ISO differences between MSDN and tool

Sizes are different because of compression methods, both will install the exact same sku's and builds.

MCT = ISO with install.esd
MVS ISO = ISO with install.wim
install.esd is appr. 30% less in size.

 

I prefer MCT because the file is smaller and it's usually a fast download, just because it takes a bit longer to create the ISO, it still saves space on your thumb drive.

 

Most modify the image before creating the iso, so ESD>ISO or just ISO with install.wim saves time, no need to convert install.esd > install.wim first.
It depends on what you want to do with the iso what's the better option.

 

So if I use MCT and then convert the esd to wim with the ESD<>WIM program, will Windows install faster?

 

Not that i ever noticed.

 

Hi,
I know that some old computers have problems in booting MCT iso bcoz they have ESD format. And they can successfully boot msdn iso bcoz they have wim format.
That is the significant diff between them.

BTW does anyone know any other diff between them over usability and other things?

 

Why should older pc's have problems with install.esd?
The MCT only takes more time and system resources because it has to download the full consumer_ret esd and convert it to iso (when direct upgrading it converts to unpacked iso).
ISO with install.esd works just as fine as with install.wim.

 

I don't know the actual reason behind this but I have encountered some PC more than 10 year old and when I tried to boot from ESD iso they hang at logo and then some error appear but they worked just fine when I booted with wim format. This has happened many times.
May be old system don't have compability with ESD.
( I've a service shop)

 

This behavior is strange. I am not an expert, but as far as I know a Windows ISO boots using a boot.wim file. I believe the boot.wim is the same regardless whether the ISO contains install.esd or install.wim, but I could be wrong. The install.esd or install.wim is used if you decide to install Windows from the ISO.

 

Yes its boots and windows logo appear with circles but then it hangs and some error appear. Yes it is strange and I've faced this issue with some old pc.
I will post about this error code next time I will see it.

 

A question on the same general theme, using another approach of (re)installing Windows.

If I create a recovery drive thro Windows itself (CP > Recovery), it says:
“Even if your PC can’t start, you can use a recovery drive to reset it or troubleshoot problems. If you back up system files to this drive, you’ll also be able to use it to reinstall Windows.”

So, instead of creating an ISO as per OP, I can reinstall Windows thru such a drive.

Now, my question is, what will be the differences between the systems installed via the two approaches and which one is easier? Would updates also be included in either?

 

AFAIK the Recovery-Drive will be created from an installed version of Windows, which could be a non-finished Base-Installation of Windows as well as full or even extended Windows installation with Drivers and Updates and even all needed Applications!

If create a Recovery-Drive, all would be about the stage of the windows installation, which is used for the creation of the Recovery-Drive! But I don't know there will be much difference between the systems used! Someone has to test that!

 

It creates a clean usb installmedium, i've made one and it installs a clean windows.

 

Thanks.

But if it includes my system files, I'd expect it to be up to date, iincorporating all updates to that point. Am I right?