Tested the utility on macOS with Intel CPU 19044.1288.211006-0501.21h2_release_svc_refresh_CLIENT_LTSC_EVAL_x64FRE_en-us.iso > 19044.1288.211006-0501.21h2_release_svc_refresh_CLIENT_LTSC_EVAL_x86FRE_en-us.iso Spoiler Indexing base... Base file indexed: 19776263 unique chunks Took 17.74s Generating Patch... Patch created Took 14.29s DumbVersion Patcher /\_/\ ( o.o ) > ^ < Base File Hash: E4AB2E3535BE5748252A8D5D57539A6E59BE8D6726345EE10E7AFD2CB89FEFB5 Output File Hash: AA72FFC89FA544F2F6F6771C85478EEB7B59BFE6CBDEAA05493042D4A0A856D6 [1/2] Validating Base: 19044.1288.211006-0501.21h2_release_svc_refresh_CLIENT_LTSC_EVAL_x64FRE_en-us.iso... [2/2] Applying patch... File patched successfully. 19044.1288.211006-0501.21h2_release_svc_refresh_CLIENT_LTSC_EVAL_x86FRE_en-us.dvp 1.1GB , 200ish MB smaller than the sfx I already had.
The differences between SVF and DVP files can vary, depending on the build i noticed some size advantages and sometimes it was larger.
Yes, it's a good thing, but there are a couple of nuances that I would ask you to refine (if possible), these are: 1. Saving the timestamp of the source file as available in the SVF. 2. Add at least minimal information about the source file, the file size, and one of the hash sums (MD5, SHA1, SHA256) so that you can query this structure to find the correct source file. 3. Add an option to play around with dvp file compression.
@adguard i relayed the requests to the devs and this was their answer: 1. Not needed for this purpose 2. SHA256 hashes are already added to patch files, but for being able to check what the patch is meant for it could be improved to show the sha256 and maybe the src filename, by adding a flag/switch like --info 3. there is nothing to play around with, it just uses brotli with the optimal configuration, adjusting this doesn't do much and other algorithms will be worse, either in speed or size. LZMA2 could work but is not possible due to technical .net restrictions, they investigated all possible compression algo's but the current settings are best of all worlds Code: DumbVersion Patcher /\_/\ ( o.o ) > ^ < Multiple patch files found. Which one do you want to apply? [1] bg_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9059538.dvp [2] cs_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9060092.dvp [3] da_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9057126.dvp [4] de_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9060093.dvp [5] el_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9057129.dvp [6] en-gb_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058321.dvp [7] es_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058325.dvp [8] et_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058913.dvp [9] fi_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9059542.dvp [10] fr_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9060026.dvp [11] hr_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9060025.dvp [12] hu_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9057447.dvp [13] it_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058198.dvp [14] lt_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058915.dvp [15] lv_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058320.dvp [16] nb_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9059548.dvp [17] nl_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9057444.dvp [18] pl_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9060028.dvp [19] pp_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9060094.dvp [20] ro_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9057128.dvp [21] sk_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9057448.dvp [22] sl_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058206.dvp [23] sv_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058917.dvp > 23 Base File Hash: 1EDA36ABE0F6FC89B3603AD140A13EAC417B31698EF512E60510AA661469F7CF Output File Hash: 8C6C42825C6A05E6613DA7DEBCB12FCCFEB080F36EB7FC7A3DF906373F3C52A9 [1/2] Validating Base: en_windows_10_enterprise_2016_ltsb_n_x86_dvd_9058202.iso... [2/2] Applying patch... [██████████████████████████████████████████████████] 100% File patched successfully.
@Enthousiast In summary, the DVP format seems more optimized than SVF, right? Even though they use the same compression algorithm, or what differentiates it from SVF and why isn't it always used?
Code: Microsoft Windows [versão 10.0.19044.7058] (c) Microsoft Corporation. Todos os direitos reservados. D:\DumbVersion-win-x64>D:\DumbVersion-win-x64\DumbVersionCreator.exe -bulk "D:\DumbVersion-win-x64\ISO\Win11_25H2_English_x64_v2.iso" D:\DumbVersion-win-x64\ISO D:\DumbVersion-win-x64\DVP\Indexing base... Indexing base... Base file indexed: 34379769 unique chunks Took 146.81s Bulk generation completed. what did I do wrong?
You are running the creator. Can you show the command line you entered? And what was your goal, to create an ISO or to create patches? Create ISO is just put the patcher, the source ISO (en-US) and the desired DVP patch in one folder and run the patcher.