ISO file size discussion

I still had to do all the updates with W.U. to get the PCs to work correctly, a bunch of downloads of the same damn updates.. 😜

Hi fg,

What a pain in the ***!

I'm about to do my first in-place update with 3rd party ISO, I'll keep you posted.

Hi Sibro,

Do you or any other users in these forums have any contact with the guys at github that could clarify what is going on?

This is really getting crazy. I used the latest script 78r from here to build last 22581 ISO and it is missing all the good stuff again. That script is from 16 days ago. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

WHD/scripts at master · abbodi1406/WHD · GitHub

Do you or any other users in these forums have any contact with the guys at github that could clarify what is going on?

This is really getting crazy. I used the latest script 78r from here to build last 22581 ISO and it is missing all the good stuff again. That script is from 16 days ago. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

WHD/scripts at master · abbodi1406/WHD · GitHub

MS will definitively lose many testers if they have to start paying for extra net usage.

Sorry, IDK anybody there, I don't even know how to use the script. 🤣

Maybe Johnny does.

The bad news for me: the Raspberry is no longer allowed to join the WIP, down to a single compliant device.😒

Do you or any other users in these forums have any contact with the guys at github that could clarify what is going on?

This is really getting crazy. I used the latest script 78r from here to build last 22581 ISO and it is missing all the good stuff again. That script is from 16 days ago. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

WHD/scripts at master · abbodi1406/WHD · GitHub

MS will definitively lose many testers if they have to start paying for extra net usage.

Sorry, IDK anybody there, I don't even know how to use the script. 🤣

Maybe Johnny does.

The bad news for me: the Raspberry is no longer allowed to join the WIP, down to a single compliant device.😒

They are the same scripts they use when downloading from UUP-dump, which fail the same way.

Clearly, they are not good anymore for Ni Builds.

I'm still up and running with 22581 also on 2 red zone boxes, had to use W.U. on those too, with a couple of tricks to get over the error they get for missing the requirements. 🙃

The one updated with W.U. shows the correct level of SecHealthUI at 22581, the one that was updated with Home made ISO still shows the old one from 22579.

The machine that was updated with ISO also has the W.U. loop with the error we have seen previously 0Xc1900401, that even if the update/upgrade with ISO was done online letting it check for updates.

Luckily, I didn't get the loop (579 to 581 w/ 3rd party ISO & refused updates)

SecHealthUI same as yours

Lost TaskbarX again! 🤬

Lost Windows Background Spotlight as well, default picture only.

The one updated with W.U. shows the correct level of SecHealthUI at 22581, the one that was updated with Home made ISO still shows the old one from 22579.

The machine that was updated with ISO also has the W.U. loop with the error we have seen previously 0Xc1900401, that even if the update/upgrade with ISO was done online letting it check for updates.

Luckily, I didn't get the loop (579 to 581 w/ 3rd party ISO & refused updates)

SecHealthUI same as yours

Lost TaskbarX again! 🤬

Lost Windows Background Spotlight as well, default picture only.

That loop on W.U. even happened to me with the official MS ISO 22579, that bug is really inconsistent.

As for the SecHealthUI being the old one from 22579 just confirms that basic stuff is missing on those non official ISOs. 😒