The Oven

Project World => Win10XPE HomePage => Topic started by: Techman92 on March 18, 2020, 08:18:55 PM

Title: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: Techman92 on March 18, 2020, 08:18:55 PM

Just wanted to talk about the two. XPE is easier to build but I will say that I have noticed that XPE builds will NOT boot on every machine I try it in (yes I am aware of secure boot and MBR UEFI differences). I have tried XPE builds with 1909 and 1809 with same results. Is it the way the builder is building? To be honest, PESE was and still is more stable. Boots every machine I try it on. What is it that I am missing here? I like to build with XPE but the instability of XPE forces me to use PESE.

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: James on March 18, 2020, 08:38:41 PM

Considering the Author of Both Projects is the same and they use the same Boot Files & Boot Method...
Not sure what else to consider as why it does not Boot for you - other them method used to Create USB Media...

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: Techman92 on March 19, 2020, 01:57:05 PM

I use Rufus to make the media the same way anything else.

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: James on March 19, 2020, 03:22:48 PM

There have been Several Reports of Rufus failing to Boot a Legacy System when Using NTFS Partition Format
UEFI System do not seem to be effected.... And you only reported "will NOT boot on every machine"

Insert Win10XPE Media
Open Command Prompt (admin) > Type

Code: [Select]

DiskPart
List volume
Select volume X （where X is the USB volume drive number)
List Partition

Post a Screenshot of command windows

To Fix - Do Not use Rufus...
The following Setup assumes a USB Flash Drive with enough space to create a 8GB Fat32 Partition & the Remainder of space as NTFS Partition

Code: [Select]

DiskPart
List volume
Select volume X （where X is the USB drive letter.)
Clean
Create partition primary size=8192
Format FS=FAT32 quick
Active
Create partition primary
Format FS=NTFS quick
Exit

Use Copy/Paste to copy the contents of Mounted Win10XPE*.iso to the Fat32 Partition

But use what ever Project works best for you.... As the Choice is Yours

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: Techman92 on March 19, 2020, 05:01:33 PM

Awesome! I love diskpart!  Thank you very much.  I was trying to boot all UEFI.

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: Techman92 on March 19, 2020, 05:41:51 PM

Just curious, why is it that we are making an 8GB FAT32 part and a NTFS part? Im noticing while booted in PE it just shows a empty NTFS part. Is that used for anything?

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: James on March 19, 2020, 06:01:51 PM

Most People are flagging the second partition - to be used with files larger then 4GB - although not required.....

Also Note: if testing UEFI PC Systems the Source OS has to be x64
As Booting x86 UEFI is not supported on Most to all PC's

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: darjeeling on April 25, 2020, 04:46:59 AM

Hello,
I am in Legacy Boot CSM and RUFUS always posed me problems whereas with UltraISO I flash WinXPE directly and without difficulty.

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: muggles on April 28, 2020, 08:41:29 PM

If anyone is interested, I've created an x86 Video driver cab for use with DriverSod by repacking the x86 GFX PE drivers created by Sergei Strelec that can be found here:

Code: [Select]

http://forum.ru-board.com/topic.cgi?forum=62&topic=24098&start=71&limit=1&m=1#1

The file can be downloaded from Mega at the below link should anyone be interested. The file size is 167.4 MB:

Code: [Select]

https://mega.nz/file/uUYlAa7b#MXQJgrjhKy3GltqiJHDf13XMCdq969ze5A2JOO9SAPY

Below is a list (txt file) of the 2700+ supported devices:

Title: Re: Win10XPE vs. Win10PESE
Post by: APT on April 29, 2020, 12:34:13 AM

Hi muggles

not one for me personally, but I'm sure they will be of interest to many, so many thanks for sharing your efforts

regards APT