[alvinkhorfire]

There are 2 ways to incorporate Windows updates (msu files) and drivers to a Windows 7 image:
1. Integration via RT 7 Lite or vLite (some modification is required.)
2. Audit mode

The scope of my question is just limited to just Windows updates and drivers. It is because to integrate software via RT 7 Lite, I believe that silent installers are required. On the other hands, any installer can be used in Audit Mode, which should be a much better method to incorporate other software, like Microsoft Office.

My question is: Which of the two methods produces the more optimal, cleaner and efficient Windows 7 image? In other words, the install.wim should be smaller. My guess is the integration via RT 7 Lite, but I could be wrong and that is why I require some advice here.

In audit mode, the Windows installation files have been fully expanded. Then, I have to restart the computer and boot the system into a WinPE disk, in order to compress all Windows files back into install.wim. I guess that the install.wim created in such way will be slightly bigger and will not be optimal.

Thank you for the information given.

This post has been edited by alvinkhorfire: 20 March 2011 - 11:55 PM

[nice_guy75]

Yeah you are right the install.wim would be bigger in capturing install.wim method but you can use "maximum compress" option while capturing the install.wim this will slowdown the process but reduces the size of install.wim. Even if you have not opted for this option you can reduce the size afterwards as well using export command with "maximum compression" in imagex and export option and selecting Maximum compression in gimagex.

I personally like the second option i.e. capturing install.wim.

This post has been edited by nice_guy75: 21 March 2011 - 03:55 AM

[maxXPsoft]

or you could use my http://www.msfn.org/...-wim-windows-7/ to inject drivers and updates
then use the IMAGEX compress export

[alvinkhorfire]

Thanks, guys for your replies.

In other words, if I use audit mode with maximum compression of the install.wim, is there any difference in the install.wim created by the aforementioned methods? I mean, which method is better?

[myselfidem]

The compression does not alter (break) the install.wim file!

[Tripredacus]

Correct. Compression only effects the WIM file size. I have not seen any noticable difference in deployment speeds of compressed vs non-compressed WIMs.

Also, if you ever want to do any WIM inside WIM things, only compress the container WIM, not the one(s) inside.

[ricktendo]

Tripredacus, on 23 March 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:

I have not seen any noticable difference in deployment speeds of compressed vs non-compressed WIMs.

Thanks for this info, I always thought (wrongly I guess) that if you use no compression your install would be faster

[maxXPsoft]

when you /export you remove the [Files] folder

This post has been edited by maxXPsoft: 23 March 2011 - 11:28 AM

[Tripredacus]

ricktendo64, on 23 March 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

Tripredacus, on 23 March 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:

I have not seen any noticable difference in deployment speeds of compressed vs non-compressed WIMs.

Thanks for this info, I always thought (wrongly I guess) that if you use no compression your install would be faster

It probably is, and also might depend on how you are deploying images. I am always deploying on gigabit networks, from a high-end server with a RAID10 volume, multicasting, etc. So for me, perhaps an uncompressed image may deploy a second faster? No idea, whatever the speed difference is, in my environment at least, the difference is negligable.