The following KB appear in my WU after integrating solor.x64 24.10 to an offline image and then a clean install of windows. 2446710 2539635 2536275 2556532 2570947 2515325 2541014 2545698 2547666 (hi ricktendo) Is this normal? I went to check the file versions one at a time and found them to be the latest version. I don't know. Would like double confirmation. Also, mind clarifying one thing again, which I don't fully get, is it a good idea to integrate LDR placeholder? Is this integrated last? Is it necessary? Is it possibly harmful? harmless?
LDR placeholders are only required if you integrate only regular GDR hotfixes.If you force integration of LDR hotfixes (for example into an offline image) then it is not nessesary to integrate LDR placeholders.
I see LDR and GDR fixes in the same root directory. What do you mean by "force integration of LDR hotfixes"? I integrate KB9x hotfixes first and then KB2x hotfixes and then the same thing for subdirectories inside root. In a way, a modification of solor's update.cmd. I've been integrating both GDR and LDR hotfixes I think and after that LDR placeholders... there potential problem here?
It's also possible to integrate old WU settings file into a new image so a lot of stuff will be hidden regardless what you have integrated. The file im speaking of is %windir%\SoftwareDistribution\DataStore\DataStore.edb The folder structure for WU does not exist in an offline image so you have to manually create the nessesary SoftwareDistribution and DataStore folders and place DataStore.edb there. After install WU should respect your previous settings for hidden stuff and append any changes to this file.Mine was 40MB when i integrated it.Now it's near 60MB.
Because we want to force install the LDR branch (this is the only way to do that), we dont want to wait for the next SP to have all the fixes BTW burf's script is a little faster than SoLoR's because dism needs time to start up, if you are doing this for each and every hotfix instead of doing them in batch the time will add up considerably...and its pretty easy to add the other mum file to the install script of SoLoR's bat (so WU wont show the hotfixes)
Hi ricktendo64, I'm making an unattended ISO using "Autounattend.xml" and "Setupcomplete.cmd". I do NOT slipstream updates and hotfixes into WIM image and also do NOT use Solor's and burfadel's scripts for offline installation but instead copy Solor's files to folder "USB drive\Updates" and install them one-by-one through "Setupcomplete.cmd". Now my questions are: 1. Can you explain in layman's terms what you mean in quote above? What is the reason to put files in LDR placeholders? 2. Do I need to include files from "LDR placeholders"? E.g., the last time I used these files, I saw two instances of KB2496290 in Solor's pack - one (*KB2496290-x64.msu) in "LDR placeholders", the other one (*KB2496290-v2-x64.msu) at the root of Solor's pack. My understanding is v2 supersedes the one at "LDR placeholders". Can you confirm? Thank you!
Thank you, Rick! From what I understand, I should be able to force LDR version (6.1.7601.21810) over GDR version (6.1.7601.17684) IF I maintain the following order of installation in "SetupComplete.cmd". Is that correct?: Code: ... ... start /wait wusa.exe %CDROM%\Updates\Windows6.1-KB2496290-x64.msu /quiet /norestart start /wait wusa.exe %CDROM%\Updates\Windows6.1-KB2496290-v2-x64.msu /quiet /norestart ... ... shutdown /r Also, quoting Solor's words from his hotfix website "LDR only hotfixes that are there only to bump component in to LDR branch", and talking about "SetupComplete.cmd", does it make sense if I list files from "LDR placeholders" in higher install order followed by the rest of files from the root of Solor's package?!? The reason I'm asking is that I do NOT want to use the script since I integrate updates with "SetupComplete.cmd" which - as you can see - installs all MSUs from a single folder (USB drive\Updates) and doesn't care about folder structures as Solor's batch script. Btw, muchas gracias for your prompt reply!!!
So Rick, if I understand correctly When integrating to an offline image, i should first integrate solor's root (GDR+LDR), and then LDR placeholder. What happens is, if there's a newer version of a file in LDR placeholder, it will integrate and if LDR placeholder file is older, it will skip, right? Such as... since KB2496290-v2-x64 was integrated already, KB2496290-x64 will be ignored and not integrated. Is this correct?
I think (but have never really tested) if you integrate the GDR+LDR first of course the GDR will be used, but if you add the superseded LDR only hotfix it should replace the GDR binary with the latest LDR file it finds in winsxs (again let me specify I have not tested this but will do and report later)
Do any updates speed up transfer times from computer to external hard drives? Before I had to re-install windows, I was getting about 29MB/s, after the re-install, I'm getting 9MB/s transfer speeds.
There's no clear guideline for integration so forgive me if I'm repeating.. For offline images, is it correct to integrate solor's root folder (which seem to comprise of GDR+LDR mixed together)? KB9* first, then KB2* of root folder and then subsequent folders -- such as LDR placeholder. Do you see any potential problem? I'll also help test by first integrating a superseeded hotfix and then an older one. Wonder what happens. I think it's better if someone experienced do so though as I might report incorrect results some how.
After the reinstall, are you meaning just plain Windows 7 with no updates? SP1 or RTM? There are a few updates that do help with USB performance. Around 30MB/s or so is about maximum speed for a USB 2.0 port without other devices on the same hub, due to USB 2.0 being uni-directional. If you run other devices off the same hub the maximum bandwidth is further reduced. The 480Mbps (60 MB/s) is misleading since all transfers with USB 2.0 requires the switching between sending the data, and receiving the response etc, which is why you lose that massive amount of bandwidth. Just for info: In contrast USB 3.0 is bi-directional, requiring the use of only USB 3.0 devices on the hub, and all USB 3.0 devices on that hub using USB 3.0 cables. Using USB 2.0 cables will slow the hub to USB 2.0 speeds. Likewise using old USB 1.0 and 1.1 devices on a USB 2.0 hub will slow all devices off that hub to 1.1 speeds. *By hub, I refer to the internal hubs of the computer as well. Often the USB ports share a controller, even if there are controllers available, since its cheaper to make the board this way.
Are you sure you installed all the right drivers? Or are you just depending on Windows 7's default included drivers?