Trouble with unattended installation of W11 24H2 [Solved?]

tired-it

tired-it

Member
Messages
190
Reaction score
19
Feels like every couple of months I am having to figure out why a Windows ISO decides to break its own legs during install. For months I have been using monthly updated 23H2 ISOs to customize and test things out on a few PCs. I decided to try out 24H2 because it will be necessary this year for my workplace.

Copied the same stuff I used for 23H2 over to the new ISO. Settings, registry files, post-setup, unattended, etc. My previous 23H2 ISOs were fully automated. Boot into a Rufus created flash drive and walk away.

Now 24H2 asks if I have an activation key. Annoying, but it can be bypassed by clicking on "I don't have a key." I'd like to know why that section of the unattended file is no longer working.

Everything else seems to proceed fine. Progress hits 100%; some cleanup annnd a Windows has failed to install error pops up. I wondered if the new setup had anything to do with it.

I integrated Garlin's registry file into the boot.wim and tried again. I was greeted with the classic OOBE. Setup still asked for a key; bypassed it and continued. 100% once again, but then Windows failed to install. I am unsure on what I may need to modify on the unattended file to fix this error.

Edit: Attempted one more time to get better wording on the error. Windows will say "The installation was cancelled" with a popup from Windows Setup saying "Windows could not update the computer's boot configuration., Installation cannot proceed."
 
Last edited:
Hi,

that is not normal, please attach or send me your preset to see that installation failed error.
Make sure NTLite alone is the culprit and then send me the preset with which you confirmed it.
You can also spin up a VM to test it, to not bother reinstalling the real machine.

If I don't replicate it, I'll need a log file, so make sure not to delete/overwrite the VM after it fails, just pause/suspend it.

Thank you.
 
The shortest unattended file which avoids the product key "nag":
Code: 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<unattend xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:unattend">
        <settings pass="windowsPE">
                <component name="Microsoft-Windows-Setup" processorArchitecture="amd64" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35" language="neutral" versionScope="nonSxS" xmlns:wcm="http://schemas.microsoft.com/WMIConfig/2002/State" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
                        <UserData>
                                <ProductKey>
                                        <Key></Key>
                                </ProductKey>
                        </UserData>
                </component>
        </settings>
</unattend>
 
It does that already.

You won't believe it but it depends on the edition.
In Enterprise vs Pro it's vice-versa.

Who stated that it doesn't work with 24H2 as is? I would like to test that image.
 
garlin said:
The shortest unattended file which avoids the product key "nag":
Code: 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<unattend xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:unattend">
        <settings pass="windowsPE">
                <component name="Microsoft-Windows-Setup" processorArchitecture="amd64" publicKeyToken="31bf3856ad364e35" language="neutral" versionScope="nonSxS" xmlns:wcm="http://schemas.microsoft.com/WMIConfig/2002/State" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
                        <UserData>
                                <ProductKey>
                                        <Key></Key>
                                </ProductKey>
                        </UserData>
                </component>
        </settings>
</unattend>
Click to expand...
Interesting, I've always had [KEY] entered and the UI to Show on Error in order to avoid issues with that screen. Removing [KEY] and the Show on Error settings fixed it for me. Never had to change that before.
 
nuhi said:
Hi,

that is not normal, please attach or send me your preset to see that installation failed error.
Make sure NTLite alone is the culprit and then send me the preset with which you confirmed it.
You can also spin up a VM to test it, to not bother reinstalling the real machine.

If I don't replicate it, I'll need a log file, so make sure not to delete/overwrite the VM after it fails, just pause/suspend it.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I'm going to attempt to replicate the error and DM you the details. That okay?
 
As a quick aside, nuhi, I noticed that NTLite wants to install an update that I presume is superseded by an already installed update. For context, I have a 24H2 ISO from UUPDump with the latest updates (from the site) integrated. I left the ISO creation script alone aside from toggling one option to avoid installing UWP apps.

NTLite recognizes cumulative update KB5052093 as installed with a version number of 26100.3321.1.14. There is a SSU update (KB5052915) , .NET update (KB5049622), and CU Checkpoint update (KB5043080, superseded) listed as installed under the existing packages panel.

However, when I use NTLite to check for the latest updates, it recognizes the CU Checkpoint and the .NET updates, but not the normal cumulative update. NTLite proposes installing KB5051987 (with the CU Checkpoint as a requirement) with version number 26100.3194.1.13 instead. Looking at the version numbers and the dates when the updates came out, shouldn't the UUPDump update take precedence? Is there something that I am missing?
 
The KB5052093 is on the Release Preview channel, NTLite probably indicates the update for the "retail" (public) version
 
tistou77 said:
The KB5052093 is on the Release Preview channel, NTLite probably indicates the update for the "retail" (public) version
Click to expand...
Yeah. The UUPDump site added the March Preview Update it seems. I thought that would supersede the usual monthly update, but it seems I'm wrong.
 
tired-it said:
However, when I use NTLite to check for the latest updates, it recognizes the CU Checkpoint and the .NET updates, but not the normal cumulative update. NTLite proposes installing KB5051987 (with the CU Checkpoint as a requirement) with version number 26100.3194.1.13 instead. Looking at the version numbers and the dates when the updates came out, shouldn't the UUPDump update take precedence? Is there something that I am missing?
Click to expand...
Updates Downloader only displays a list of currently suggested KB's (as provided by nuhi).

It doesn't actually take into account what patch level exists on the loaded image. What NTLite could do is to "grey out" a suggested CU whenever that CU's patch level is below your current version.
 
garlin said:
Updates Downloader only displays a list of currently suggested KB's (as provided by nuhi).

It doesn't actually take into account what patch level exists on the loaded image. What NTLite could do is to "grey out" a suggested CU whenever that CU's patch level is below your current version.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good idea. If I wasn't paying attention to the patch version, I might have wasted time installing an unnecessary patch.
 
Just adding an update here. I'm not sure how the issue was resolved. I chalk it up to something going wrong during the initial ISO creation. I redownloaded an ISO, redid everything step-by-step and tried to narrow down the list of potential causes. I settled on letting UUPDump integrate the monthly updates for now.

In the end, 24H2 booted and installed without issue. Somehow, I could not replicate the issue. I'll take it as a win for now, but I'll carefully note any changes going forward.
 
tired-it said:
NTLite recognizes cumulative update KB5052093 as installed with a version number of 26100.3321.1.14. There is a SSU update (KB5052915) , .NET update (KB5049622), and CU Checkpoint update (KB5043080, superseded) listed as installed under the existing packages panel.
Click to expand...
As I'm beginning to understand, KB5043080 is not a normal SSU/CU. It is a "checkpoint", so therefore it is like a prerequisite checkpoint to be able to install all/any SSU/CUs beyond [ September 10, 2024 ] . Prior to [ v2024.10.10089 ] , it would silently fail to integrate, or integrate, but fail to register as having been installed.

If you integrated KB5043080 into W11 24H2 with NTLite versions prior to [ v2024.10.10089 ], the resulting target system would fail to apply/integrate SSU/CUs beyond [ KB5043080 / September 10, 2024 ] until KB5043080 is force-reinstalled manually with DISM (the .msu cannot be installed with Windows Update). The following work-around can help you with maintaining those images/installed systems; but one should rebuild your image with the latest NTLite versions v2025+

Bash: 
B:\> more KB5043080.bat
@echo on
REM $Id$
dism /online /Add-Package /PackagePath:%~dp0\windows11.0-kb5043080-x64_953449672073f8fb99b.msu
pause

1747310445456.png
 
Last edited:
Yes, the KB5043080 (.1742) is a checkpoint and necessary to install the CUs afterward
And it's always better to use the latest version of NTLite for optimum compatibility

ISO after .1742 are good too (they already include this checkpoint)
 
bseklecki_ge said:
As I'm beginning to understand, KB5043080 is not a normal SSU/CU. It is a "checkpoint", so therefore it is like a prerequisite checkpoint to be able to install all/any SSU/CUs beyond [ September 10, 2024 ] . Prior to [ v2024.10.10089 ] , it would silently fail to integrate, or integrate, but fail to register as having been installed.
Click to expand...
KB5043080 is the current 24H2 Checkpoint. It's not clear how often Checkpoints will be released. Any CU past the last Checkpoint is a Delta Update. To save space (or really network bandwidth), the Delta's are just diff's to the Checkpoint base package.

They don't work without the corresponding Checkpoint. At some point, the cycle will reset with a new Checkpoint.

bseklecki_ge said:
If you integrated KB5043080 into W11 24H2 with NTLite versions prior to [ v2024.10.10089 ], the resulting target system would fail to apply/integrate SSU/CUs beyond [ KB5043080 / September 10, 2024 ] until KB5043080 is force-reinstalled manually with DISM (the .msu cannot be installed with Windows Update). The following work-around can help you with maintaining those images/installed systems; but one should rebuild your image with the latest NTLite versions v2025+
Click to expand...
There's a known problem when applying CU's before Dec 2024, would result in an install image which cannot be updated.
MS never released a fix, other than basically telling you to start over with Dec 2024 CU's or later.

Issues might occur with media which installs the October or November update
When using media to install Windows 11, version 24H2, the device might remain in a state where it cannot accept further Windows security updates. This occurs only when the media is created to include the October 2024, or November 2024, security updates as part of the installation (these updates were released between October 8, 2024 and November 12, 2024).

Please note, this only occurs when utilizing media - such as CD and USB flash drives - to install Windows 11, version 24H2. This issue does not occur for devices where the October 2024 security update or the November 2024 security updates are installed via Windows Update or the Microsoft Update Catalog website.

Resolution: To prevent this issue, do not install Windows 11, version 24H2 using media that installs the October 2024 or November 2024 security updates. If a device becomes unable to receive further updates as a result of this issue, it can be remediated by re-installing Windows 11, versions 24H2, using media which instead includes the December 2024 monthly security update (released December 10, 2024), or later.

Affected platforms:

Client: Windows 11, version 24H2
Server: None
Click to expand...
 
Thanks; and it is totally understandable to have some pain associated with the new model. Especially considering how large the recent SSU/CUs for 24H2 are.

Thanks for your diligence on this!

Has anyone else noticed that [ May 13, 2025—KB5058411 (OS Build 26100.4061) ] SSU+CU for 24H2 is now 3.1 GB for Win11 ( 4.2 GB for Server 2022.)

(April 8 2025 was only 1.2 GB, more in line with linear growth pattern)

Almost as if Microsoft predicted the non-linear growth pattern, and, in-advance, implemented the Checkpoint system.

( A 4.2GB CU is approaching the size of a standard non-desktop-experience Sever2022 OS image (ISO, OVA) optimized for deployment in a cloud VM environment )

~BAS
 
Last edited:
bseklecki_ge said:
Thanks; and it is totally understandable to have some paint associated with the new model.

Thanks for your diligence on this.

Has anyone else noticed that [ May 13, 2025—KB5058411 (OS Build 26100.4061) ] SSU+CU for 24H2 is now 3.1 GB for Win11 ( 4.2 GB for Server 2022.)

(April 8 2025 was only 1.2 GB, more in line with linear growth pattern)


~BAS
Click to expand...
Yes, they added tons of MSIX (app) files in the update.
Probably the new Copilot Rewind feature, by the looks of it.
 
bseklecki_ge said:
Has anyone else noticed that [ May 13, 2025—KB5058411 (OS Build 26100.4061) ] SSU+CU for 24H2 is now 3.1 GB for Win11 ( 4.2 GB for Server 2022.)

(April 8 2025 was only 1.2 GB, more in line with linear growth pattern)


~BAS
Click to expand...
CUs now integrate Apps (recall and AI among others)
But for NPU PC only
 
Yes, but we were talking about the added msix files, independent of the CU itself
Like the SSU, which are "separate"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top