My experience: With SWM, it has to copy the parts first (as it doesn't know if all are immediately available). That's the stage where, in the Vista CD version, you got to do a lot of CD changes. Then, it will extract. Due to large RAM amounts, the delay might be less noticeable on modern machines. ESD and WIM usually extract directly from source.
I dont know if what you posted is original because i was focusing on retail usb only. I have only photos from retail. I dont even have files i have photos of some1 who bought this stick half a year ago. This is 100% confirmed official retail image because i saw video of him unboxing and then plugging and checking folders so its retail because i had exact same usb as him just 1607 version.
The pictures you've shown are from the sources folder from (probably) the x64 folder of the USB (if they are even taken from an original USB), file dates are missing too. This is the full content of the x86/x64 ISO (the previous post of the content was x64 only, i noticed):
Yes thats right, the files are from x64 and i looked at what type of install(esd/wim/swm) is there especially as other files are probably the same other than then 1 hidden ive had on my usb that says redmond with some adress. I dont even know what version this is i just have photos... I guess boot.wim is the same as we can find in msdn iso of that version thats how i would track what version that is.
What is the build of the OS on the USB from which your evidence comes? That's the really interesting info, what build does MSFT sell on USB from their stores?
The usb gets updated all the time on their official sticks. I had 1607 and this build i have no idea i just have photos. Like i said i would track version after boot.wim size in msdn iso's. It was bought half a year ago so probably 1809-1909 range. On my 1607 stick the install.wim sha-1 was the same as msdn install.wim sha-1 even tho usb looked like created in mct both option. Thats why i would look for msdn iso comparison.
I have those files burried somewhere as i removed write protection and deleted files from my retail usb. But if you download Win10_1607_Polish_x64.iso and copy install.wim out and check sha-1 with 7zip then itll be exactly the same as it was on my retail usb. I suspect if sha-1 is the same then those 2 wim files have the same skus and stuff.
So, all info you provide is not really factual as it come to the details, i can download any mvs iso and post the info, and still it can't be verified to your minimal info.
Here is the proof that i actually got this box. I just want to know how later versions look like. I removed write protection from my usb so cant test in details but i checked sha-1 of install.wim and it was exact same as msdn 1607 iso. The point is to get attention of people that own later versions and are willing to upload to compare to actual msdn and mct images.
Description: [D:]Urządzenie pamięci masowej USB(KDI-MSFT Windows 10) Device Type: Mass Storage Device Protocal Version: USB 2.10 <- Hint: This device can run faster when plugged to a USB3.0 port Current Speed: High Speed Max Current: 300mA USB Device ID: VID = 0951 PID = 16AA Serial Number: 001A92053F4DB131D274C1C9 Device Vendor: KDI-MSFT Device Name: Windows 10 Device Revision: 0110 Manufacturer: KDI-MSFT Product Model: Windows 10 Product Revision: PMAP Controller Vendor: Phison Controller Part-Number: PS2251-07(PS2307) - F/W 08.01.50 [2017-01-17] Flash ID code: AD3A18030050 - Hynix [TLC]
I'll compare photos that i got with en-us iso's and then by boot.wim size itll be easiest to tell what version was presented there.
The install.wim (from the evidence you showed is at least not 1809 (17763.1) Home Only x64 en-US, because that would be under 4GB, no need to split the install.wim. All first publicly released stuff: Code: Name: install_x64_Home_17763.1.wim (later doomed to be non existent, according to the official re-release build 17763.107) Size: 3672576308 bytes (3502 MiB) 17763.107 Install.wim Home x64: Code: Name: install_x64_Home_17763.107.wim Size: 3875331612 bytes (3695 MiB) 1903 install.wim (Home x64 only) also is under 4GB: Code: Name: install_x64_Home_18362.30.wim Size: 3684977839 bytes (3514 MiB) 1909 (18363.418) install.wim (Home x64 only) also is under 4GB: Code: Name: install_x64_Home_18363.418.wim Size: 3977073052 bytes (3792 MiB) 2004 / 20H1 (19041.264) install.wim (Home x64 only) also is under 4GB: Code: Name: install_x64_Home_19041.264.wim Size: 3920301801 bytes (3738 MiB) 2009 / 20H2 (19042.572) install.wim (Home x64 only) is over 4GB: Code: Name: install_x64_19042.572_Home.wim Size: 4622561640 bytes (4408 MiB) Explorer: 4,30 GB (4.622.565.376 bytes) Only the 19042.572 Home only x64 install.wim would need either compressing to install.esd or splitting into 2 separate install.swm files (but that will be bigger then shown on the evidential content pictures, that would be a 4.15GB wim when merged). I know @BAU uses the bulldozer approach, but he seems to have hit a nerve though