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

[tired-it]

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."

 

[nuhi]

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.

 

[garlin]

The shortest unattended file which avoids the product key "nag":

<?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>

 

[nuhi]

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.

 

[tired-it]

The shortest unattended file which avoids the product key "nag":

<?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>

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.

 

[tired-it]

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.

I'm going to attempt to replicate the error and DM you the details. That okay?

 

[tired-it]

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?

 

[tistou77]

The KB5052093 is on the Release Preview channel, NTLite probably indicates the update for the "retail" (public) version

 

[tired-it]

The KB5052093 is on the Release Preview channel, NTLite probably indicates the update for the "retail" (public) version

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.

 

[garlin]

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?

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.

 

[tired-it]

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.

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.

 

[tired-it]

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.