So most of the guides I've looked at suggest using option 1 to create with a standard wim file.. What happens if I used option 2 for the compressed variant ? Image be smaller that's good.. buuut will it not boot or somethin' ? Or could I use option 2 if I was so inclined for a smaller file size on the finish..
I tried that option on 10158 and it took the final iso size from 3.72GB to 3.02GB. So it seems to do it's job at making it smaller, but it's not really worthwhile in my case.
maybe with the second option the setup postpones the process of ESD extraction to the installation, that will take extra time. the files that are extracted to the ISO are just the ones that necessary for boot, ex: boot.wim ... I think we should stick with the first option because we have to choose time over space (which is available).
I converted ESD Win8.1 with update SL EN-US to ISO with compressed ESD in order to upgrade a Win 8.0 SL EN-US installation. It continually rolled back the installation and after lots of messing around I created ISO with WIM and it worked first time. Possible other issue but for now I will just stick with ISO with WIM. Anybody know of issues with Win 8.0 and using ISO with compressed ESD?
There was somebody who tested compressed vs non compressed and it tured out that the compressed was faster. I believe it was measuring which created faster. So I would rather take smaller file and faster creation over bigger file and slower creation.
It should be the opposite, since compressed files have to be extracted in the memory and or the hdd, it will slow down the process depending of the hardware you have. Esd's are lzh compressed if i recall, on my system i did no see a difference with the two options, but i prefer the install.wim option beceause of the tools provided here and there to manipulate or mod the installation, or even integrate files .... i have a powerful quad core system with 32 gigs ... thoses setups are fast on mine. I have an windows 7 us (archived file of +/- 20megs, no jokes) and it expand to 3.6 gigs after an hour of work, it is an russian archiver used, i'm impress to see that working ... up to this day ...
Well from what I can remember about using option 2 you can't upgrade from cd. I think you can only boot off media but I could be wrong.....
Depends what you mean by faster. It is faster to create a compressed ISO from the compressed encrypted esd as there is no need to decompress in between. So it takes less time to convert from ESD to compressed ISO HOWEVER when you then use the ISO to install Windows, it will take longer if you use the compressed ISO rather than the uncompressed ISO, as it needs to go through the decompression step first. Kari posted some figures on tenforums: WIM based ISO, Windows 10 Build 10041 32 bit, size 2.45 GB, ISO created from the ESD in 6 minutes 57 seconds, Install time in a Virtual Machine 12 mins 35 seconds ESD based ISO Windows 10 Build 10041 32 bit, size 2.09 GB, ISO created from the ESD in 3 minutes 32 seconds, Install time in a VM 15 minutes.
So the lesson of this story is if you are an iso tweaker/customizer then choose WIM. If your just going to install/not going to do any tweaking/customizing then pick a number between 1 and 2