brunetu

Thank you for this amazing tool. I haven't tried using it yet (I'm now working on something else) but RT 7 Lite looks like history now. I had to understand some innerworkings of the setup stages to be able to generate an unattended configuration file correctly using that program and it wasn't that obvious adding my own executables and commands. However I absolutely never had any stability or robustness issues with it, unlike a user commenting above. I so far only fantasized about creating a dual-architecture setup, now it's at a click of a button... Incredible. I hope making adjustments to the 32-bit and the 64-bit images separately, then combining them, then generating an unattended config file is the right order and having two modified WIMs (one for each architecture) won't interfere with compatibility (and the unattended XML will apply to both successfully). Of course, I will return with my conclusions when I get to it.

Thank you for your amazing work updating this thing! Will be testing the current version soon. Oh one thing that can be confusing to readers (I know your English isn't perfect, I'm just trying to help): The first paragraph of the post says "This XP post-SP3 All-in-One Update Pack differs from Ryan's One, which is more customizable to your needs" - from that phrasing, it seems you are trying to say that Ryan's update pack is more customizable, and not the other way around. New comers might be turned off by that. Instead, you could use "This pack differs from Ryan's one, which is less customizable" or "This pack, unlike Ryan's one, is more customizable".

Thank you for the update! People be aware, the post wrongfully mentions the date of the package as January 8 2012 instead of 2013, but the pack is surely up-to-date.

Years pass, you keep working on these and I keep coming back... I started programming as a hobby in .NET even as it came out ten years ago and I indeed stumbled upon a J# redist once. I had thought J# only depended on the .NET framework until then. Now again I'm surprised to see F# in the same situation. However, I've used hundreds and tested thousands of software and I've never encountered one depending on any of these. I can appreciate they're included for the sake of completeness, but people should know they will most like never need J# for example. I on the other hand prefer completeness when integrating/remastering. Too bad about the errors when other software is trying to install VC++ runtimes. I hope they don't get in the way of successfully finishing installation. I've never had problems although the original redistributables do leave behind files in the root and I delete them manually when I finally notice (although that may not have anything to do with your addon). Thank you for keeping this up to date all the time. Also, maybe you should mention in the post that these sharp runtimes depend on .NET 2/3 or installation will result in an error.

Hi. Again, firstly, thanks for the great work. I have a few questions regarding the removal/omitting of three pieces of software: I wish it would be possible to leave out the Malicious Software Removal Tool as it is about 50 MiB in size. Would repackaging the archive without that executable break integration or interrupt installation ? I would also like to know whether version 2 of the .NET Framework can be removed and how, or why if not (is it part of the netfx3/3.5 and gets automatically removed along with it?). Finally, how much overhead do you estimate Silverlight 4 adds to the windows setup source ? I mean how much less will the size of the windows installation source be after removal of Silverlight ? Your stand-alone Silverlight 4 add-on cab is only 7 MiB. Don't spend too much time if it's too much trouble, it's nothing pressing. Thanks

OK then, the size is just fine. No tweaking needed. Thanks a lot for everything.

Hi Kel, It was you the one who said that more recent visual basic runtimes were already included in XP, right ?

I was refering to removing dlls that are already included in XP SP3 Pro which I don't need because the pack has gotten quite large already, so I guess one can say slimmed down Thanks for directions, I'll check them out, but I think I'm going to stick with Kel's pack, I trust his work. Thing is, I haven't done inf installers and it would be hard for me to tell which lines I have to remove.

I don't mind that, I'd just want to be able to remove some of the dlls, the pack has gotten quite big . Anyway, my XP USB install is almost exactly 1GB but smaller so it still fits. I was just asking because I saw that Kel answered to someone that he would make a smaller pack available for XP, maybe not public or not here. I don't think a separate pack for XP would bother anyone.

Hi again Kel I don't know about these VC++ Runtime issues... I installed AutoItRecorder after installing AutoIt (I forgot the standalone SciTe had the better recorder separately and it seems AutoItRecorder placed an exe in the start menu instead of a shortcut. Until I realised it, I kept getting errors when starting it "msvcp71d.dll" (or something like that) is missing. Of course, all 7.1d dlls are missing. It seems they are updates to the VC++ 2003 Runtime (newer dlls). I started the program from where it installed and it worked because the dlls were there with the executable. Problem is, maybe I just figured out why the two who posted here have had problems with software needing "VC++ 2005 SP1 runtimes" even though your pack was installed. Maybe they are wrong and it was 2003 version of the runtime. I checked out MS website and there's no pack for those runtimes, each application has to take care of copying them to a handy location. Now, would you be nice and add those if they are newer ? Maybe that will solve people's issues. I've only found the files on dll download websites. Now the more important reason I'm posting: could you tell me how to slim down the pack to be suitable for installing on Windows XP Service Pack 3 Professional ? As you said, many runtimes are already included with the OS. Thank you

It's OK I'll just UniExtract the installer files and replace the runtime installers inside with dummy/fake ones. I apologize for being too talkative.

Hi Kel, I used your CPL, RunTimes and the Lite Pack for a custom XP Pro SP3. Version 5.6 of your AddOn. Meantime, I'm capturing installations and that's hard work on my old PC in a VMWare. During installation of Ulead VideoStudio 11.5 Plus, Visual C++ 2005 SP1 Runtimes get installed (it's installer isn't just started and skipped, they really get installed, I can watch the progress bar). Problem is, I am using WPI (mritter is working on it apparently at this time) to be able to choose apps during installations, and they will be all captured installations. So, when installing in real life, it has to be exactly as it was in the Virtual Machine (I mean dependencies like VC++ runtimes have to have the same IDs in the registry etc) for every application. I'm capturing installations always in an installed environment with the custom windows, and your pack. Question is, if I rebuild using your new Runtimes addon version 5.8 (which is tedious on this machine), do I have good chances of not having this happening ? You said earlier that some installers do things like that, automatically, install something when it's already installed and I agree. But maybe it's not the installers, someone else had the same problem installing Nero it seems. I know, nero works, and VC++ SP1 is installed but I'm not doing anything to the VideoStudio installer, it's the original.. After some thought.. I'm anyway going to include the new addon pack and I have to capture installations on an identical environment so I anyway have to rebuild the OS setup and I'll see if it makes any difference. But, any idea how to bypass VC getting installed anyway ? Thank you for all your hard work I'll be back

thank you

Hi ricktendo64, Please update the link to the 7-zip file. I'm watching this post. I'll try to do the addon myself meanwhile. Thank you.