x32_SP1.iso

100% complete

Final image file is 2797824000 bytes

Done.
Done!
Press any key to continue . . .

C:\win7_build\x86>

---

Just to ask, in the x64 install there is no 'Starter' image but in the x86 the 'Starter' version of 7 is listed; is it supose to be like that ?

Starter is 32bit only :)

I'll try and sort the new updates soon.

I honestly have no idea what's causing your issue Kumagoro :( The results you're seeing just don't make sense. I'd be checking the RAM in all honesty :P
You're running the 0_ file first, followed by one of the 1_ files, right? All as admin in a command console?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent

Starter is 32bit only :)

I'll try and sort the new updates soon.

I honestly have no idea what's causing your issue Kumagoro :( The results you're seeing just don't make sense. I'd be checking the RAM in all honesty :P
You're running the 0_ file first, followed by one of the 1_ files, right? All as admin in a command console?

---

Thought it was the case :)

Yay I have made a working version.
I think it maybe just down to not enough space although I haven't checked it on my machine yet.

I did a basic windows install in a VM (in my RAM drive) and then did the patching in that. The RAM drive is 29GB with compression on and the VM's HD was a 40GB dynamic VDI. I would recommend at least 45GB one though just to be on the safe side but I don't think the compression would let it go that far.
(I also deleted the downloaded ISO after extraction)
The VDI does seem to keep ballooning even though there is free space to save stuff in. In the end it was about 34GB big and 22GB compressed.

Now I know it works I will re do it just in the RAM drive.

Weird how it seems like its run out of space yet then go on to creating a massive ISO....
--
Okay I re ran it on the RAM drive but it bombed out at 240 of 262 and it is strangely stuck at 262 of 262. I also just got a low warning on C drive and maybe that is what
the problem is all along. Do a load of temp files end up going in the user app data > local > temp folder? on C:?

This caused the xxx.msu may have failed due to pending updates etc error I had before. However that didnt happen the first couple of times....

Well at least we know the issue :D

Its always the user hahaha.

Problem is I only have a 64GB SSD, I wonder if I can redirect the temp folder in environmental variables. It may even speed it up quite a bit.

I have found that updating it on a RAM Drive needs a 22GB RAM Drive and 15GB of Space on your C drive

Got to ask is the full x86 image supposed to be only 2.6GB, the x64 image after patching all versions was over 5GB

32bit version is much smaller, but I don't have the sizes to hand (at work)

Full 32bit image for me was 3245mb or so. By the way is there any legality issue with hosting these pre-patched versions?

If so I might put them up so people dont have to spend ages creating their own.

So i need to recheck the x86 images when i get back home because it doesn't seem right. I will mention that a lot of the packages looked to be the x64 and not x86 even though it was the x86 image i was patching, again something i need to check again.

Code:

---

OSCDIMG 2.56 CD-ROM and DVD-ROM Premastering Utility
Copyright (C) Microsoft, 1993-2012. All rights reserved.
Licensed only for producing Microsoft authorized content.


Scanning source tree (500 files in 52 directories)
Scanning source tree complete (877 files in 205 directories)

Computing directory information complete

Image file is 2795634688 bytes

Writing 877 files in 205 directories to .\User\FinalISO\W7x32_SP1.iso

100% complete

Final image file is 2797824000 bytes

Done.
Done!
Press any key to continue . . .

C:\win7_build\x86>

---

Code:

---

./Program/helpers/data/url_windows7_x32.txt: Invalid URL ::Windows 7 ISO Windows 7 Professional x64 English: Unsupported
 scheme
--2014-09-12 20:38:33--  http://msft.digitalrivercontent.net/win/X17-59183.iso
Resolving msft.digitalrivercontent.net... 62.252.168.193, 62.252.168.192
Connecting to msft.digitalrivercontent.net|62.252.168.193|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 2564476928 (2.4G) [application/octet-stream]

---

Seems like the right iso file....

So am running it again with a fresh iso and this time doing one image at a time and now it is downloading the correct x86 patches rather then the x64 ones it was before, odd

Code:

---

Processing 90 of 460 - Adding package C:\win7_build\x86\User\updates\msu\Windows6.1-KB2570947-x86.msu
[==========================100.0%==========================]
Processing 91 of 460 - Adding package C:\win7_build\x86\User\updates\msu\windows6.1-kb2572077-x64_9df2413f5e40c47854d21dd5becd03d07498650d.msu

Processing 92 of 460 - Adding package C:\win7_build\x86\User\updates\msu\windows6.1-kb2574819-v2-x86_219ef0b5d7e89489e3f0f01e264ec576cc3d66ad.msu
[==========================100.0%==========================]
Processing 93 of 460 - Adding package C:\win7_build\x86\User\updates\msu\windows6.1-kb2574819-x64_35c66ec3617b7b0852549fc52dce8ba9793b770d.msu

Processing 94 of 460 - Adding package C:\win7_build\x86\User\updates\msu\windows6.1-kb2579686-x64_8aafda82929dade948fa4f336325dc2ee2dcdc02.msu

---

hmmm that doesn't seem right; why would a x86 image have the x64 patches in it or does it skipp the x64's and only installs the x86 ones ?