[allanf]

jaclaz, on 09 September 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

allanf, on 09 September 2011 - 11:23 AM, said:

Some ideas... The proposed program has a set of directories and a prescribed format for the plugin files. The files are placed in the directories. When the program starts, it enumerates all the valid plugins in the directories and presents the user with a checklist. When an item is checked, its dependencies are automatically checked also.

Don't want to seem too "captain obvious", but till now you have described the interface of *any* installer, including that of .msi files or common NSIS ones.
In this respect NSIS could be a very good "scripting engine".

Do try to keep up with the progress of the thread, jaclaz. I specifically sought clarification of the term "scripting". Subsequently, the notion of a "scripting engine" was removed from the agenda (for the time being). We're now talking about "plugins" which is a very familiar theme.

winbuilder runs each of it's scripts as individual processes - like a bunch of little wheels rolling one-by-one. I don't know about PEBuilder. My idea is for the program to assemble all the spokes into one giant wheel THEN start rolling.

[Kullenen_Ask]

Quote

winbuilder runs each of it's scripts as individual processes - like a bunch of little wheels rolling one-by-one. I don't know about PEBuilder. My idea is for the program to assemble all the spokes into one giant wheel THEN start rolling.

My idea also little wheels preferably. One big giant wheel will make fault locating very difficult. Will make it dependent for the inventor. On person should do all. But little wheels more customizable and easy for different people to make small plugins.

I do not want anypart of it to be dependent to anybody for it to live long life. Thats why i always say "open source"

This post has been edited by Kullenen_Ask: 10 September 2011 - 02:07 AM

[allanf]

Kullenen_Ask, on 10 September 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

Quote

winbuilder runs each of it's scripts as individual processes - like a bunch of little wheels rolling one-by-one. I don't know about PEBuilder. My idea is for the program to assemble all the spokes into one giant wheel THEN start rolling.

My idea also little wheels preferably. One big giant wheel will make fault locating very difficult. Will make it dependent for the inventor. On person should do all. But little wheels more customizable and easy for different people to make small plugins.

Each plugin is one handcrafted spoke in the wheel. The program assembles the spokes. More than that, the big wheel could optimize the build process.

Say plugin1 wants x.dll, and plugin2 wants the same. Why run each little wheel, duplicating file-copying.

Same with registry settings. You can easily identify conflicts if everything is compiled, and why repeatedly load and inload hives?

[jaclaz]

allanf, on 09 September 2011 - 10:45 PM, said:

Do try to keep up with the progress of the thread, jaclaz. I specifically sought clarification of the term "scripting". Subsequently, the notion of a "scripting engine" was removed from the agenda (for the time being). We're now talking about "plugins" which is a very familiar theme.

winbuilder runs each of it's scripts as individual processes - like a bunch of little wheels rolling one-by-one. I don't know about PEBuilder. My idea is for the program to assemble all the spokes into one giant wheel THEN start rolling.

Well, you could also actually READ what I wrote.
I was talking of the interface or if you prefer of the way the whatever (as an example a scripting engine) would interact with the user.
You can call it any name you want, but still it will be a scripting engine of some kind, as long as you give to it some "fixed" instructions (contents of the plugin), a number of "varaible" instructions" (the settings) and after you press a button to "build".
The plug-ins (actually the instructions i them), in PEbuilder as well as in winbuilder, are processed sequentially.

If I get it right, you have not such a different idea from mine, combine all the separate plugins in a whole "fat" plugin, to be later run "monolitically".

Whether this is called a scripting engine or "mickey mouse" is not at all relevant IMHO.

So, the idea (mine at least) is to run a pre-processor of some kind capable to resolve dependencies and duplicates BEFORE actually starting DISM or movingextracting/copying files and to assemble a monolithic "set of instructions" for the build.

@Kullenen Ask
May I ask what is "Embedded SIM manager"?
Does it have another name? The one I found some reference about is part of 7 Compact to manage SIM's (cellular phone thingies).


jaclaz

[Kullenen_Ask]

http://technet.micro...347(WS.10).aspx

http://www.windowsfo...-blog-postings/

[jaclaz]

I see , thank you.
Windows SIM or Windows System Image Manager, not SIM manager, which is this one: http://msdn.microsof...y/ee498248.aspx
The good MS guys have a quirk to give confusing names.

Judging from this:
http://www.windows-n...w-can-i-use-it/

It is not entirely unlike the old XP embedded thingy.

jaclaz

[Nuno Brito]

Quote

The aim of the topic is to search and find such a programmer.

How can I help?

I've already started working on the 2.0 version of WinBuilder. The platform is based on Remedium that is both free and open source, you find the ground works at http://winbuilder.googlecode.com

If you look on the current winbuilder, most boot disk projects running with this builder are free and open for anyone to change but the biggest problem is keeping developers improving the existent projects instead of simply creating new ones as rabbits. I guess it is far more rewarding to have a feeling of authorship than joining something started by someone else, albeit I'd prefer to see people cooperating to create one or two strong projects.

My focus on this moment is to ensure the independence from Windows API to natively construct registry hives and WIM files without resort to MS code, in the process this allows removing the need for administrative permissions or installation of drivers to run the builder.

This is what we are doing. For the first time since 2006 we will also reintroduce the concept of a default boot disk project shipped with WinBuilder. As you might know, winbuilder.exe is a free engine and boot disk projects are developed/published by anyone interested. But I am not happy with the current results and will also provide a project for users to try out as default.

I am here to listen for suggestions or ideas you have to make things better. Better yet, if someone wants to join and help with coding/testing then I'd surely appreciate that.

[JFX]

Nuno Brito, on 14 September 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

... but the biggest problem is keeping developers improving the existent projects ...

hmm funny, the guy who kicked the best developers out of the boot-land forum, calls himself also Nuno Brito.

Nuno Brito, on 14 September 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

My focus on this moment is to ensure the independence from Windows API to natively construct registry hives and WIM files without resort to MS code, in the process this allows removing the need for administrative permissions or installation of drivers to run the builder.

Your focus is not what any script developer cares about. I would highly recommend to focus on reliability, speed, simplicity AND a clear script syntax.

[Kullenen_Ask]

Nuno Brito, on 14 September 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

I am here to listen for suggestions or ideas you have to make things better. Better yet, if someone wants to join and help with coding/testing then I'd surely appreciate that.

Of course all of us here for suggestions and ideas. But i am a little confused about all of this stuff. When i look all people says their solutions is different and a new builder, but when a look as a normal user, all uses same gui and same scripts. Somebody should try to explain me what is the difference between Gena, Nuno's http://winbuilder.googlecode.com and Psc nativeEx or others like that. In my side all are same. Only we can say "rabbit" word for theese winbuilder variants and get rid of them. Projects as MakePE3 can not be a rabbit in here.

I said a few times that i want to get rid of the API's (i think you call the script systax like that) I do not have problem with the winbuilder GUI. If you can take the project that you gave the link and get it work with scripts as for example this

[TargetDirectories]
a="Windows\System32"
a1="Windows\System32\en-US"
b="Windows"
b1="Windows\en-US"

[CopyFiles]
zipfldr.dll=a
zipfldr.dll.mui=a1
explorer.exe=b
explorer.exe.mui=b1

[CopyWinSXSFolder]
x86_microsoft.vc80.crt*.*

[CopyWinSXSManifests]
x86_microsoft.vc80*.manifest

[CopyWinSXSFileMaps]
$$_system32_21f9a9c4a2f8b514.cdf-ms

[RegAdd]
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE_00\Microsoft\DirectPlay]
"Compat1"=dword:00000001

i will not be against to use winbuilder or any of the variants. Just i want is the builder to copy the files under [CopyFiles] to the folders [TargetDirectories] and merge the registry stuff under [RegAdd] to a mounted software.hiv. It should be very easy to code a such program when compared with complex syntax and API's of winbuilder. Everbody easly edit and create scripts.

This post has been edited by Kullenen_Ask: 14 September 2011 - 02:19 PM

[Nuno Brito]

Quote

hmm funny, the guy who kicked the best developers out of the boot-land forum, calls himself also Nuno Brito.

I was the guy called upon to stop a silly fight between senior developers, some of them my close friends for several years. I suspended two members temporarily until the rage settled down after repeated complaints from community members. I indeed am the "guy who kicked the best developers out of the boot-land forum" because they often treat other developers like this: http://goo.gl/8Zimw

Quote

Your focus is not what any script developer cares about. I would highly recommend to focus on reliability, speed, simplicity AND a clear script syntax.

You are welcome to step inside the development group and help with what you think it is necessary to improve.

Quote

Somebody should try to explain me what is the difference between Gena, Nuno's http://winbuilder.googlecode.com and Psc nativeEx or others like that. In my side all are same.

It is like this:
WinBuilder is an engine. It is composed of a single file that is "WinBuilder.exe". You can imagine (to some extent) that it is like AutoIt for building Windows since the only thing that winbuilder does is following the instructions of whatever is written on the scripts. Per se, WinBuilder does not produce boot disks, it is simply an engine or script interpreter if you wish to be more accurate.

Gena and NativeEx are Windows PE projects. They build a boot disk and the scripts on both projects that create these boot disks use WinBuilder (as well as many other Windows PE projects over the years did).

I hope this helps to understand things a little bit better.

[jaclaz]

HEy, peeps, comeon...

Was it not enough having (thanks heaven only briefly) exported the boot-land flamewar to 911CD?

Do we really need to have here a justificatiion for it coming from another at Gena ?

Will this nonsense ever end?

jaclaz

[Lancelot_Real]

Hi Kullenen_Ask,

you mix "projects" with "builders"


The topic, clearly shows you are looking for a hybrid-builder (what I call),
Some examples:
pebuilder
kape1-2
Makepe3
a set of batch builders available internet (for pe2/3)
etc.

These "hybrid-builders" can not be expand widely for other stuff, not "a lot" flexible,
(you can not fix pebuilder or kape core failures your own)
besides do their tasks what they designed for.
Since they contain their core inside, you can not touch them.

ps: MakePE3 is special, It is full opensource mainly batch and IF you study it would be easy to make your plugins, instead of .inf, with batches and reg.....

Also I know you are looking for "pebuilder" kind of plugin structure with a new builder since some later posts of this topic,
above example also reproves....
You miss a big point:
pebuilder plugins (.inf) is using pebuilder's "inf to reg converter core" (following MS documentations etc.), which is a must for any PE1 build (nt5), Bart was smart to use same core with some minor additions as plugins.

Tip: If you want to write your own pe1 builder, you must be following nt5 install path rules, where setup using .inf files to create registry and copy files (from where to where etc...)......

But since pe2 , billy make things simpler, no need to read inf to write reg, setup hives are already there also no need to use inf to find which files to copy, path structure already there and .wim having different indexes for different sets, and for features I guess now using xml.....,
shortly I advice you not to wait a pe2/3 hybrid-builder, plugin using old pe1 inf structure soon, I hope you understand.....

Besides you are right at one point (do not exagarate, only one point ), all i can say when (if) I start writing a builder (not soon, some year, but other candidates can be earlier) I know what to do to fit such desire............


*

Kullenen_Ask, on 14 September 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

to explain me what is the difference between Gena

you mix "projects" with "builders",

the link you give is about a script engine winbuilder, syntax,
here is link for Auto-IT syntax http://www.autoitscr...m/autoit3/docs/
here is link for cmd syntax http://www.robvander.../batchfiles.php
here is link for wsh syntax http://www.robvanderwoude.com/wsh.php
......
neither AutoIT represents a specific program written with AutoIT,
I do not think all batches are doing same,
and etc......
but we know all batches with cmd console screen do not do same thing........


If we use a batch (.cmd) to build Gena, Gena will be still Gena. Besides using batch, yes possible, but would not be nice for end user, and etc....
At the time we start Gena, there was only winbuilder there to be used, unlike today



More About Gena,
to make a pe1 build, you would either use ready regs (brrrr, bad for multilanguage support), or use pebuilder as core (check Alberich, BartPE-Core, Reatogo, Sherpya, Teuton...)
or make your builder as core .
ps: Alberich and BartPE-Core also using winbuilder for end user easiness, besides both using pebuilder for core build.



Gena using Saydin77 core (written by Saydin77). Saydin already bored & tired from winbuilder verrrry much before all of us (JFX, Galapo, Lancelot, ....) and decide to write his pe1 builder, his pe1 core part ended with some batches and au3 (opensource) codes. Core part, was a package, autoit.exe and plugins triggered by batches........ (au3 and cmd syntaxes...)

ps: Saydin77 core naturally have no troubles with hostx64 or different win versions .

Than he started to make a plugin organiser (what we call builder) to fit other requirements, but could not end.... (time troubles)



It would be hard for end user if we had decide to continue with batches when we first start with Gena, hence we decide to continue distributing Gena via winbuilder for a while (like BartPE-Core, Alberich) since easier for end user (cmd or wb....), besides designed Gena in such a way (code level), when there is a better alternative we will easly convert Gena to new builder(s).
Design part is simple: do not use winbuilder for critical registry and file operations (reasons written by JFX).
With this design development, current Gena get VERY stable today after a full 1 year work.

ps: This Design princaple previously used by JFX with old Multi7PE_SE before he become one of the member of "kicked the best developers out of the boot-land forum" fun club. Later as you know ChrisR continued with Multi7PE_SE having new name Win7PE_SE, simple proof of the success of this princaple and proof of... (guess)....

ps2: a related topic here
http://theoven.org/index.php?topic=160

Another diffirence among other PE1 projects: Gena is a full team project, it started with 2 admins (Galapo and Lancelot) fully supported by Saydin77 for core and core related stuff, BlueLife au3 tools you will notice all around (both following design princaple), and when you notice a patch, dependency or a rare feature inside Gena you will mostly notice it was done by JFX , and Olegpov's expertise with driverpacks and bootlogo, Nikzzzz expertise on bootmedia (+patch) stuff, and all supports so far on topics

The idea of being a team comes from nobody is (can be) "owner" of Gena, which requires a "true team" and "true hoby" spirit.

So far I know Gena is unique with having many developers active, using this development model among other projects.

For more Gena related questions, better as at
Gena home forum: http://theoven.org/


Well your topic already manupulated, and manupulation continues with similar routines I am quite familiar with, since you seem all fine with such off-topics here and asked the question, I hope above helps.



Back to subject:
As I wrote initially at current topic, I am also looking for a "real good" builder,
written by a real good programmer, following princaples JFX already wrote

JFX, on 14 September 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

reliability, speed, simplicity AND a clear script syntax.

Which I know same princaples valid for all softwares I had found all around, most home made, hoby natured, freeware productions follow same princaple.
Again mostly commercial products cause headaches.


Till this happen, Search will continue, we already have a new one, and better ones requires a long work with anyone having available "hoby" time,
Or I will start to write, after my job-time available.
(Galapo and Saydin77 also candidates I know, having same time trouble for today)

[Lancelot_Real]

JFX, on 14 September 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

Nuno Brito, on 14 September 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

... but the biggest problem is keeping developers improving the existent projects ...

hmm funny, the guy who kicked the best developers out of the boot-land forum, calls himself also Nuno Brito.

JFX, on 14 September 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

Nuno Brito, on 14 September 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

My focus on this moment is to ensure the independence from Windows API to natively construct registry hives and WIM files without resort to MS code, in the process this allows removing the need for administrative permissions or installation of drivers to run the builder.

Your focus is not what any script developer cares about. I would highly recommend to focus on reliability, speed, simplicity AND a clear script syntax.

With above replies. You give me today's big smile JFX, Thanks. See you

[Kullenen_Ask]

Lancelot_Real, on 14 September 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

Since they contain their core inside, you can not touch them.

I want a touchable preferably open source builder. But the reason i want that is not for myself. I do not want or care to change the core, Gui, syntax nor i do not know coding. It is just for if the the main programmer decide to retire, other people can continue or a more clever approach (another programmer) can make addons, improve stability, functionality and continue the support time. And do not understand if it is open source why untouchable.

Lancelot_Real, on 14 September 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:

pebuilder plugins (.inf) is using pebuilder's "inf to reg converter core" (following MS documentations etc.), which is a must for any PE1 build (nt5), Bart was smart to use same core with some minor additions as plugins.

Tip: If you want to write your own pe1 builder, you must be following nt5 install path rules, where setup using .inf files to create registry and copy files (from where to where etc...)......

There is also a missunderstanding. But not about the meaning of your words. If you compare the inf file of a driver and inf file of the BartPE you can see they are not same kind of stuff. Also what i mean will be a third kind of stuff. It is just Barts way to process its scripts and he gives his scripts the extension inf. We can give .inf or else anything also extention not important, just will be familiar and will be easy to open with notepad. There do not need a inf to reg converter stuff because we do not work with a xp setup routine. My example looks like same as BartPE but it is just an example. I put a complate reg file contents under [RegAdd]
There is no inf to reg convertion. Also i forgot to mention copfiles part can be different and should be compatiable with "Optimize_Profile.txt" files as microsoft way.

I know a lot of people advise me to use MakePE3. It is most close builder for my needs. Also i tried to support and could not be succed. I explained the reasons in my topic or MakePE3 topics. It is depended to wimb and he can change any/all structure anytime as his needs because he is owner, coder of his work. There is only two options that first to write add ons to MakePE3. If i write a batch it can be useless in one day with an update change of wimb. Other option is to take MakePE3 and call it another name and make it another builder that will result a "rabbit" that will work until "me" support. Will not be universal.

[Nuno Brito]

Hi,

WinBuilder is unique because it was created since the beginning with the purpose of creating custom Windows platforms, not just Windows PE. It provides a script syntax similar to batch and INI syntax along with a complete GUI support and a structure for running scripts in a given order/categories. It allows creating scripts that include files inside the code, in the same manner as people exchange email messages with attachments everyday.

Do you need to learn a new scripting language?

Yep. This is not difficult since most times you can use one line per command like:

RegImport,c:\myFile.reg

http://code.google.c.../wiki/regimport

It is not possible to please everyone as you might have noted. The core of each WinBuilder project can be changed by anyone and wb itself has been developed since years with the support and feedback from different people all around the world. This is what I do, I love creating boot disks and I am a programmer that works closely with those who share similar tastes.

In case anyone has requests for features not already provided by WinBuilder to create a WinPE Builder, I will be glad to work on them.

[Lancelot_Real]

Hi Nuno Brito,

This topic is NOT about why winbuilder is a disaster.
Although Major Points already underlined by JFX, you (as usual-expected) ignore, which is another major point of winbuilder failure...... (my smile JFX gave me)

ps: winbuilder is not unique anymore...........

Topic Starter Kullenen_Ask, as well as other contributers already knows winbuilder, and some already knows in detail why it is a big failure. (ex: knowing why one must NOT use RegImport,c:\myFile.reg , apperantly you do not, ask your test team.....)
If you want to do something about failures of your builder:
you may try to understand what Kullenen_Ask is after,
you may try to understand JFX comments,
you may try to read topics of bootland full of such annoyance by MANY users, (and you are still asking without fixing any !! )
you may even check relevant topic given above http://theoven.org/index.php?topic=160
---> work on them........
or
as expected, you can ignore all, and continue your self advertisements with posts like above, for
your msfn-vs-bootland click number race,
or manupulate what has already written for the audiance......
after years knowing you well, quite boring to watch indeed, only gives me smile to see rarely again.....


Here Kullenen_Ask open this topic, knowing available projects-builders :

Kullenen_Ask, on 07 September 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

Opened this topic just want ask for anybody interested and willing to code a program to build a winpe as a hobby or in his free times.

and further posts, he well describe what he is looking for anyone who is interested, Kullenen_Ask request is quite valuable information for the ones who have such goals...... I hope not to see winbuilder advertisements anymore on this topic which is not the subject, better you open another topic with a title "Why Winbuilder is a big failure" with initial answers of JFX, or not.....

Shortly: better not terrorize this topic like you and your friends always do around, reminding: this topic is NOT about winbuilder disasters, you are the one who jump in with "wrong" lines, caused JFX react and "fix" them......, Baby Step 1 of terrorize.... I hope you can stop.

[Lancelot_Real]

Kullenen_Ask, on 15 September 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

I want a touchable preferably open source builder. But the reason i want that is not for myself. I do not want or care to change the core, Gui, syntax nor i do not know coding. It is just for if the the main programmer decide to retire, other people can continue or a more clever approach (another programmer) can make addons, improve stability, functionality and continue the support time. And do not understand if it is open source why untouchable.

Sharing same feelings , that is the reason behind opensource: Gena, MakePE3, Win7PE SE , Multi7PE SE.....

*
Driver infs looks like hives infs, but different, I will not go in more detail about infs since your main focus is PE3 and a Real Good new builder, where infs not desired.

All I want to explain why a new builder author would not jump on such organisation following history.....

Besides, as I mention before, I fully understand your idea, with having experiences with pebuilder, and as I wrote before I can only do something like that when I start writing........



*
I also advice you MakePE3, looong time ago.....

*
Focus on making batch plugins, ex:
mediaplayer.cmd
mediaplayer.reg
blablaservice.cmd
blablaservice.reg

===> This will be "universal"

regs would be easy, preparing a cmd to be used generally (ex: call batch with some parameters for source-target .. and other stuff...)
would take time, but in the end you get things organise, it will be easy to prepare new batches-plugins and as a result
you would be providing plugins to be used by EVERYONE.

To follow ""Optimize_Profile.txt" ms way", I advice you better make your own pluginer.exe, preferably using Auto-IT....... (and creating own pluginer.exe opens other gates ....)

For both paths, I am pretty sure you can get support for batches (.cmd) or/and Auto-IT about things when you stuck in design.....

*
Do not stuck in "universal"
Think SherpyaXPE, where Sherpye decide to create a PE1 that is closer to real windows, created his tools (all opensource) and followed pebuilder plugins and etc. etc.....

With above batch-au3 idea, you can do same,
and in time if you made a good work, shared tidly and nicely, (ex: Sherpya -> homepage infos + distribution) someone will follow you one day since batches and regs are universal.

*
Or you can simply make plugins with a file list and reg
ex:
blablaservice.reg
blablaservice.txt

leaving how they will be used to end user.

**
Or you can ask wimb if he it is ok for him to use make_pe3 to makepe3KA (reminding BartPE->SherpyaXPE)
Like SherpyaXPE, if you do things right, than you will hit your "universal" goal.....



****
Long story to short, you can do something yourself that fit your desires, and easly sharable by all,
or you can wait someone do it for you, with an excuse "I do not know programming", and spend time on other stuff....
Above are ideas that come to my mind, all requires some sort of work, maybe useful for you maybe not, up to you......
Choice is yours, blue pill or red pill, but in the end I advice you to keep fun.


Overall, I like you working on PE3 (4) stuff, even without above, besides sharing with everybody on forums, even not being a pe3-4 fan at all, Thanks.

[Tripredacus]

JFYI, a lot of members on MSFN (myself included) has no idea what may or may not happen on the other forums. So if there is some sort of problem between members, it cannot be public on MSFN. This isn't a place for that sort of thing.

Also, there isn't a need to take sides about whose Win PE maker is better. Its not a competition. The fact that someone may want to make a new one, and not work with existing projects, does not automatically mean there is something wrong with those projects. Of course, comparisons to other projects can be done! I can see that maybe there is something that Make_PE3 does good that Winbuilder doesn't and vice versa. Who knows about all the other Win PE makers out there. There will always be gap-bridging projects and attempts and that is just fine.

Besides, its not like anyone is charging for their PE maker.

Basically what I see for this thread is that a basic plan must be made. Its the same as any other real programming (or even a database project). Plan out everything first then figure out how to tackle it. If that means you want to compare and contrast other Win PE makers, that's fine. Just make sure to keep things on topic.

[Nuno Brito]

Quote

This isn't a place for that sort of thing.

Thank you. It is not nice to see attempts of turning this conversation into a troll party.

@Kullenen_Ask
I am available to talk about my personal experience in regards to the challenges and difficulties that appear when creating a good builder. I am also available to showcase the current features of what has been done over the years to help developers create Windows PE projects. Last but not least, I am also here as a programmer to work with a team to implement new features if they are not available already.

Take care!

[nishants52]

Kullenen_Ask, on 07 September 2011 - 01:12 PM, said:

Opened this topic just want ask for anybody interested and willing to code a program to build a winpe as a hobby or in his free times. With support of scripts to add programs in it. Custumization support. Different shells support. Preferably open source (Can help other programmers to add their skills). Just as BartPE, Winbuilder, MakePE3 ... I think there is enough people in this forum capable of coding but just less people to open topics about WinPE

Sorry I am working on other project which is an better option for me right now ! Ask other forum members or nuhi (geek in windows)