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

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.