I think i found a way to pass between Pre-Reset To Post-Reset Without doing a clean install if my memory dosen't fial me it's to run the installer on compatibility mode(a.k.a=windows xp mode) and this should let you upgrade(I haven't been able to try this) But i know this method watching the comment section of a youtuber called NTDev
@SomeGuy - would it be possible to replace the x64/amd64fre 5112 ISO with the official MS ISO distributed to attendees of PDC 2005 as part of "The Goods" package? The one hosted on this site is bogus as it appears to be a poorly-repacked ISO; likely comes from some random unknown group.
MS ISOs in this specific time period are actually fingerprinted. There is no UUIDREF present in the ISO header (the official MS ISOs were copied from the winbuilds share by the REDMOND\JAIMER domain account (via the JAIMERSVR machine), and the CRC32 is not equivalent to FFFFFFFF (something only observed in unmodified, official MS ISOs if the -xx parameter is passed to cdimage). Adding insult to injury (not related to the aforementioned fingerprinting here), the file timestamps are inconsistent (everything is set to 22/07/2005 at 7:00:00 PM UTC, about three hours off from the file contents of the real burnlab media; although the official media was in fact generated at 7 PM sharp).
side note: I'd thought I'd let you know that the ISO included as part of your x86 upload is also legit (uuidref exists, crc matches, etc.), although it's a different copy because someone else on corpnet pulled it from the share. I'll check if the ISOs for both 5219 and 5270 are legit as well when I've got the opportunity later on.
There were a number of folks appropriating the beta builds. While you can make the argument that in this case an ISO exists that CRCs to ffffffff, that isn't true for all of MS images - or burned media for that matter.
Not going to argue - but am saying that a blanket statement is not possible for what came out of Redmond.
Side note: several of the items here first originated from betaarchive. They are not holy men in long robes - regardless of the ritualistic demeanor presented on their site.
Comments
TCP8W-T8PQJ-WWRRH-QH76C-99FBW
TGX39-HB48W-R29DH-6BVKB-3XFDW
MS ISOs in this specific time period are actually fingerprinted. There is no UUIDREF present in the ISO header (the official MS ISOs were copied from the winbuilds share by the REDMOND\JAIMER domain account (via the JAIMERSVR machine), and the CRC32 is not equivalent to FFFFFFFF (something only observed in unmodified, official MS ISOs if the -xx parameter is passed to cdimage). Adding insult to injury (not related to the aforementioned fingerprinting here), the file timestamps are inconsistent (everything is set to 22/07/2005 at 7:00:00 PM UTC, about three hours off from the file contents of the real burnlab media; although the official media was in fact generated at 7 PM sharp).
This sort of mechanism was a thing between early Whistler dev through some unknown post-reset Vista build, although probably before Beta 2; see https://betawiki.net/wiki/Leak_prevention_in_Microsoft_Windows for additional context.
Here's a link to the actual original MS ISO if you're interested:
https://archive.org/download/pdc05-the-goods/PDC05DISC1.iso/Windows Vista Beta1 ISO Images/lh_usa_5112.050720-1600_x64fre_pro-dvd.iso
side note: I'd thought I'd let you know that the ISO included as part of your x86 upload is also legit (uuidref exists, crc matches, etc.), although it's a different copy because someone else on corpnet pulled it from the share. I'll check if the ISOs for both 5219 and 5270 are legit as well when I've got the opportunity later on.
^^^-----I noted that upload. Interesting.
There were a number of folks appropriating the beta builds. While you can make the argument that in this case an ISO exists that CRCs to ffffffff, that isn't true for all of MS images - or burned media for that matter.
Not going to argue - but am saying that a blanket statement is not possible for what came out of Redmond.
Side note: several of the items here first originated from betaarchive. They are not holy men in long robes - regardless of the ritualistic demeanor presented on their site.