BootSDI vs Wimboot ?, Pros and cons External links Rating Options

[agni]

I am trying to list the pros and cons of two popular RAM image scripts.

This is to help people to choose the correct RAM image script.

BootSDI
2 types of images, Hdd image (255/63) OR Superfloppy image (both is Bootsdi.img , Bootsdi.pln also exists where Hdd image used wink.gif )
2 available ramdrives, 2k3sp1 OR firadisk
2 available compression, cab compression IF 2k3sp1 files used (bootsdi.im_), gzip compression IF firadisk used (bootsdi.igz).

WimBoot
Highly compressed image.Compression ratio more than that of Bootsdi.
Uses WAIK 's drivers to boot a wim image containing Live XP.
UPX does not work in this method.
Uses less RAM when compared to BootSDI.
Wimfilter driver doesn't allow junction to the location the *.wim is mapped to (in this case the System drive X:).
The free space for the system drive in WimBooted NT5 PE is limited to 128MB.

UPDATED with valuable inputs from Lancelot and JFX

[was_JFX]

WimBoot of course it's faster to load and requires lesser RAM

UPX work with WimBoot but (in most cases) it makes no sense to double comrpess a file, it would only cause more RAM usages to use this file later.

Wimfilter driver doesn't allow junction to the location the *.wim is mapped to (in this case the System drive X:).

The free space for the system drive in WimBooted NT5 PE is limited to 128MB.

[was_jaclaz]

Firadisk cannot boot a compressed image.

Since the actual loading is made by grub4dos wouldn't a gzipped image work? (and no, gzip has not a very "tight" compression)

jaclaz

[maanu]

Since the actual loading is made by grub4dos wouldn't a gzipped image work?

jaclaz

yes it works .

[Lancelot]

I am trying to list the pros and cons of two popular RAM image scripts.

This is to help people to choose the correct RAM image script.

BootSDI
Two types of images :- normal image(bootsdi.ima) or compressed image(bootsdi.im_).
Firadisk + Grub4Dos can boot only normal image
Setupldr.bin and ramdisk.sys from Win2003 SP1 required to boot compressed image(compressed using makecab).Firadisk cannot boot a compressed image.

The information at post 1 is wrong, should be fixed.
Two types of images :- normal image(bootsdi.ima) or compressed image(bootsdi.im_).
WRONG (On gui of BootSDI script There is "Image Type", please check)
Firadisk + Grub4Dos can boot only normal image
WRONG
Setupldr.bin and ramdisk.sys from Win2003 SP1 required to boot compressed image(compressed using makecab).
WRONG, there is no relation between 2k3sp1 files and compression
Firadisk cannot boot a compressed image.
WRONG

Simple Correction:
2 types of images, Hdd image (255/63) OR Superfloppy image (both is Bootsdi.img , Bootsdi.pln also exists where Hdd image used )
2 available ramdrives, 2k3sp1 OR firadisk
2 available compression, cab compression IF 2k3sp1 files used (bootsdi.im_), gzip compression IF firadisk used (bootsdi.igz).

[was_JFX]

May some simple notes about the BootSDI.script

Is the firadisk ramboot solution the same as BootSDI
NO

Should firadisk be hidden inside the BootSDI.script
NO

Is the normal user fully confuses about the BootSDI.script
Yes

Should anyone be allow to use the wrod Simply in connection with the BootSDI skript
NO

[Lancelot]

Is the firadisk ramboot solution the same as BootSDI
NO

If you are referring wrong naming (BootSDI), well name was always wrong

Should firadisk be hidden inside the BootSDI.script
NO

and it is not

Is the normal user fully confuses about the BootSDI.script
Yes

At least, normal user should make successfull bootsdi with the default settings There are more things to write which i did not (that would eventually confuse more).

Should anyone be allow to use the wrod Simply in connection with the BootSDI skript
NO

Absolutely NO , I only want to mean "Simple correction" of post 1. (fixed previous post)

btw, do you think to make an adding to bootsdi script about patching 512MB limit

[was_JFX]

btw, do you think to make an adding to bootsdi script about patching 512MB limit

Well thinking yes, but having success no.
But actually no problem a good working WoW64 is definitely small enough for 512MB limit

[Lancelot]

But actually no problem a good working WoW64 is definitely small enough for 512MB limit

sorry for my bad english,
do you mean: now you have wow64 working
do you mean: when wow64 works 512MB limit will be small
do you mean: Even when wow64 works, 512MB limit will be mostly enough

[was_JFX]

Think the first meaning fit's the best