[luxpops]

Hi, as I'm doing my final project next semester, I was given an idea of project

the idea is the replace all the hard disk drive by USB Flash for the operating system

after doing some research, I found this forum and I read about BartPE, I tried to look for more info on what I want to do with BartPE but can really find any

what I would like to know is: when you make create a BartPE windows is the Windows fully functional (for everyday use)?? when you shut down and reboot the machine are all the data still there??

Regards
Ryan

[d4vr0s]

Quote

what I would like to know is: when you make create a BartPE windows is the Windows fully functional (for everyday use)?? when you shut down and reboot the machine are all the data still there??

I believe there are some that do this, if you're using a writable drive then your data will remain intact.
You may want to head over to the 911cd forums, that's the BartPE support is.

[ChrisBaksa]

Please note.

PE is NOT an every day Operatign System. It has a 24 hour automatic reboot built into the code.

It by no means ment to replace XP. And... you need a fully licensed version of XP anyway to us it.

PE is a temporary OS... a tool... A means to an end.

Chris

[getwired]

You should look into XP Embedded for your project, not WinPE (BartPE is WinPE). WinPE is focused solely on networking and VESA mode video. Adding other devices is possible in the most recent version - but generally just to see the device itself. And there is no power management in WinPE (and it forgets all registry entries that occur during each boot). Additionally, as noted, the licesing of WinPE is handled through specific channels, and BartPE licensing is questionable at best. XP Embedded was designed to be used the way you are thinking - although in it's current incarnation it has problems booting from USB Flash Drive.

[d4vr0s]

I agree completely with ChrisBaksa and getwired.
BartPE is an excellent tool for repair and recovery, I definitely wouldn't want to use it as my main OS.

[luxpops]

Thanks for your replies, I'll have a look at XP Embedded to see if it could fit the project

it was just an idea of project so I was looking at information for it, and from what you all of you said BartPE nor WinPE will suit the project

[engjcowi]

have u looked at the bart PE beta its on the 911cd forum it has a batch file to enable you to make a usb flash disk into a bootable device. and if its for your project i dont think that you need the OS to be fully functioning for everyday use. its just to use for your project and there is a patch to stop the 24 hours limit. but i think you should get it just to check out anyway. there is also another program out called flashboot have a look for it. its in early stages but still works.

[getwired]

engjcowi, on Oct 16 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

have u looked at the bart PE beta its on the 911cd forum it has a batch file to enable you to make a usb flash disk into a bootable device. and if its for your project i dont think that you need the OS to be fully functioning for everyday use. its just to use for your project and there is a patch to stop the 24 hours limit. but i think you should get it just to check out anyway. there is also another program out called flashboot have a look for it. its in early stages but still works.

BartPE is less than optimal for a school project, as it puts one in a shady legal ground with Microsoft. Disabling the 24 hour time bomb, which Microsoft put in there quire by design - isn't even questionable, it's illegal.

[InTheWayBoy]

BartPE is far from illegal...I suggest you read this:

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/#legal

The only issue left is the fact that people don't buy a seperate license to use only for BartPE.

There is no 24 hour limit, because they found a legal way around it (PELoader)

BARTPE IS NOT WINPE!!! THEY SHARE NO FILES!!!

All the files from BartPE come from a standard WinXP source, and none are altered.

Now, back to the project.

Yes, you can boot BartPE from USB devices...but it's not quite what you are thinking. As I understand it, the only successful ways of doing this involve loading an ISO image from the USB device into the RAM, and the booting it from the RAM. This is good for speed, but bad because you need twice the RAM. That, and no changes are saved. Also, this process needs files from 2003 SP1, so it starts to get a little illegal...

You can install BartPE to a regular HD, as use it as a regular OS. If you look in the menu of a fresh BartPE, you'll see an item like "HDDInstall" or something...they keep changing the name to much for me to keep up with. This will copy your current BartPE setup to a HD and set it up to run from it. I've never done this myself, but it should give you insight as to what's going on. This will allow you to make and save settings/documents. But it's still a little slow when compaired to a regular install of WinXP. And since you legally should have a seperate license for BartPE, it really doesn't save you any money.

I don't know if these other people have seen some of the things you can do with BartPE. They have XPE, which basically gives you a fully-functioning shell based off explorer.exe, there are thousands of plugins to run everything from Office to Nero to Citrix to even certain games, and there is a large (And growing) base of hardware support that lets you use things like sounds cards, usb devices, printers, modems, etc.

I would suggest you check out their official support forums for more info. It's the best place to find out more:

911cd.net/forums

Good luck on your project!

This post has been edited by InTheWayBoy: 20 October 2005 - 03:59 PM

[getwired]

Are you a lawyer? Have you consulted one? If no to either one, I suggest you contemplate carefully the EULA included with your own copy of Windows. What Bart has done is borderline (he has technically violated the reverse-engineering aspect of the Windows EULA) any customer who uses BartPE is electing to "interpret" Microsoft's EULA in a way beneficial to them. In a trial, a judge is unlikely to agree.

There is no legal way to remove the 24 hour timebomb. That was a feature intentionally designed in to limit the product (WinPE). Removing them is removing licensing limitations Microsoft built into the operating system. Again, consult your EULA.

BARTPE IS WINPE!!! (sorry, had to since you yelled it at me). Where do you think WinPE files come from, the magical file fairy? No, they come from Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 source, just as BartPE does. BartPE is a well-engineered reverse engineering of WinPE (with a better build process). Sorry to disappoint you.

Don't believe me that BartPE is just reverse-engineered WinPE? Fine. Try this.
Open up your copy of "BartPE".
Open your txtsetup.sif file.
Find the line that starts with OSLoadOptions
Delete the entry in that line that reads "/MiniNT"
Now try booting your copy of "BartPE". It won't work.

Why does that prove anything? Because that switch is the key component that tells numerous components that "I'm starting in WinPE mode". MiniNT was the name for WinPE when it was initial development. You remove that key, and BartPE (like WinPE) is nothing but an amalgam of random Windows files.

Now, back to the project.

Booting WinPE from a USB Flash Drive is fully supported with Windows Server 2003 SP1 as the source, and in fact the tools are provided - but it is only supported for, and the tools provided to, OEM system manufacturers - because the only way to ensure this works is for the OEM to test and ensure their BIOS supports USB 2.0 and boot from USB Mass Storage, and that the system itself supports USB 2.0 - both required for booting WinPE. Booting from ISO requires the same functionality. It is possible to boot a USB Flash Drive without Microsoft's tools, but YMMV. And previous to Windows Server Sp1 as the source, one will incur problems.

This post has been edited by getwired: 22 October 2005 - 09:36 AM

[InTheWayBoy]

Well then we have a debate!

BartPE and WinPE are two different applications...totally different code. There is no bartpe.exe in WinPE, and there is no oscdimg.exe in BartPE. They both take common windows files and arrange them specifically to their needs. They both have similar intended outcomes, being a bootable Win32 environment, but they accomplish it in different ways.

The options that BartPE provides over WinPE are capable not because they are editing/hacking any source files, but because they include extra programs. PELoader, PENetCFG, NU2Menu, etc are all custom applications made by people who see a problem and can provide a fix. This is much in the same way that all software for a standard Windows OS is developed, so to deem the products included with BartPE as illegal just because of the way they interact with the core functions (Remember, no M$ code is altered) invalidates all other third-party applications.

The MiniNT switch is verified, but calling a built-in function hardly seems like a problem. If that's the case, then all the things we do here on MSFN are illegal too!

The EULA does reference reverse engineering, but is vague and doesn't spell it out other than saying you can't decompile or disassemble. While I can't verify that the makers of BartPE haven't done this, there is no evidence to show that any M$ code has been decompiled or disassembled to make BartPE.

And there doesn't seem to be any specific reference to the 24 hour limit...doesn't impose on the WinXP EULA. It may impose on the WinPE EULA, but since you don't need WinPE then that's a moot point.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll admit that I could be wrong on the licensing aspects of BartPE. But as a tech, I don't see how anyone could say that BartPE is illegal from a technical point of view. There is no code altering, other than what seems to be universally allowed. Knowing M$ I'm sure they could single BartPE out, but it doesn't look like they care much about it at the moment.

[InTheWayBoy]

And this could be useful for the project:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=13784&hl=

[getwired]

BartPE and WinPE are two different applications...totally different code.

Nope. If WinPE had not been created by Microsoft, Bart would still be working on his old DOS based boot projects, and BartPE would not exist. The code for WinPE to run is strewn throughout Windows (XP and Server 2003) and relies on the presence of the MiniNT switch to tell the code what to do and what not to do - ranging from the kernel to the memory manager to winlogon.

There is no bartpe.exe in WinPE, and there is no oscdimg.exe in BartPE.

I'm not sure how you can draw an analog there. OSCDIMG is hardly needed for WinPE - it's simply the ISO creation aspect of WinPE. It's not there because Bart can't redistribute it, and he's come up with his own tool for building an ISO with boot code.

They both take common windows files and arrange them specifically to their needs. They both have similar intended outcomes, being a bootable Win32 environment, but they accomplish it in different ways.

Or not. If you compare the layout of BartPE with WinPE, it is identical. Tag files, ntdetect.com, setupldr txtsetup.sif, an I386 directory when on CD, a MiniNT directory when on HDD (ever wonder why that is?)... effectively identical - because it is using WinPE code to run 99.9% of it's functionality - except any aspects Bart or the BartPE community have written on top of it.

The options that BartPE provides over WinPE are capable not because they are editing/hacking any source files, but because they include extra programs.

I never said they were. The ADO, WSH, and HTA functionality originally shipped in WinPE were added in much the same way, albeit post-build instead of at build time. There was a reason for that, by the way.


...so to deem the products included with BartPE as illegal just because of the way they interact with the core functions (Remember, no M$ code is altered) invalidates all other third-party applications.

1) Why do people insist on saying "M$"? It's obnoxious. 2) no, you're again drawing in something I didn't say. I said any code that modifies the 24-hour timebomb is illegal. It's just like bypassing activation code. Not legal. Say it with me. Not legal.

The MiniNT switch is verified, but calling a built-in function hardly seems like a problem. If that's the case, then all the things we do here on MSFN are illegal too!

Au contraire. Years ago, Mark Russinovich discovered that two simple keys held the difference between Windows NT Workstation and Windows NT Server. Tweak those two keys, and you've turned a workstation product into a server (http://www.oreilly.c...erences_nt.html). Do you think that was legal? Me either. But that is what Bart allows customers to do. Convert one version of Windows into another. One they are licensed for into another they are not. It's up to you, the users of BartPE to determine if what you are doing is legal or not. You've chosen to believe Bart's rather liberal interpretation of the Windows XP EULA, and his choice to ignore the aspect of the EULA which reads: "Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA." Meaning if the section of the WinPE EULA that you missed by circumventing it could be applied to you anyway - at Microsoft's discretion. No, Microsoft hasn't chosen to go after anyone. Yet. However, they did go after Bart several times - see his site. If you work for a company of any size and are using BartPE instead of WinPE, personally I'd question that. But hey, caveat licensor.

...But as a tech, I don't see how anyone could say that BartPE is illegal from a technical point of view.
I didn't say it was illegal from a technical point of view. I said it from a legal point of view. :-) It's at the discretion of whomever is using it to determine whether they think what they are doing is legal or not. Personally I don't think what Bart has done is that questionable - but he has put BartPE's users into an uncomfortable position of interpreting a EULA, or simply believing that Bart is correct in his rather liberal interpretation. But hey, it's just Microsoft, right? :-)

but it doesn't look like they care much about it at the moment.
Indeed. But ask yourself, if they went after one or two companies who were using it, would you still use it?

BTW, I'm not trying to be an a-hole here. Just trying to honestly and openly discuss what BartPE is in relation to WinPE, and to get people to fully think about the legal aspects before using it.

This post has been edited by getwired: 23 October 2005 - 07:45 AM

[InTheWayBoy]

Okay, so I can see this going back and forth for a while...I'll give you this, I see your points in relation to the illegalities of BartPE, but I still disagree that BartPE is WinPE. See, if you download BartPE and WinPE and compare the the files for the programs, then you can see they are different. So to me that is all that is needed...I understand they use the same source files, which makes them similar. And while the finished results do mirror each other, it's not 100% identical, which is another factor that helps seperate the two from each other.

And I call them M$ not out of anger or frustration...I'm just acknowledging the fact that they are filthy rich

[getwired]

If you remove the MiniNT switch, BartPE won't work at all. BartPE uses the entire boot codepath developed by Microsoft for WinPE - because it is WinPE. I don't understand why that doesn't convince you they are the same - but whatever... If WinPE didn't exist, BartPE wouldn't... It's really that simple. Bart was very creative in his reverse-engineering of WinPE, and indeed managed to out-do Microsoft as far as build tools. But at the end of the day it is just that - a reverse engineering of WinPE. Why do you think Bart called it BartPE? Just for giggles?

[webmedic]

I've been using barts stuff since he made his joe.sys and have been watching barts pe since about the .8 days when it was still beta.

This stuff has already happened. Microsoft took intense interest in barts project I think it was before he hit 1.0. They had some issues with his inf files for instance it looked to much like what they were doing so they made him redo it.

Barts already been through all the legal stuff with microsoft and they ok'd the projust before he even got out of beta. He did have to do some recoding to make them happy but in the end they sad it was ok.

I remember watching the dialog and how bart even pulled the beta till he got the ok from microsoft. So I'm sure that if microsoft thought that he was breaking their license they would have shut bart down already. They are more than aware of everything going on with the project already.

As to weather or not it shares any code with winpe it would have to be no or else he would have been shut down already.

A long time ago on these boards I had posted some screen shots only using custom inf files during install. They weren't on the net more than maybe a week and the site was forced by microsoft to remove them. I also had changed the background pick during install but was warned by a microsoft employee that it was the inf installer stiff they did not really like.

I am fairly shure that if they had a problem with bart he would be shut down already.

[getwired]

As I stated before - if WinPE didn't exist, BartPE wouldn't. As to the level that they "share code" it's basically a semantic argument - since BartPE is effectively WinPE.

[InTheWayBoy]

Well I was gonna stay out, but here I am again...

I think the thing that seperates us is the way we look at what consitutes "different"

See, to me and many other people here, BartPE is different than WinPE because it is seperate code. While they may try to parallel certain things that came before them, they do so using their own tools...in this case that's code.

You seem to equate the fact that since BartPE builds off features of another product that it is then the same as that product. I can see your theory, in that without WinPE the features required from WinXP would not exist...thus resulting in BartPE not working as it currently does.

But if we continue to use that analogy, re-enforced by:

Quote

if WinPE didn't exist, BartPE wouldn't. As to the level that they "share code" it's basically a semantic argument - since BartPE is effectively WinPE.

Then you throw everything into chaos...well as far as I know unix has been out for ages, and since windows is effectively unix (An operating system), then windows is unix? Maybe that's not such a good example...

But this is...Netscape VS. Internet Explorer!

So both run on Windows...a piece of software that can be manipulated into doing different things. A group releases Netscape, a piece of software that does various things like send and recieve info and display text and graphics. It does all this without requiring any modification to the OS other than what is typical of most applications.

Now M$ decides to join the party. They take a look at Netscape and basically copy it's most popular features...partly because they are the only features. But, just to be nice and to try and gain market share they add extra features. Now they may have tried to copy the interface and other features, but they did so using their own code. And then they added even more code to it that the other product doesn't have.

Now are you telling me then that since both of these programs use pre-existing functions of another application in similar ways that they are the same product? And just to clarify what I mean by that: both examples (Netscape and IE) use pre-existing functions (The ability to see graphics, use a mouse, etc) of another application (Windows) in similar ways (They both process internet data).

Do you see where, while you may not be wrong, most people don't agree with your logic? True, they are both web browsers, but they aren't the same product. True one may be copying anothers functions, but they do so using original techniques. One may not have been born if the other hadn't come out first...but if that held true then we are all driving Fords since they came out first.

The previous poster pointed out a very key thing, that originally BartPE was not legit. It did make use of code owned by M$, and required illegal usage of M$ files. But now they have worked around all those issues, and the only thing left are the licensing issues we discussed earlier. Which shows that even M$ knows that it's not technically the same program anymore...since they haven't done anything extreme yet.

And the more I think about it, since the features like MiniNT are built-in to Window XP and not WinPE, then BartPE is even further removed from WinPE. At that point, even though those features might have been implimented for WinPE, both of the programs are accessing a feature of another program. And since that other program (WinXP) doesn't have any specific licensing issue with usage of that nature, then I don't even see where there is that problem anymore...other than running both a local copy and a BartPE from one license...that's still bad.

[getwired]

See, to me and many other people here, BartPE is different than WinPE because it is seperate code. While they may try to parallel certain things that came before them, they do so using their own tools...in this case that's code.

Aargh. How many times to I have to restate this. BartPE IS A BUILD TOOL.M. It uses 100% of the codepaths that WinPE does. If the WinPE team had not changed anything, BartPE would not exist. Bart reverse engineered Microsoft code, in Windows binaries, that was designed to work a specific way if Windows was running in MiniNT mode - in WinPE mode. This was code that was consciously changed to work a specific way to provide WinPE with specific functionality. When the Windows PE code changed in XPSP2 and Server SP1 so that the boot drive was always X:, "BartPE" changed with it. Go ahead - ask Bart to change the drive letter that "BartPE" uses. He can't. Why? Because he doesn't have the source code for the Windows Mount Manager - which is what would have to be (and what did have to be) changed to make that happen.

You seem to equate the fact that since BartPE builds off features of another product that it is then the same as that product. I can see your theory, in that without WinPE the features required from WinXP would not exist...thus resulting in BartPE not working as it currently does.

No, as I stated, BartPE would not exist if WinPE had not been created. Period. End of story. It never would have happened. If the Windows codebase had not been consciously changed to have MiniNT mode exist then Bart would have had no build code to reverse engineer. End of story. Nothing. DOS-based rescue CD's forever. See ya. Get it?


Then you throw everything into chaos...well as far as I know unix has been out for ages, and since windows is effectively unix (An operating system), then windows is unix? Maybe that's not such a good example...

Uh, no. That's totally different. There is no Unix code in Windows (unless it was licensed from some Unix vendor and I don't know about it) and there's no Windows code in Unix (unless it was licensed through Microsoft's overly complicated protocol licensing structure). Your analogy has nothing to do with what I've said. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.

But this is...Netscape VS. Internet Explorer!

Again, no. There is no shared code between those two products, except possibly content licensed from NCSA for both of them. Similar heritage through NS 4.x, but that's it at best.


Do you see where, while you may not be wrong, most people don't agree with your logic? True, they are both web browsers, but they aren't the same product. True one may be copying anothers functions, but they do so using original techniques. One may not have been born if the other hadn't come out first...but if that held true then we are all driving Fords since they came out first.

See my example above. Ask Bart to change core functionality of "BartPE". Ask him to, say, boot from an ISO formatted RAMDisk. What's that you say? He did? Uh. No. There were three poeple at Microsoft who developed patented technology specifically used to do that. Sure, "BartPE" can now do it. Why? Because his reverse engineered version of WinPE can do anything WinPE can. Why? Because it is WinPE.

Bart has evaded legal issues for several reasons... Basically he has managed to walk a fine line with regard to reverse engineering. But as I stated, if Microsoft wanted to, they could come down hard, primarily on any customer using "BartPE" to any significant extent. And I would expect them to prosecute anyone who ever actually redistributed "BartPE" in it's entirety - since that isn't something Bart has legal rights to allow for.

And the more I think about it, since the features like MiniNT are built-in to Window XP and not WinPE, then BartPE is even further removed from WinPE. At that point, even though those features might have been implimented for WinPE, both of the programs are accessing a feature of another program. And since that other program (WinXP) doesn't have any specific licensing issue with usage of that nature, then I don't even see where there is that problem anymore...other than running both a local copy and a BartPE from one license...that's still bad.

There are features included in Windows XP that are there for the server version of Windows (what eventually became Server 2003). There are features in Home that are there for Pro. Hacking one to use it for the other isn't "okay" just because you can.

Microsoft doesn't have 1001 teams working on functionality in complete silos. You write code for dev milestones. When Whistler shipped as Windows XP, WinPE also shipped. I'll come back to my main point. If the team doing the development did not do anything to develop WinPE, WinPE would not exist - and as a co-dependent, "BartPE" would not exist. If the development team did not do any ongoing work, then "BartPE" would not gain anything except for new build-time features and new high-level shell-type features where Bart can shim things back in. Want memory manager enhancements? Not going to come from Bart. Want the drive letter changed? Same deal. How about changing the way WinPE doesn't write to the registry, so that it does? Also not something Bart could do...

[webmedic]

well what really separates us is the way Microsoft sees it and since they have ok'ed barts project the rest of the argument is moot. It doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks if microsoft says it's ok since they are the ones who have the right to persecute bart if they want.

The rest really doesn't matter. It's simply arguing to be arguing.

It's is not a reverse engineered product as bart does not share code with the winpe builder tool. If it did microsoft would have took care of it before. The rest is windows xp as a product it just so happens that Microsoft made it to be versatile so they could use it for something like winpe. Yes bart takes advantage of this however as stated before he already has Microsoft's ok.

I just had to set this straight since there are obviously some people here who are uninformed.