Why dism.exe in Windows 7 SP1 RTM is still SP0 (6.1.7600.16385)

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by dvda2k, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. dvda2k

    dvda2k MDL Novice

    Jul 23, 2008
    12
    0
    0
    The dism.exe in install.wim from wzor's leaked win-7-with-sp1-iso is still 6.1.7600.16385. It means you get the same old dism.exe with SP1 installed.

    But the dism.exe in the iso's \sources folder is an updated 6.1.7601.17514.

    Why not put this one into the install.wim? Isn't it strange?
     
  2. tcntad

    tcntad MDL Guru

    Oct 26, 2009
    4,100
    1,302
    150
    Beacuse the leaked iso's may not be the absolute final we will see on MSDN/Technet and buy in stores..

    It is indeed SP1 RTM but not "final" perhaps.
     
  3. Stannieman

    Stannieman MDL Guru

    Sep 4, 2009
    2,232
    1,800
    90
    I opened up the new dism with a hex editor and it's not that different to the oroginal one, so I don't think it has new functionality or fixes.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. dvda2k

    dvda2k MDL Novice

    Jul 23, 2008
    12
    0
    0
    It this is not normal, then this could be an evidence for either:

    1. The leaked one is not final RTM; or
    2. Microsoft made a small negligence.
     
  5. Stannieman

    Stannieman MDL Guru

    Sep 4, 2009
    2,232
    1,800
    90
    The leaked iso is rtm in that respect that the files are all sp1 rtm files, but it's probably not what they'll press on discs and put on technet.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. Brainsuck

    Brainsuck MDL Addicted

    Oct 9, 2009
    666
    156
    30
    If not broke don't fix it
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. dvda2k

    dvda2k MDL Novice

    Jul 23, 2008
    12
    0
    0
    I just check into the WinRE. Interestingly, the dism.exe in winRE.wim extacted from install.wim is the newer 6.1.7601.17514.

    So with the leaked W7 w/SP1 installed, you got the same old dism.exe. But if you press F8 getting into WinRE, you got the newer one. What can I say.
     
  8. Stannieman

    Stannieman MDL Guru

    Sep 4, 2009
    2,232
    1,800
    90
    Microsoft made a new winRE.wim and boot.wim, I suppose this wim files are exactly the ones as they are going to use in official iso's. Only sp1 is integrated into install.wim rather than that it's a complete new build.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. Enigma256

    Enigma256 MDL Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2011
    354
    300
    10
    This isn't unusual or unheard of. Same thing happened w/ XP SP2 and SP3, where there were some new files that were not included in the final, official SP. If nothing changed between the old DISM and the "new" DISM except for the build string, then the mistake is that Microsoft accidentally let the "new" one out when it did not intend to. MSFT isn't going to rebuild hundreds of ISOs over this (different ╬╝archs, different languages, different editions, and also the checked/free variants of each of those).
     
  10. chris.b

    chris.b MDL Novice

    Feb 11, 2008
    24
    0
    0
    Maybe they are already build but not leaked?
    There are some bits in this image I have only seen in beta stuff and upwards - over all the BVT Build Version Teststring in the Registry is weird. If this image was shipped to OEMs then MS did not do their job very well. And btw we roll out Windows 7 PCs still without SP1 in our shop, so at least here in germany nothing was shipped to oems till now. But we never got new releases so early here.
     
  11. urie

    urie Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 21, 2007
    8,709
    3,066
    300
    Yes and exactly the same if you slipstream SP1 (MICROSOFT.WINDOWS.7.SERVICE.PACK-1.RTM.X86.WAVE1.RIP.DVD-WZ.ZUKO) i,e, windows6.1-KB976932-X86.exe mount the install.wim then browse to mount directory \ windows\ system32 dism.exe is 6.1.7600.16385.

    There is no way M$ would release these as final SP1 RTM. No more downloads for me until official announcement from M$ :(
     
  12. tommy_vercetti

    tommy_vercetti MDL Member

    Apr 3, 2008
    151
    15
    10
    Same here
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. FukenGruven

    FukenGruven MDL Member

    Jan 9, 2011
    108
    22
    10

    Be careful who you say that to, there are people in here who will bite your head off if you question WZor.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. tcntad

    tcntad MDL Guru

    Oct 26, 2009
    4,100
    1,302
    150
    I have to agree.. I will wait until SP1 ISO's are released on msdn/technet instead.

    The leaked isos may be SP1 but theyre not final.
     
  15. Enigma256

    Enigma256 MDL Senior Member

    Jan 17, 2011
    354
    300
    10
    #15 Enigma256, Jan 26, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2011
    I guess you never noticed that mismatches like this has happened in official, final, TechNet-posted ISOs before?

    The explanation is pretty simple, actually. Whip out your favorite x86 disassembler and disassemble both the 7600 DISM and 7601 DISM binaries, and you'll see that there's no sustantive difference in them. The only differences are those arising from a recompilation: different build numbers, slight shift in some addresses, nothing substantial--i.e., nothing that would alter the behavior or functionality of DISM. This means that dism.exe was not changed between SP0 and SP1.

    This explains why you still have the 7600 DISM in the integrated SP1 install.wim image and why the update EXE did not update the 7600 DISM: DISM was not supposed to be a part of SP1 and was never supposed to be updated by SP1 because DISM was not changed for SP1. But then why is there a "newer" DISM in the sources folder? Because in the automated build process, EVERY file is built/compiled. So somewhere in Redmond is a 17514 build of every single file in Windows, even those that are not updated by and a part of the SP. But only those files that were actually changed are included in the SP. It's not hard, then, to imagine a small mistake in which the 17514 DISM made it onto the install DVD.

    And you know what? Things like this have happened before. Heck, I can even name one incident off the top of my head: ntdll.dll in the XP discs. It's nothing extraordinary. Nothing to get excited over. And definitely not something that would indicate that there is something "wrong" with these discs or with SP1.
     
  16. woebetide

    woebetide MDL Member

    May 28, 2007
    240
    78
    10
    As Enigma256 wrote "Nothing to get excited over"!
     
  17. FreeStyler

    FreeStyler MDL Guru

    Jun 23, 2007
    3,503
    3,614
    120
    To that persons I would like to say, watch out... as this time there are mods involved :D

    FYI, i have download both x86 and X64 version but i guess i hold off intalling it on a physical system (only on Virtual Box for the time being)
     
  18. dvda2k

    dvda2k MDL Novice

    Jul 23, 2008
    12
    0
    0
    Thank you for all the information. That clarified a lot of things.

    So given current evidence, I believe the leaked iso:

    1. is an authentic copy from microsoft
    2. providing wzor's history, very likely is final, unless ms says something different
    3. no hard evidence found yet proving "2" false
     
  19. yumeyao

    yumeyao MDL Novice

    Jan 29, 2011
    6
    4
    0
    Yes, things like this happend more than once before.
    I have been playing XP for years and I could approve it.


    But i just have several more questions concerning it's windows 7:
    What's the version number of dism.exe.mui?
    What's the version number of dism.exe and dism.exe.mui in Windows\WinSxS?

    Can anyone help confirm these? Thanks in advance.
     
  20. burfadel

    burfadel MDL EXE>MSP/CAB

    Aug 19, 2009
    2,628
    3,842
    90
    Its seems there are several files that install as 7600.16385 and not 7601.17514. Another example is usbport.sys amongst others. This is a file that had a hotfix to the RTM, and has a 7601.17514 version, but when installed the SP or installed the ISO, both install the 7600.16385 version! (and this is by no means the only file where this is the case)... Files that needed changing, no matter how small the change, got the 7601.17514 build number, unchanged files are either not included in the SP or retain the 7600.16385 version numbering, as they do on the ISO.

    So, the question is, why the different versions? I agree it makes little sense, and if it indeed needed some files changed why weren't they included?...