• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vicvan

CDIMAGE.EXE 2.27 needed

27 posts in this topic

I'm looking for CDIMAGE.EXE 2.27  to make Windows 2000 (SP0 / SP1), WIndows NT ISO.

I have CDIMAGE 2.39 2.46 2.47 only.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure you're not chasing a wild goose?

Win 95 SR2.5 CD was created with v. 2.38 (from 1997); Win 98SE and Win ME CDs, with v. 2.39 (from 1997) and Win XP SP3 CDs, with v. 2.52 (from 2004)... are you sure you need v. 2.27 ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure you're not chasing a wild goose?

Win 95 SR2.5 CD was created with v. 2.38 (from 1997); Win 98SE and Win ME CDs, with v. 2.39 (from 1997) and Win XP SP3 CDs, with v. 2.52 (from 2004)... are you sure you need v. 2.27 ?

Because it is impossible to restore Windows 2000 (SP0 / SP1) without CDIMAGE 2.27.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is impossible to restore Windows 2000 (SP0 / SP1) without CDIMAGE 2.27.

 

Ah, well, if you say so. :yes:

 

I guess that the several thousands (or more likely tens or hundreds of thousand) people that *somehow* managed to make in the 15 years since Windows 2000 release working install CD's using mkisofs or *any* version of CDimage or OSCDimg must have all been tricked into believing they installed Windows 2000 successfully from a CD. :w00t::ph34r:

 

Just in case:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jaclaz: You missed the point... the keyword is "restore", used in a very peculiar acceptation... :P

 

@vicvan: You cannot be right... judging by the dates, it ought to be v. 2.42 (and not higher...), but definitely not v. 2.27! :no:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jaclaz: You missed the point... the keyword is "restore", used in a very peculiar acceptation... :P

 

It makes no sense, however (please read as IMHO an exercise in futility).

 

However the 2.27 is the actual version used in original Windows 2K CD, according to a few sources.

That version never leaked AFAIK, and in any case they are really-really for Microsoft Internal use only.

Non-news:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/18396-helpi-need-cdimageexe-version227/

 

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However the 2.27 is the actual version used in original Windows 2K CD, according to a few sources

 

I know. However, it makes no sense to me that someone at MS would still be using v. 2.27 in Dec 15 1999 without loosing her/his job at MS, unless it was someone very paranoid, in the process of preparing a rather elaborate Chewbacca Defense. :wacko:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. However, it makes no sense to me that someone at MS would still be using v. 2.27 in Dec 15 1999 without loosing her/his job at MS, unless it was someone very paranoid, in the process of preparing a rather elaborate Chewbacca Defense. :wacko:

 

Look, I know that being a Mod :thumbup on MSFN grants you special privileges :yes:, but allow me to doubt :unsure: that you are authorized to write "MS" and "sense" in a same sentence. 

 

Remember that MS employees can use the secret seven ;):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/Humour/microsoft-monopoly.html

 

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be argumentative, but the OP -apparently- wants to "recreate" an Original ISO (for whatever purpose)

CDIMAGE 2.27 (07/24/96 TM)

Here is what I've been able to scrape up (and I don't have -all- info on which OS was built with which Utility)

CDIMAGE 2.03 (03/28/95 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.05 (07/17/95 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.12 (01/24/96 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.27 (07/24/96 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.39 (12/04/97 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.46 (10/12/2000 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.47 (10/12/2000 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.52 (03/09/2004 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.54 (01/01/2005 TM)

I can -definitely- tell you that 95OSR2.0 (08/24/1996) was built w/ v2.12. I can also tell you the OP is absolutely correct (a/l per RTM). Apparently the good guys at MS had not necessarily rhyme or reason to their madness.

 

Sorry, OP, you'll just have to "hack" your v2.39.

 

HTH

 

edit - One might ask why you need to exactly reproduce it anyway? :unsure: (and :unsure: about that date, as jaclaz said)

Edited by submix8c
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vicvan

Ok, just for the fun :unsure: of it, I had a look at the matter.

 

If you go here:

http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21823

AND read ATTENTIVELY the post by johnye_pt about hex-editing CDIMAGE 2.39

AND know that:

 

 

CDIMAGE 2.27 (07/24/96 TM)

AND know that 2K disks have not the "SIGNATURE" as the NT 4.00 have

 

You have ALL the needed info to go ahead in your (futile) plan.

 

After all it is not "impossible" at all (and not particularly difficult IMHO).

 

jaclaz

 

P.S.: some additional and only seemingly unrelated info posted here: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/128122-crc-verifycation-utility-version-300/

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I've been able to scrape up (and I don't have -all- info on which OS was built with which Utility):

CDIMAGE 2.03 (03/28/95 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.05 (07/17/95 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.12 (01/24/96 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.27 (07/24/96 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.39 (12/04/97 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.46 (10/12/2000 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.47 (10/12/2000 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.52 (03/09/2004 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.54 (01/01/2005 TM)

I have some more data to add to the list submix8c compiled:

CDIMAGE 2.03 (03/28/95 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.05 (07/17/95 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.12 (01/24/96 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.27 (07/24/96 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.28 (08/01/96 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.32 (09/25/96 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.37 (07/09/97 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.39 (12/04/97 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.43 (02/01/2000 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.46 (10/12/2000 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.47 (10/12/2000 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.52 (03/09/2004 TM)

CDIMAGE 2.54 (01/01/2005 TM)

 

And I have a further question: when exactly did Redmond's area code change from (206) to (425) ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I have a further question: when exactly did Redmond's area code change from (206) to (425) ?

 

That's an easy one ;), between April 27, 1997 and November 16, 1997:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_code_425

as there was a transition period:

The period from April 27, 1997, through November 15, 1997, was considered a "transition period" for this new area code. The 425 area code officially (mandatory use) went into effect on Sunday, November 16, 1997.

 

 

... but you know how the good MS guys may have privileged access to some information :whistle:

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] That's an easy one ;), between April 27, 1997 and November 16, 1997 [...]

Thanks! You rock! :thumbup

 

@vicvan: [...] You have ALL the needed info to go ahead in your (futile) plan. [...]

All pointless endeavors are worthwhile... only resistance is futile (they're the Cloud!)... :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To finalize this thread, I had some time to make a few tests.

As expected, it is perfectly possible to recreate one of those images.

 

There are two things that were not mentioned here or in the references AFAIK/AFAICR.

 

It seems like there is the need to:

  • set the machine time zone to "Pacific Standard" with Daylight savings disabled
  • use besides the "normal" -nt -o -x switches, also the additional switch -y6
The latter one is "strange" as:

 

-y test option followed by number (e.g. -y1), used to generate

non-standard variations of ISO-9660 for testing purposes:

1 encode trailing version number ';1' on filenames (7.5.1)

2 round directory sizes to multiples of 2K (6.8.1.3)

5 write \i386 directory files first, in reverse sort order

6 allow directory records to be exactly aligned at ends of sectors

(ISO-9660 6.8.1.1 conformant but breaks MSCDEX)

7 warn about generated shortnames for 16-bit apps under NT 4.0

b blocksize 512 bytes rather than 2048 bytes

d suppress warning for non-identical files with same initial 64K

So, besides the "queer" usage of an obsolete version of the tool, there is also the "strange" choice of the -y6 switch.

In practice without it a file/directory entry is not written at the end of a sector if the record ends exactly on last byte of the sector and thus the entry is shifted to the beginning of the new sector.

jaclaz

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set the Date/Time to PST? Why?

-t  time stamp for all files and directories, no spaces, any delimiter (e.g. -t12/31/91,15:01:00)

This forces all files/folders written -and- the Volume(?) Timestamp (look around the CD001 value for that).

 

That -y6 Option is an oddball. Guess I'll have to do some testing as well.

 

Be aware that the "Signature" stuff is -not- in the "commonly leaked" versions and I flat REFUSE to provide any info/links I gleaned on that :no::ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set the Date/Time to PST? Why?

Because it is needed to have "local reference time" correct in sector 16, absolute offset 0x833D.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~pje/iso9660.html

offset from Greenwich Mean Time, in 15-minute intervals,

as a twos complement signed number, positive for time

zones east of Greenwich, and negative for time zones

west of Greenwich

This forces all files/folders written -and- the Volume(?) Timestamp (look around the CD001 value for that).

No, this sets the files folders timestamp AND the Volume timestamp BUT NOT the timezone ("offset from Greenwich Mean Time" see above).

 

That -y6 Option is an oddball. Guess I'll have to do some testing as well.

You mean that you don't trust my word for it? :w00t:

 

Be aware that the "Signature" stuff is -not- in the "commonly leaked" versions and I flat REFUSE to provide any info/links I gleaned on that :no::ph34r:

There is NO "signature stuff" in a 2K CD AFAIK, only in the NT 4.x ones. (the referenced post on BetaArchive is about NT 4.00 and CDIMAGE 2.28).

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see what purpose or benefit can be had by recreating an "original" Win2K CD.  No matter what one does it still won't be an "original" since the original CD's are stamped and not burned.  Wouldn't it be better/easier to just purchase a Win2K CD on eBay or something?  And I'm also missing why this particular version of CDIMAGE is "required" anyway in this case.  Is it required to produce the Win2K CD or is it required to install Win2K from the CD?  And if you are trying to create a Win2K CD to install and run today, why make an "original" version rather than an updated one?  I know, recreate and not create, but I can't see why.  I'm just totally lost and don't see the point of this thread at all, and the fact that the OP hasn't offered any clarification or responded at all in several days hasn't helped.

 

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I can't see why

 

Well, that one is actually quite easy: it's because we're inside the Asylum. See:

 

 

toothpicks2.png

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bphlpt

There are a number of people that - for whatever reason - think that it is "cool" to recreate an "original" .iso.

Example:

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/54441-Restored-each-Windows-ME-version-files-to-ISO-by-CDIMAGE-2-39

Since the MD5 and SHA1 hashes of a number of original CD's/iso's have been published, these people attempt to re-build these images in such a way that they verify these hashing methods, besides the CRC32 one (which in the case of a number of .iso's is "corrected" by the use of the -x option, i.e. AutoCRC).

 

This makes NO sense whatever under any practical point of view (as - as you correctly stated - a "collector" would want an original CD), i.e. the activity is totally futile, still it is well among what freedom allows :), as no human being or living creature is actually hurt in the process of pursuing this (again, apparently senseless) goal.

 

A more sensible goal is obviously, as I initially stated, to create a .iso capable of installing the OS (which is - or should be - the ONLY actual goal of an install CD/.iso).

 

BUT, the sheer moment in which someone comes here, BTW slipping on a chocolate covered banana:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html

and states something like:

 

 

Are you sure you're not chasing a wild goose?

Win 95 SR2.5 CD was created with v. 2.38 (from 1997); Win 98SE and Win ME CDs, with v. 2.39 (from 1997) and Win XP SP3 CDs, with v. 2.52 (from 2004)... are you sure you need v. 2.27 ?

 

Because it is impossible to restore Windows 2000 (SP0 / SP1) without CDIMAGE 2.27.

 

something must be done:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031971/quotes?item=qt0178026

 

in order to find out if the statement is accurate and if the (futile) goal is actually impossible to reach using another method or - as normally happens - it is perfectly possible.

 

If you prefer, I am completely indifferent to the activity of recreating "original" CD's/.iso's, but sensible to the declared impossibility of the feat.

 

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm - in response to jaclaz (re: Time Zone) -

 

Maybe that's why a "hacked" versions of cdimage exists, utilizing "-gnn" and "-xx" as opposed to just "-x" (both being "new"/"production" parameters)? The -trick- is getting the right (original) Time Zone from that offset as I've seen that it -may- vary from Release-To-Release (per OS and Service Pack). For example, take a look at -original- XP CD's (per service pack).

 

Silly me - should have read the link... you are correct about the NT4 (signature) issue. I had found similar info "elsewhere". I -suppose- that the OP could "hack" a functioning version?

 

Oh, and another link (member name from the link you gave) -

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/archive/index.php/t-30481.html

re - NT4... Heeeere's Johnny!

 

"Seemingly" related?

www.msfn.org/board/topic/128122-crc-verifycation-utility-version-300/

 

IMHO

:crazy:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, if the idea is to recreate something you need to have the "original", and see which dates/times AND timezones were used originally.

 

So, once you have the "original", it would be easier to make a copy of it than re-creatng it from scratch, hence the utter futility of the operation.

 

But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? :w00t: ) lessen dramatically.

 

I mean, once you have a proper building method, even if you don' t know the actual timezone but you have (besides ALL the actual original files and the date attributed to them by the -t switch) the SHA1 or MD5 of the original, you only have to go through a finite number of iterations to get a valid SHA1/MD5 by changing the mentioned byte.

 

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? :w00t: ) lessen dramatically.

Because, it seems, real life is way stranger than fiction, in that, in fiction, there's just one Pierre Menard, while in RL there are several of them.   dubbio.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But once you have "one" original, and put together a "building method", the amount of information needed to re-create "another" original (WHY? :w00t: ) lessen dramatically.

Because, it seems, real life is way stranger than fiction, in that, in fiction, there's just one Pierre Menard, while in RL there are several of them.   dubbio.gif

 

 

For those, like me, who are/were unfamiliar with the reference:

 

"Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" is written in the form of a review or literary critical piece about Pierre Menard, a fictional 20th-century French writer. It begins with a brief introduction and a listing of Menard's work.

Borges' "review" describes Menard's efforts to go beyond a mere "translation" of Don Quixote by immersing himself so thoroughly in the work as to be able to actually "re-create" it, line for line, in the original 17th-century Spanish. Thus, Pierre Menard is often used to raise questions and discussion about the nature of authorship, appropriation and interpretation.

And like many threads, this one has taken on a life of its own, even though the OP has apparently never returned, or at least he has not commented on whether this has met his needs or not, and if so, or not, why, or why not.  Oh well.

 

Cheers and Regards

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also need CDIMAGE 2.27, but I need also some old versions which I cannot find:

 

CDIMAGE 2.03 (03/28/95 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.05 (07/17/95 TM)
CDIMAGE 2.12 (01/24/96 TM)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see if this is clear enough :unsure::

CDIMAGE 2.27, as well as 2.03, 2.05, 2.12 are NOT available.

The last character in the above sentence is a "full stop" or period.

If - on the other hand, the CDIMAGE 2.27 is *needed* to rebuild a Windows 2000 ISO, then it is NOT needed as it is possible to recreate that .iso using CDIMAGE 2.39 hexedited to change some data, used with the provided switches.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.