bphlpt

Yes, .NET 4.5.1 completely replaces 4.5 and 4.0, so it would be the only one you need to install. Cheers and Regards

Much better than I was afraid of. I think even better would be "C:\Zer0\", but that's just me. Cheers and Regards

If that is the file or folder name, I would hope you shorten it, eliminate any spaces in the name and path, and copy it as close to the root of the drive as possible before working with or on it, just to be on the safe side. Something like W7SP1U64-140118 is still long-ish, but gets all of the information across in a readable format. MOST tools these days can handle spaces correctly, but you can still occasionally run into path-length limitations, so why risk possible problems when they are easy to avoid? Cheers and Regards

Yes. Links that allow the user to download directly from Digital River are allowed because they are an authorized distributor for MS. So if Lego wants to include them to allow downloading anything from Digital River, then there should be no problem with that. EDIT: Sorry Kel, we cross-posted. Cheers and Regards

How about if Win Toolkit's AIO and Driver Installer Tool instead of listing things as simply as 350 drivers, but instead listed it as 350 drivers - 225 folders, or whatever the correct terminology is, and then if the RunOnce Driver installer then said something like "225 folders processed". Would that help? I don't know if that is possible, but it's an idea. Cheers and Regards

Assuming you are talking about installing DirectX by means of an installer you made using DXCB - DirectX file Collector and addon Builder, could you please clarify the situation? The silent installer made using DXCB will have nothing at all to do with NSIS in any way. As to RunOnce vs the "setup complete cmd phase", to show my ignorance about OS install details, aren't those essentially the same thing, just two different ways to initiate it? Sorry to ask such a noob question. Cheers and Regards

@RN, I would think it is just a case of timing and interaction between some of the runtimes, which includes .NET, and some of the other RunOnce items which depend on them being in place. It is sometimes the installer of the app which utilizes the runtime, and sometimes it is the app itself. Some of the repacked or slimmed apps, such as some of Rick's, strip out runtimes which the full installers include, which is why runtimes should always be the first RunOnce items installed. I would also think that this situation can vary based on architecture. While I suppose that it is possible that there is something in Win Toolkit's RunOnce code that has an architecture related glitch, I would think it is more likely that it is something in MS's installer code or that of the individual apps themselves. Just my opinion. Cheers and Regards

Where is your DISM located? What is it's path? Cheers and Regards

Just curious. Is the reason you "split" your install over two ISOs so that you can fit things on DVDs, or is it so that you can more easily customize your install since it doesn't require a rebuild to update the second ISO with updated silent installers? If it's the second, wouldn't be even easier to just use a USB for install since not only is it faster, but you could fit everything on one medium and still be able to update it without a rebuild? Cheers and Regards

Just being Devil's advocate ... It seems to me that if integrating certain updates cause some users problems, but other user's are able to integrate them with no problems at all, such as Thiersee, wela, and mooms - all users with experience so I completely believe their results, then, no disrespect intended at all RicaNeaga, I have to agree that the problems with those updates are related to other integrated KBs, or at least an interaction between them. While I understand your logic that if they are causing anyone any problems that we can just move them to runonce where they won't cause anyone any difficulties, and it does seem a more fail safe solution, it would be ideal if that move only occurred if whatever causes the interactions was also included, if we can figure out what that is. Cheers and Regards

GetWAIKTools seems like a very nice tool to use for this kind of situation, and I believe it is the exact reason it was created. @Lego, I would think that if you contacted JFX that he might be amenable to you possibly including it as a tool in Win Toolkit, or including the logic used so that Win Toolkit could download DISM itself, or at the very least including a link to GetWAIKTools. Just an idea. Cheers and Regards

I think that the purpose of this was to be able to use, for example, the DISM version from Win8 or Win8.1, most useful in removals, when doing a build for one of those OS, even though your installed OS might be Win7. But, as always, I could be wrong. Cheers and Regards

I can't really disagree with that logic, even if most users probably use it for Win7. Cheers and Regards

There is absolutely no reason for this since there are legal Digital River locations where you can download Win7 ISO's which already include SP1. AFAIK, ways that exist to slipstream SP1 in Win7 offline are mostly hacks. Why would you want that? Cheers and Regards

@RN, I know MS has given up on gadgets, they want to push folks to Win8 "Metro" apps that they have to buy through the Store after all, But I thought some folks like to use them. And aren't they still unofficially offered for free? (I don't use them so I'm just talking out of my ear.) If so, then I think the gadgets links should remain. But if I understand you right that KB2719662 disables gadgets from working, then I agree with you that there should be a link in the gadgets section warning folks that they shouldn't use that update if they want to use gadgets. Unless I'm totally confused, of course. Cheers and Regards

Or he's using a inferior antivirus. Mine (COMODO Internet Security) doesn't think this file is bad. He should report the file to the antivirus company as a false positive. Cheers and Regards

Now the image shows up in you first post just fine. It must have been the Facebook server, because I tried the link as both http and https, (they both work), and it didn't make any difference. I even logged into Facebook to see if that would help and still no. That's funny since I can't and it's my post. I just have the link. Oh well. Problem solved gotten around anyway. Cheers and Regards

The link works for me. Cheers and Regards

LOL I fixed it for him. (Edited title from 2013 -> 2014) Cheers and Regards

Thanks Rick! Cheers and Regards

Sorry. I had to switch browsers to see it. One of my Chrome extensions must be blocking it. In my usual browser, COMODO Dragon, your post is totally blank, it still is, hence my confusion, Let me test if I can display it here: Hmmm, Nope. It won't even let me add the image manually to my post. Nothing happens. Pausing AdBlock didn't change anything. Adding WinCert to the Exceptions of PrivDog didn't do anything either. This is the first time I've seen anything quite like this. Very strange. I can add the link, and when clicked on it displays correctly, but I can't add the image and your post is still blank. Weird. https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/q71/s720x720/1525549_642230765812594_1066267061_n.jpg Cheers and Regards

Personally, I like the 2005 or the 2009 FF logo better than the 2013 one, just like you like the Win7 IE logo better. (I do too.) Cheers and Regards

If I remember right, I think you said some of the updates show up as blue but they still integrate correctly? Are you sure? I thought Win Toolkit considers stuff in blue as duplicates so it ignores them, or am I confused? By the way, I can't imagine that the McRip update list you added has any valid, non-superseded updates that none of the other packs have, since it is months old. Also, you say that if you found any updates with the same name but were not "twins", that you kept them both. That makes no sense. Surely one of them is "right" and the other is "wrong". Bottom line, while many do not agree with your approach, I understand your desire to "have them all" to be prepared. Once you come up with your list, I would suggest sharing it, not only here but with the other list's sites as well for feedback. They might be able to shed some light on why they have omitted some you added. Wanting them all is one thing, but needlessly taking up space and time for updates that have been superseded or are totally not necessary, is just wasting your time and disk space and asking for future potential problems. mooms and many others prefer to go for a minimalist, efficient, just enough to satisfy MU/WU approach and that is perfectly fine, and is better in some cases. But you are not the only one who prefers to have them all. KUC took that approach as well, as far as I know. Cheers and Regards

Since I have noticed this confusion now several times, maybe, if it can't put it in the "right/final" order to begin with, if there was some way, through some "Check Order" button or something, (That's a lousy name so don't use it. ), to see what the final order will be before you press "Start" that might alleviate folk's concerns and prevent some of the "false" posts here saying it's messing up. Just a thought. Cheers and Regards

???