Actually I do Bytebuster with no issues whatsoever... Please note I use Spanish language for this matter, don't know if this has something to do although I don't think so.
@Bytebuster, when I say user error/hardware then I can only make an educated guess as to what is happening. I hope it is not the case, but I myself did try to use the pack (by accident!) on my Windows 8 system Naturally nothing was loaded/broken but it takes only a small lapse, we are human after all. I would recommend you try to follow my image above to create an install.wim that is exactly 2.32 GB (2,499,854,488 bytes) when I have recompressed it. If you cannot get your install.wim to this size then there must be a reason for this. 156 Updates were integrated as per the log, this is about the normal value (it does increase of course each month) 5 Updates shown post install. I fear you may have made a small command line error and maybe you are updating your "host" machine... that is if your machine is indeed Windows 7. If you use the nl_windows_7_professional_with_sp1_vl_build_x86_dv d_u_677812.iso as your source and grab the install.wim from that, then please see if you can get yours to match my size when you compile it together.
So what's the problem ISO increased from 2.246 to 2.807GB and that's seems normal. Also everything is "successful". Anyway thanks for the screenshots for new users!
To be fair I like the screenshots too, your final install.wim is about what mine was before compression so it is about spot on. Now only error I can think now is going from your final install.wim into your final ISO... seems odd that yes the size did increase, but when I made those VM shots that is what I got. El Diablo is in your PC mate, condemn it to a fiery hell
@f33nix; ...used ImgBurn to make the ISO (I'm lazy), simular results (size) with eg. oscdimg. I performed this procedure on serveral boxes; different hardware, different OS's. Same result, same issue. - So I can exclude hardware fault and now also human error - Thanks for the conformation (and of course for testing), appreciate it. Read through the threads / posts on a Simplix Pack support forum but that did not help me much solving this issue. *However a.o. I did find out the reasons why a previous live-install on SSD failed* Dropped Simplix (the dev) a PM. Hope his English language skills are better then my Russian. /edit/ @Mr.X - Your previous comment made me think... Everytime I used a copy of Windows 7 SP1 retail or VL Dutch. - Basicly the only common factor. - If I find time I will try some other (language) versions.
I assume your host is Windows 7, as I built the package on Windows 8.1 as I have many times before and yup I was also "lazy" and used ImgBurn to create the bootable ISO... so I think issue must be with host/DISM... and the fact that you had trouble with the live SSD (would be nice to hear what the issue is with this) Given that I used same source files as you used and could build it correctly, then there must be issue with your machine that is causing this. Can you load the SDK for Windows 8.1? Good news! We can rule out human error. I just hate to leave things without knowing the answer as to why it built for me, and for you it seems to build but fails.
I was thinking same probable cause yesterday. At this stage I'm very lean to think the culprit is a host/DISM combination or either one of them, I don't think is your language serviced iso file.
Your thorough analysis of what I've said is impressive . I am happy I am not some Microsoft guy. I believe Windows has some bugs in certain scenarios as we all know from practice, because it is very sensitive OS. It is not perfect as nothing in this world is. At the end, you could try to make some experiments by yourself. Try, for example. SimplixPack on some other computer with Windows 7 system and will see that Pack is OK as it is. Users didn't reported problems of it. If any, problems arise mostly from corrupted DISM or other system files in their Windows's. Users are not corrupting their systems intentionally and that's sort of a bug. Simplix suppose that the source of your problem is eventually "in Windows distributive (ISO or WIM) or your working system" and will look for solution in that direction. OK Thank you and good luck.
@Bytebuster I have never had issues with building updates into Windows 7, and for sure the screenshots were made from the same source files as you... we ruled out user error so this leaves only the issue that the "cooker" (machine) itself is the cause of this one way or another. Perhaps before Simplix get's back to you with an answer, which I think will be same results that I got you could download Windows 8.1 VL install to a real computer (I dare say you have some spare HDD that you can use) and then using this machine to build the package on. Best would be if you can use your usual PC that you try to integrate on to do the Windows 8.1 experiment on. Other way would be to grab the SDK for 8.1 and try to use that, just make sure your computer uses the DISM from that pack and not your Windows 7 one! I did try last night to recover the source file I downloaded, but my computer has overwritten the files already, so that is a no-go... otherwise I was to show you in my pc the build from start to finish. Either way I am "subscribed" to the issue and would like to hear the final results if you can post them up.
Ok, let me explain in more detail because I feel we are running around in circles, lol. Let me start by saying I never had major issues with sysprep / audit either. The source you and I used seems to be identical. nl_windows_7_professional_with_sp1_vl_build_x86_dvd_u_677812.iso, hash verified. ...leaves a possible issue with the 'cooker' (host machine); As mentioned before, I have tried more than one 'cooker' to rule out any possible 'hard- /software issue'. - Real machines, not virtual machines. All host machines run Windows 7 SP1 and are up-to-date. * a desktop computer running Pro (VL), a netbook running Pro (VL) and a desktop computer running Ultimate. - *totally different hardware / specs* In my book this rules out a possible 'hardware issue'. Unless there's some weird problem with DISM, SDK or supplement (mind, on all host machines) it rules out a possible 'software issue' too. Now lets assume for a moment there is no problem with the newly created 'updated Windows 7 ISO'. ...that leaves a possible issue with the 'target' machine, right? I tried more than one 'target' machine to rule out a possible 'hardware issue' - again, real machines not virtual machines. * a desktop and 2 notebooks. - *totally different hardware / specs* Everytime I performed a full install of the 'updated OS' on a clean harddrive / SSD. No matter what 'target' machine I used, the end result is and was exactly the same. Once installed Windows reports approx. 600 installed updates. (includes IE 11). If this was a well known issue Simplix would've known about it. The sole fact Simplix has to put in time and effort to take a deeper look into the issue to determine the origin suggests its not. If some weird Windows 7 DISM, SDK or supplement problem IS the culprit then I guess it's safe to assume loads of peeps running Windows 7 using the Simplix Packs to update their Windows 7 source must be affected. This doesn't appear to be the case. The hard- / software I use(d) is not unique in any way, so yep... I'm puzzeled. I guess you clicked the spoiler in my previous and read the PM. I'm not going to waste Simplix's time on a wild goose chase. Regarding 8.1 - lol, no need to download my friend. Furthermore, I have 4 boxes running 8.1 at my disposal. Yes, I could've used any or all of these machines to apply the Simplix Pack to the source and (re)build the ISO. Up till now I purposely didn't as I wanted to find out where 'things' go wrong (Windows 7) Exclude every possibility. To be honest, I'm running out of ideas. Yes, as stated in my previous I will use a 8.1 machine next as I want to exclude the possibility Windows 7 DISM, SDK or supplement is the culprit. - I will make sure to use the 8.1 SDK. No problem mate, appreciate the thought. Of course, will do - Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your input, appreciate it!