core2usb - USB installer for Windows

[vinnie]

Ok, tested with coreplus and windows7,
It works, I only have a couple of notes:

- I thought that the program pre-format the memmory but it does not (maybe it's better that way)
- If the drive contain a folder named \boot, the program show an error and does not continue
- if the memory is formatted (and empty), the program continues to demand "Target driver is not empty. Do you want to continue?". However it may be that Windows places files in it after it is formatted

[bmarkus]

Thanks for testing.

For safety reasons core2usb doesn't format drive. There are many ways to do that.

Also for safety, program do not overwrites boot or cde directory, you must provide a blank USB. It can be change later of course.

I'm using WINDOWS API riporting full/free capacity and in certain cases It is not the same when drive is empty. I will change it. In beta2 you can ignore message and continue.

[vinnie]

I'm using WINDOWS API riporting full/free capacity and in certain cases It is not the same when drive is empty. I will change it. In beta2 you can ignore message and continue.

in fact I was not blocked by this message, but it might be a bit 'of disorientation.
If you are unable to have a more precise result, you may change the message in "if you are aware that the disk could not be empty, would you continue?"
   

[bmarkus]

I will check files instead of capacity.

[vinnie]

 

[coreplayer2]

so bmarkus, I'm concerned as to what exactly is wrong with Universal-USB-Installer, since I use the tool exclusively, even today many times producing USB's with seemingly fully functioning tc 4.2 installs.  if there is some feature of tc4.2.1 which is not supported I'd kinda like to know what that is I'm  missing please.

Am looking forward to using your installer app too soon

[bmarkus]

so bmarkus, I'm concerned as to what exactly is wrong with Universal-USB-Installer, since I use the tool exclusively, even today many times producing USB's with seemingly fully functioning tc 4.2 installs.  if there is some feature of tc4.2.1 which is not supported I'd kinda like to know what that is I'm  missing please.

Am looking forward to using your installer app too soon

If you are happy with universal installer or any other, just use it. It's a free world.

[vinnie]

@coreplayer2 There is at least one difference, unetbootin encapsulates the boot menu in another submenu, Instead core2usb install natively.
This means that if you use the customizzation "tinycore" you can skip the intermediate step with coreplus (unless you need the wifi)

[bmarkus]

@coreplayer2 There is at least one difference, unetbootin encapsulates the boot menu in another submenu, Instead core2usb install natively.
This means that if you use the customizzation "tinycore" you can skip the intermediate step with coreplus (unless you need the wifi)

Regarding unetbootin, it is adding core.gz and vmlinuz to the USB additionally as ubninit and ubnkern, so you have them twice which is unnecesary. Also, boot doubling bootmenu items. This overhead do not offer any benefit, just wasting storage space.

[bmarkus]

so bmarkus, I'm concerned as to what exactly is wrong with Universal-USB-Installer, since I use the tool exclusively, even today many times producing USB's with seemingly fully functioning tc 4.2 installs.  if there is some feature of tc4.2.1 which is not supported I'd kinda like to know what that is I'm  missing please.

Am looking forward to using your installer app too soon

Universal-USB-Installer

- copies isolinux.bin and isolinux.cfg to the USB but they are not used, as syslinux installed, they are not needed
- original boot config not used but replaced universal's own boot
- overwrites volume label; can't switch off; label is used during boot which is not necessary
- do not handle tce dir, if you want to use created USB stick you must tweak manually after installation

Otherwise nothing wrong.

[coreplayer2]

vinnie  We stopped using unetbootin long time ago...   but differences? what are we comparing it too?

[coreplayer2]

Ah ha!  ok I see now,  I had noticed something amiss with the various copies of syslinux,  not really knowing the difference (other than their usage) between the various versions of syslinux, just looks like all bases are covered is all.
I use the "Unlisted Linux ISO (New Syslinux)" from the selection of distros when installing  core 4.2.

I look at the overwriting of USB label as a positive thing.   looks like the only possible point of interest is the tce directory support, which honestly i don't understand.   I'm thinking we must be talking about a tce dir outside of the normal install?  So it's expected to add a customized tce folder to the USB later right? 

The only operational issue I have with Universal-USB-Installer (AKA Pendrivelinux) is the unusual behavior in which it doesn't always partition and format the thumb drive.  still a minor issue though and one I'm willing to overlook  (maybe it's my fault anyhow..) because of the utilities outstanding ability to produce a reliable and  consistent bootable tc USB thumbdrive .. 

The ability to erase , partition and format would be better.  Is this a feature we can look forward to in core2usb please ?

[bmarkus]

The ability to erase , partition and format would be better.  Is this a feature we can look forward to in core2usb please ?

It is not planned on purpose, at least now. Primary goal is to offer an easy and safe way to start with TC on WINDOWS for newbies. If this goal is erached, maybe an 'advanced' mode can be introduced but not now.

Partioning and formatting can be done with many tools, even with Windows and it is not TC specific.

[bmarkus]

I look at the overwriting of USB label as a positive thing. 

Overwriting volume label is ugly and unpolite, specially when new label is the same for all created drives. It is a kind of free software with commercial ads. Also, reduction of your freedom. And technical wise comletely unnecessary.

Also, why to put a 49k Universal-USB_Installer copyright and another readme file on target disk when installer itself is not copied there? I do not understand.

I hate it.

[Rich]

Hi bmarkus

Overwriting volume label is ugly and unpolite, specially when new label is the same for all created drives.

Agreed.

a 49k Universal-USB_Installer copyright

Wow, at 80 characters per line and 60 lines per page, that's more than 10 pages, seems a bit
excessive.
@coreplayer2:

I look at the overwriting of USB label as a positive thing.

Really? I'm pretty sure that if you had set your machine up to automatically perform certain operations
base on the label of a connected USB device, you would change your mind, especially if you had two
of them plugged in at the same time. Of course you could always switch over to using UUID, but as
bmarkus points out:

Also, reduction of your freedom. And technical wise comletely unnecessary.

Besides, using a UUID is a good way to get people to conform to the way a machine does things,
using a label is a good way to get a machine to conform to the way a person does things.
If something truly requires a UUID,  blkid  is capable of providing that information. It's about choice.