I am debating whether to revert back to CDShell V2.0.11 (the version used in UBCD V3.2) for the next version of UBCD. The reason why I am considering is because there is a problem with CDShell V2.1.6 which prevents it from booting on some machines. The author knows about it and has encountered it himself, but there is no newer version to fix it yet, nor are any definite schedule to do so.

But going back would mean big changes again to the menu files (mainly the syntax for bcdw booting and parameter passing), as well as the loss of certain functions (booting of certain ISO images from diskemu).

I am taking a poll. Do you have enough problems with UBCD V3.3 that you think I should go back to CDShell V2.0.11 for the next version of UBCD? Or do you think I should stick with CDShell V2.1.6? Let me know.

So looks like the poll overwhelmingly supports continue using the new version of CDShell for the next release of UBCD.

Thanks for all who participated in the poll!

Can the older, more compatible version be customized into the CD?

Not without some non-trivial change, since there are quite a number of big changes between the old and new versions.

The "overwhelming" support it's only from 6 users.

--sadyc

Ha ha! But in terms of ratio, it's 8 to 1!

The thing is that UBCD has a lot more users, and statistics done on such a small number of "test subjects" have a huge error margin, which makes them useless.

--sadyc

You are right. Tell you what, I will set up another poll when UBCD V3.4 is
released, and invite users to tell us whether UBCD works with their system. The
poll should be very simple, like:

Does UBCD work with my system:
+ Yes
+ No

Users can also post messages in the same forum topic detailing what went wrong.

Hopefully, if this is sent out with the release alert, more users will pay
attention and participate in the poll.

Another point is not to ask about the CDShell version, which many people may not
understand what it is about, but just take a poll on the success rate of UBCD V3.4.

What do you think?

It's better yes, and hopefully it will be more useful.
It will have even more coverage if it would be on the main webpage, eventually not requiring the user to have a forum account..
(But this will take time to implement, i guess..)

--sadyc

Unless anonymous posting is enabled, it is not possible to respond to polls
anonymously too. Is it advisable to enable anonymous posting? I was afraid it
would lead to a lot of spam, like last time when we enabled it for the SF
mailing lists. The spam went away very quickly after I disabled anonymous
posting for the mailing lists.

@Victor,
I haven't noticed these booting errors when I used UBCD 3.3 - I used it in many machines.
The booting should work on all machines but going back to old version isn't a good idea.
What says CDShell author?

From couple of months I use my modification of CDShell (I've used version from UBCD 3.3 as a base for modifications and mainly I've integrated the new isolinux and memdisk modules (I don't remember if I did something more)).
It works for me without problems.
If you want it I can send it to you, so you can check if there are still the booting errors.

The CDShell author knows of this issue i.e. booting errors on certain machines.
In fact, he told us he personally encountered it once. But I guess he's
currently too busy to work on it?

I'm hoping for maximum compatibility on the next version. What's the upside to the new version of CD Shell?

We will continue to use CDShell V2.1.6 for the next release (UBCD V3.4), instead of reverting back to CDShell V2.0.16.

CDShell V2.1.x supports a number of additional features and changes, including the ability to boot certain ISO images via diskemu (which UBCD uses for some apps).

Check out:

http://www.cdshell.org/download/changes.html

for a full list of changes from V2.0.x to V2.1.x.

Which ISOs does UBCD currently use so I can use those as examples?

Take a look at grub.iso in filesys.scn, and offline.iso in filesys2.scn.