Hancock’s VMware Half Hour
The Home of Hancock’s VMware Half Hour
My You Channel is here – https://www.youtube.com/@einsteinagogo
You can find me here on
The Home of Hancock’s VMware Half Hour
September 3rd, 2024Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: A Forensic Comparison of Six CD Masterings
September 19th, 2026
Same music. Different masterings. Real differences.
Why this album matters to me
Brothers in Arms is one of my favourite albums, and it was also one of the first albums I owned on Compact Disc when it was released in 1985.
I was also lucky enough to see Dire Straits when they toured Brothers in Arms in 1985. I went with some school friends, along with my father and one of his friends. One of those school friends still blames that concert for his hearing problems now, at 58 — we were right down the front, very close to the speaker stack, and it was loud!
I still have the ticket stub from that concert, along with the stickers that were given away at the time. I even stuck the stickers to my school calculator, which somehow survived all these years.
So Brothers in Arms isn’t simply another album in my collection; it’s tied to some very specific memories from 1985.
My father was also a big fan of Brothers in Arms. After he died, I remember walking through Bridgend High Street in South Wales, when a busker suddenly started playing “Brothers in Arms”. Hearing that song unexpectedly, at that particular moment, was one of those experiences that stays with you.
My father always told me that he wanted “Brothers in Arms” played at his funeral, and in September 2023, at his funeral, it was played as the last song as we left the service at the crematorium.
Even now, hearing Track 9 can bring a tear to my eye.
After all these years, the album has become connected not only with memories of being young and buying one of my first CDs, but also with the memory of my father.
Fast-forward nearly forty years and I found myself looking at the album from a rather different perspective:
How different are all those CD versions actually from one another?
There are numerous editions of Brothers in Arms, and audiophile discussions often describe them in terms such as “warm”, “bright”, “dynamic”, “compressed” or “better sounding”.
Rather than relying on descriptions, I wanted to find out what the digital audio actually shows.
So I collected six different stereo CD editions, ripped them accurately, and started comparing the actual samples.
The results turned out to be considerably more interesting than I expected.
The six editions
For this investigation I examined six physical editions:
| Year | Edition | Mastering / identification |
|---|---|---|
| 1985 | Original CD, Matrix 06 | John Dent |
| 1985 | Original CD, Matrix 12 | Bob Ludwig |
| 1996 | SBM Remaster | Bob Ludwig |
| 2000 | XRCD2 | Hiromichi Takiguchi |
| 2005 | 20th Anniversary Hybrid SACD | Bob Ludwig |
| 2025 | 40th Anniversary Edition | Miles Showell |
The chronological order is important because these aren’t simply six different pressings of the same mastering.
The two 1985 discs require particularly careful investigation, while the later editions clearly represent different mastering generations.
And this wasn’t an investigation based solely on files found online.
I photographed and scanned the actual physical discs and packaging used in the investigation, including catalogue numbers, matrix information and mastering credits where visible.
That physical evidence became particularly important when comparing the original 1985 discs.
How I approached the investigation
I wanted to avoid the usual problem with CD comparisons where somebody simply loads six files into an audio editor, adjusts the volume until they sound similar, and then declares one “better”.
Instead, I treated the discs as forensic evidence.
Each disc was:
- ripped using Exact Audio Copy
- checked against AccurateRip
- checked using the CueTools Database where available
- retained as lossless FLAC
- analysed at the sample level
- compared for peak levels
- compared for RMS level
- compared for crest factor
- examined spectrally
- checked for channel orientation
- checked for sample offsets
- compared directly at the waveform/sample level
This allowed me to distinguish between differences caused simply by level, differences caused by timing or offsets, and genuine changes to the audio samples.
1985 – John Dent – Matrix 06
The first disc is the original 1985 pressing identified by its matrix.
Catalogue: 824 499-2
Matrix: 824 499-2 06 #
The booklet credits:
Mastered by John Dent at The Sound Clinic, London
The rip was verified successfully with AccurateRip and CTDB.
All nine tracks were accurately ripped with no errors.
Peak levels
| Track | Peak |
|---|---|
| So Far Away | 100.0% |
| Money for Nothing | 100.0% |
| Walk of Life | 56.3% |
| Your Latest Trick | 41.6% |
| Why Worry | 22.7% |
| Ride Across the River | 72.6% |
| The Man’s Too Strong | 69.1% |
| One World | 89.6% |
| Brothers in Arms | 56.5% |
The median RMS level was approximately –25.54 dBFS, with a median crest factor of approximately 22.33 dB.
This is a remarkably dynamic presentation by modern CD standards.
The disc contains only a handful of exact full-scale samples. Tracks 1 and 2 contain full-scale samples; the remaining tracks do not.
1985 – Bob Ludwig – Matrix 12
The second original CD is also catalogue number 824 499-2, but it has a different matrix:
Matrix: 824 499-2 12 #
The disc is identified as Made in West Germany by PDO Hanover.
The important point here is that this is a different physical pressing from the Matrix 06 disc.
The rip was again fully verified.
All nine tracks were accurately ripped.
Peak levels
| Track | Peak |
|---|---|
| So Far Away | 79.4% |
| Money for Nothing | 79.4% |
| Walk of Life | 44.7% |
| Your Latest Trick | 33.0% |
| Why Worry | 18.0% |
| Ride Across the River | 57.6% |
| The Man’s Too Strong | 54.9% |
| One World | 71.1% |
| Brothers in Arms | 44.9% |
The median RMS level is approximately –27.73 dBFS, with a median crest factor of approximately 22.52 dB.
At first glance, therefore, Matrix 12 simply looks like a quieter version of Matrix 06.
But that turns out to be only part of the story.
The first surprise: Matrix 06 and Matrix 12
This was where the investigation became much more interesting.
If the two 1985 discs were genuinely completely independent digital masterings, we would expect substantially more differences than simply a change in level.
Instead, the digital data shows an extraordinarily close relationship.
After:
- reversing the left and right channels
- applying approximately –2 dB of gain
- allowing for track-specific sample offsets
- accounting for 16-bit requantisation
the majority of the tracks essentially reproduce one another.
For Tracks 1, 2 and 4–9, the correlation is extraordinarily high and the residual difference is generally down around the –60 to -70 dB region.
In practical terms, after the transformation, the samples reproduce to within approximately ±1 LSB.
That is an extremely strong relationship.
It means that the two discs cannot sensibly be described as completely unrelated digital masterings.
But there is an important qualification.
They aren’t completely identical either.
The “Walk of Life” exception
Track 3, “Walk of Life”, contains two localised areas where the relationship breaks down.
The differences occur approximately around:
- 3:06.55–3:06.75
- 3:09.83–3:10.10
Both channels are affected.
Importantly, the differences cannot simply be explained by another small timing offset.
The difference energy is concentrated around roughly the 330–400 Hz region.
Outside these areas, the two versions return to their extraordinarily close relationship.
This is why I think the safest conclusion is:
Matrix 06 and Matrix 12 are two separately identified 1985 mastering/pressing variants, but their digital programs are extraordinarily closely related.
They should not be described as completely bit-identical.
At the same time, it would also be misleading to describe them as completely unrelated masterings.
The sample-level evidence is much more interesting than either of those simple explanations.
A particularly interesting detail: sample offsets
The comparison also revealed that the tracks aren’t necessarily aligned at exactly the same sample position.
For example, several tracks exhibit an offset of approximately 367 samples, while others have different offsets.
The measured offsets included:
| Track | Offset |
|---|---|
| 1 | 367 |
| 2 | 367 |
| 3 | 367 |
| 4 | 367 |
| 5 | 367 |
| 6 | 3307 |
| 7 | 1543 |
| 8 | 2131 |
| 9 | 3307 |
Once those offsets are taken into account, the underlying relationship becomes remarkably clear.
This is a good example of why simply comparing waveforms visually isn’t enough.
Two identical audio programmes can look completely different in an editor if one has been shifted by even a single sample.
1996 – SBM Remaster
The next major version is the 1996 SBM remaster.
This is a different mastering generation from the original 1985 discs.
It was mastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway and uses Sony’s Super Bit Mapping process.
The digital measurements show a substantial increase in level compared with both original 1985 versions.
Peak levels
| Track | Peak |
|---|---|
| So Far Away | 97.7% |
| Money for Nothing | 97.7% |
| Walk of Life | 97.7% |
| Your Latest Trick | 100.0% |
| Why Worry | 70.7% |
| Ride Across the River | 100.0% |
| The Man’s Too Strong | 97.7% |
| One World | 97.7% |
| Brothers in Arms | 97.7% |
The median RMS level is approximately –18.18 dBFS, while the median crest factor is approximately 18.18 dB.
This is substantially less dynamic than either of the original 1985 versions.
There are also exact full-scale samples on Tracks 4 and 6.
2000 – XRCD2
Then we reach the particularly interesting 2000 XRCD2.
This is the Japanese-made XRCD2 edition released for the Hong Kong market.
Catalogue: 5483572
Barcode: 731454835725
Format: XRCD2 / 20-bit K2
Mastering engineer: Hiromichi Takiguchi
Disc matrix: 5483572 2T
The disc itself identifies Universal Music Ltd., Hong Kong and Made in Japan, and carries the XRCD2/K2 information.
The physical disc therefore provides useful evidence that this is a distinct release rather than simply another European pressing.
The rip was again accurately verified.
All nine tracks were successfully ripped with no errors.
Peak levels
| Track | Peak |
|---|---|
| So Far Away | 100.0% |
| Money for Nothing | 100.0% |
| Walk of Life | 100.0% |
| Your Latest Trick | 100.0% |
| Why Worry | 79.2% |
| Ride Across the River | 100.0% |
| The Man’s Too Strong | 100.0% |
| One World | 100.0% |
| Brothers in Arms | 100.0% |
The median RMS level is approximately –15.45 dBFS.
The median crest factor is also approximately 15.45 dB.
This represents a very substantial increase in average level compared with the original 1985 CDs.
The XRCD’s full-scale samples
One of the things I specifically investigated on the XRCD was exactly what those 100% peak readings meant at the sample level.
The results are interesting.
There are exact full-scale samples at both ends of the 16-bit range on most tracks.
For example:
| Track | -32768 samples | +32767 samples |
|---|---|---|
| So Far Away | 769 | 131 |
| Money for Nothing | 1,402 | 573 |
| Walk of Life | 382 | 278 |
| Your Latest Trick | 27 | 38 |
| Why Worry | 0 | 0 |
| Ride Across the River | 297 | 171 |
| The Man’s Too Strong | 523 | 465 |
| One World | 674 | 666 |
| Brothers in Arms | 150 | 204 |
The longest consecutive runs reach several samples on some tracks.
For example, Money for Nothing contains a run of five consecutive samples at full scale.
This establishes something more precise than simply saying “the XRCD is loud”.
There are actual samples sitting exactly at the limits of the 16-bit PCM representation.
I don’t want to overstate what that means, however.
The sample data demonstrates exact full-scale sample behaviour and peak limiting/clipping-like behaviour. It does not, by itself, prove a particular clipping algorithm or analogue/digital processing chain.
The actual samples are the evidence; the explanation needs to remain appropriately cautious.
2005 – 20th Anniversary Hybrid SACD
The 2005 20th Anniversary Edition is another significant change.
This is a hybrid SACD release containing:
- SACD stereo
- SACD surround
- CD Audio
The edition uses the new 5.1 mix prepared by Chuck Ainlay, with mastering by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering & DVD, Maine.
For this investigation I analysed the CD layer, rather than treating the SACD layer as though it were the same digital source.
CD-layer measurements
The peak is approximately 98.8% on every track.
The median RMS level is approximately:
-12.84 dBFS
The median crest factor is approximately:
12.74 dB
This is the most compressed/loudest of the six editions by these particular measurements.
The difference compared with the original 1985 discs is substantial.
The 2005 CD layer is approximately 15 dB higher in median RMS level than the 1985 Bob Ludwig Matrix 12 disc.
That is a huge difference in digital level and dynamics.
2025 – 40th Anniversary Edition
The final edition in the comparison is the 2025 40th Anniversary Edition.
The set contains three discs, including the San Antonio Live in ’85 material, with the first disc containing the Brothers in Arms album.
Catalogue: 7565089
The 2025 edition is interesting because it does not simply continue the trend established by the 2005 edition.
Its measurements are:
Peak levels
Approximately 89.1% on most tracks, with Track 5 at approximately 86.0%.
The median RMS level is approximately:
-16.36 dBFS
The median crest factor is approximately:
15.36 dB
So the 2025 edition is considerably quieter than the 2005 CD layer.
It nevertheless remains significantly louder than the original 1985 discs.
This makes the 2025 mastering an interesting middle ground in the overall history of the CD versions.
The numbers side by side
Putting all six editions together makes the progression much easier to see.
| Edition | Median RMS | Median Crest |
|---|---|---|
| 1985 John Dent – Matrix 06 | -25.54 dBFS | 22.33 dB |
| 1985 Bob Ludwig – Matrix 12 | -27.73 dBFS | 22.52 dB |
| 1996 SBM | -18.18 dBFS | 18.18 dB |
| 2000 XRCD2 | -15.45 dBFS | 15.45 dB |
| 2005 20th Anniversary | -12.84 dBFS | 12.74 dB |
| 2025 40th Anniversary | -16.36 dBFS | 15.36 dB |
This table tells a very clear story.
The original 1985 discs have the highest crest factors and the lowest average digital levels.
The 1996 edition moves substantially towards higher average level.
The 2000 XRCD2 goes further.
The 2005 CD layer goes further still.
The 2025 edition moves back down again, although it remains considerably above the original 1985 level.
What about the peak levels?
Peak percentage alone doesn’t tell the whole story.
A track can have a 100% sample but still have a relatively low RMS level.
Conversely, an aggressively processed recording can have a peak below 100% while still having very little dynamic range.
That is why I have looked at both peak level and RMS/crest measurements.
For example, the 1985 John Dent disc contains 100% peaks on Tracks 1 and 2, but its average level remains extremely low.
The 2005 edition, by contrast, has peaks around 98.8% throughout while having a dramatically higher average level.
So “100% peak” does not automatically mean “compressed”.
The relationship between peak and average level is much more informative.
Spectral analysis
The next stage was to look at the frequency content.
This is where things get particularly useful because a level difference can be removed mathematically.
For the spectral comparison, the tracks were level-matched before examining their frequency distribution.
The aim wasn’t to create a prettier graph.
The aim was to ask:
Once volume is taken out of the equation, are the tonal balances actually different?
The answer is yes — but the size and character of the differences vary substantially between editions.
The original 1985 versions are particularly close to one another.
The later editions show much more substantial differences once level is normalised.
“Walk of Life” – the track that gave me the biggest clue
“Walk of Life” is Track 3, and it became the most interesting track in the entire investigation.
At first, the Matrix 06 and Matrix 12 versions appear to be almost identical after the appropriate channel and level corrections.
The correlation is extraordinarily high.
But when the actual residual is examined rather than simply looking at the correlation coefficient, two small sections stand out.
These occur around:
3:06.55–3:06.75
and
3:09.83–3:10.10
The differences occur in both channels.
There is no simple additional timing offset that makes them disappear.
This is important because it means the discrepancy isn’t simply an alignment problem.
Most of the track behaves as though it has come from essentially the same digital programme.
These small areas do not.
That is exactly the sort of thing that can disappear completely if the analysis is limited to listening tests or a basic “are the files identical?” comparison.
Why the sample-level comparison matters
One of the things I wanted to establish with this project was that mastering comparisons don’t have to remain subjective.
Words such as:
- warm
- bright
- analogue
- harsh
- smooth
- punchy
- compressed
can be useful descriptions of listening impressions.
But they don’t tell us what actually happened to the samples.
With sample-level analysis we can ask much more precise questions:
- Are the channels reversed?
- Is one version simply quieter?
- Is there a fixed sample offset?
- Are the samples mathematically related?
- Is there a change in the waveform?
- Is the difference localised?
- Are there full-scale samples?
- How much does the RMS level change?
- How much does the crest factor change?
- Does the spectrum change after level matching?
That is the approach I wanted to take here.
Physical discs still matter
One of the most enjoyable parts of this project has been going back to the actual discs.
It’s very easy when discussing CD masterings online to end up talking about catalogue numbers and matrix numbers as though they are abstract database entries.
They aren’t.
They are physical objects.
The Matrix 06 disc is an actual 1985 pressing.
The Matrix 12 disc is another physical pressing.
The XRCD has its own catalogue number, physical matrix and Japanese manufacturing information.
The 2005 edition is physically identifiable as the hybrid SACD release.
The 2025 edition is physically identifiable as the new 40th Anniversary set.
Photographing the actual discs gives the analysis a much stronger foundation.
It means the audio files can be tied back to something physically identifiable.
The 1985 discs are the real rabbit hole
The most interesting result of the entire investigation isn’t actually which edition is “best”.
It is the relationship between the two original 1985 discs.
The Matrix 06 and Matrix 12 discs are labelled and documented differently, and yet the digital audio is extraordinarily closely related.
After accounting for:
- channel reversal
- approximately 2 dB of level
- sample offsets
- 16-bit requantisation
most of the album effectively falls back into place.
That is a much more interesting result than simply finding two CDs that sound similar.
And then there is Walk of Life.
Those two localised differences prevent the easy conclusion that the discs are simply identical data with a different level.
There is something genuinely different there.
A note about the 1996 SBM
The 1996 edition represents a very different point in the story.
The average level rises substantially compared with both 1985 discs.
The crest factor falls.
The peak levels approach full scale throughout most of the album.
This doesn’t mean the 1996 edition is necessarily “bad”.
It simply means that the mastering has different technical characteristics from the original 1985 discs.
That distinction is important.
The purpose of this investigation is not to turn measurements into a subjective ranking.
It is to document what actually changed.
A note about the XRCD
The XRCD is particularly interesting because it combines a different mastering identity with a very different production philosophy.
It was mastered by Hiromichi Takiguchi, using JVC’s XRCD/K2 process.
The physical disc identifies it as an XRCD2 release, catalogue 5483572, made in Japan for the Hong Kong market.
Digitally, it sits much closer to the later high-level masterings than to the original 1985 discs in terms of RMS and crest factor.
The exact full-scale sample counts are also notable.
Whether someone likes the resulting sound is a separate question.
What can be stated objectively is that the PCM data contains many exact full-scale samples and has a substantially higher average level than either 1985 disc.
The 2005 edition
The 2005 20th Anniversary edition represents another major step in the mastering history.
It is also important not to confuse the various layers and mixes.
The release contains a new 5.1 mix by Chuck Ainlay.
The CD layer analysed here is not simply interchangeable with the original 1985 stereo CD.
Technically, its measured dynamics are the most restricted of the six editions examined.
With a median RMS of approximately –12.84 dBFS and a median crest factor of approximately 12.74 dB, it is considerably denser than the original CDs.
Again, that is a measurement rather than a judgement.
The 2025 40th Anniversary edition
The 2025 release provides an interesting counterpoint.
Despite being a modern anniversary edition, its measured dynamics are not as restricted as the 2005 CD layer.
Its median RMS is approximately –16.36 dBFS.
Its median crest factor is approximately 15.36 dB.
That places it between the original 1985 discs and the 1996/2000/2005 editions in terms of average level.
It therefore doesn’t fit a simple narrative of “each new edition got progressively louder”.
The history is more complicated than that.
What I think the measurements actually tell us
After working through the six discs, several things are clear.
1. The two 1985 editions are exceptionally dynamic
Both original discs have much lower RMS levels and higher crest factors than the later editions.
2. Matrix 06 and Matrix 12 are extraordinarily closely related
Their digital programmes show an extremely strong mathematical relationship after channel reversal, level correction and sample alignment.
3. They aren’t completely identical
The localised differences in “Walk of Life” mean that the two discs should not simply be described as bit-identical masterings.
4. The 1996 edition is substantially louder
Its RMS level is considerably higher and its crest factor lower than either 1985 edition.
5. The XRCD is louder still
The 2000 XRCD2 has a median RMS of approximately -15.45 dBFS and contains numerous exact full-scale samples.
6. The 2005 CD layer is the densest of the six
It has the highest average level and lowest median crest factor in this comparison.
7. The 2025 edition moves away from the 2005 level
Its average level is lower and its crest factor higher than the 2005 CD layer, although it remains considerably above the original 1985 discs.
So which one is “best”?
That wasn’t actually the question I set out to answer.
And I don’t think a collection of measurements can tell somebody which version they should enjoy.
What the measurements can tell us is what is physically and digitally different.
If someone prefers the original 1985 presentation, the measurements provide a strong technical explanation for why it behaves differently from the later releases.
If someone prefers the XRCD, the data doesn’t invalidate that preference.
If somebody prefers the 2005 version, the measurements don’t tell them that they shouldn’t.
The interesting part is that we can now separate what the disc actually contains from descriptions based purely on reputation.
The mastering timeline
The six discs provide a fascinating snapshot of the changing approach to Brothers in Arms over four decades:
1985
Original CD mastering variants, including the John Dent Matrix 06 and Bob Ludwig Matrix 12 discs.
1996
SBM remaster, again associated with Bob Ludwig.
2000
XRCD2 edition, mastered by Hiromichi Takiguchi using JVC’s K2/XRCD process.
2005
20th Anniversary hybrid SACD, including the new 5.1 mix by Chuck Ainlay and Bob Ludwig mastering.
2025
40th Anniversary edition, representing another modern mastering of the album.
The physical discs tell the release history.
The audio samples tell the mastering history.
And when the two are considered together, the story becomes much more interesting.
Methodology
All analysis was performed from actual lossless CD rips of the physical editions examined.
The basic process was:
- Rip each disc using Exact Audio Copy.
- Verify the rip with AccurateRip.
- Check CTDB where available.
- Retain the audio as lossless FLAC.
- Measure track peak levels.
- Calculate RMS levels.
- Calculate crest factors.
- Check for exact full-scale samples.
- Align tracks before sample-level comparison.
- Test channel orientation.
- Test gain relationships.
- Search for sample offsets.
- Calculate correlation and residual error.
- Examine localised waveform differences.
- Perform spectral comparisons using level-matched audio.
- Compare the results against the physical disc evidence.
The intention throughout was to make the analysis reproducible and to avoid making claims that go beyond what the samples demonstrate.
Final thoughts
When I started this project, I expected to find some differences between different CD editions of Brothers in Arms.
I didn’t expect to end up investigating individual samples separated by a few hundredths of a second.
The most fascinating result for me isn’t simply that later editions became louder.
It’s the discovery that the two original 1985 discs — despite being separately identified as Matrix 06 and Matrix 12 — are astonishingly closely related at the digital level.
And then, right in the middle of Walk of Life, there are those small areas where the relationship breaks down.
That is exactly the sort of thing that makes this kind of investigation worthwhile.
After nearly forty years of listening to this album, I thought I knew it pretty well.
It turns out there was still quite a lot hiding in the samples.
And perhaps that’s the fitting thing about Brothers in Arms.
For me, it started as one of the first CDs I owned in 1985. It was part of a concert I went to with my father and school friends. It became connected with memories of my father, with that busker in Bridgend, and ultimately with his funeral.
Now, nearly forty years later, I’m listening to it again — but this time I’m listening to the numbers as well as the music.
Same album. Different masterings. Real differences.
And sometimes, the differences are only a few samples long.
CDs Still Wanted for Analysis
I think I’ve picked six different Brothers in Arms pressings over the last 40 years that are particularly significant, and they’ve given me a fascinating cross-section of how the album has been mastered and reissued.
But there are still a couple I’d really like to obtain and analyse.
If you have either of the following editions, I’d be very interested in hearing from you:
- 2013 Mobile Fidelity SACD
- 2014 SHM-SACD
I’d particularly like to analyse the actual audio alongside photographs of the physical disc and its matrix information. That way I can establish exactly which mastering is present and compare it with the six editions documented here.
So, if you’ve got one of these sitting on your shelf and would be willing to help, please get in touch. I’d love to add the results to this investigation.
And finally…
If you really want to know which one I think is the best, you’ll have to ask me.
After all, I’ve spent the last 40 years collecting them, ripping them, comparing them and, in some cases, analysing them down to the individual sample.
I definitely have a personal favourite.
But that’s another discussion…
For Dad.
Automating Windows 2000 Professional in VirtualBox with PowerShell
August 31st, 2026
26 years after its release, Windows 2000 Professional still has a place in testing, legacy support, and retro-computing labs — but building a VM for it by hand, every single time, gets old fast. In my latest video, “HOWTO VirtualBox: How to Automate the Creation of an Appliance File,” I walk through a PowerShell script that does the whole job unattended: create the VM, install Windows 2000 Pro with zero clicking through Setup, power it off automatically, and export the finished appliance as a portable .ova file.
This was originally written as an answer to an Experts Exchange question, and it’s part of the Hancock’s VMware Half Hour series — which has expanded beyond core vSphere content into related virtualization tooling like this.
Here’s the write-up, including a couple of the gotchas that tripped the script up along the way.
Why Automate This?
A VirtualBox appliance file (.ova) packages a fully configured VM — OS, disk, settings, all of it — into a single portable file you can import anywhere. Building one by hand through the GUI is fine once. Needing a fresh Windows 2000 Pro VM repeatedly for a lab or test environment is a different story, and that’s where scripting the whole pipeline with VBoxManage.exe through PowerShell pays off.
The Twist With Windows 2000
Windows 2000 predates the autounattend.xml mechanism that later Windows versions use, so the assumption going in was that VBoxManage unattended install — the built-in facility that auto-generates a Windows answer file — wouldn’t support it, and that a hand-built winnt.sif + floppy would be needed instead.
Turns out that’s not the case. VBoxManage unattended install does support Windows 2000 — it builds its own answer file, auxiliary ISO, and floppy internally, no manual winnt.sif or floppy-writing tool required. That’s the route this script uses.
What the Script Does
At a high level, Deploy-Win2kProVM.ps1 handles the whole pipeline in one run:
- Prompts for a VM name and cleans up any existing VM with that name.
- Creates a new VirtualBox VM (
Windows2000guest type, PIIX4 IDE controller, 1 CPU — matches what this OS actually needs). - Creates and attaches a virtual hard disk.
- Kicks off
VBoxManage unattended installpointed at a standard Windows 2000 Pro install ISO — VBoxManage handles the answer file, auxiliary ISO, and floppy itself, and installs Guest Additions in the same pass. - Polls the VM’s state until it powers itself off.
- Exports the finished VM to a
.ovaappliance file.
The full script is available on GitHub: [link to your GitHub repo]
Gotchas Worth Knowing About Before You Run This
A few things that came up while getting this working, in case they save you the same troubleshooting:
- Flag names for
unattended installare strict and easy to get wrong. It’s--key, not--product-key. It’s--user-password(or--admin-password, depending on the account type), not--password. VBoxManage errors out immediately with an “Unknown option” message if you get these wrong — worth double-checking againstVBoxManage unattended install --helpfor your installed version. - Windows 2000 needs
1 CPUand--ioapic off. This matches a manually-built VM confirmed to install and boot reliably — modern virtual chipset defaults can trip up an OS this old. - Setup won’t shut down on its own. Without a shutdown command, the VM finishes install and just sits at the desktop, so the polling loop in the script would wait forever. The fix is VBoxManage’s own
--post-install-command="shutdown -s -t 0"flag, which runs inside the guest automatically once Setup completes (via the Guest Additions execution channel — hence--install-additionsneeds to run first). - Downloaded scripts get blocked by Windows. If you see “not digitally signed” when running the
.ps1file, it’s the Mark of the Web from a browser download. Fix it with:
powershell
Unblock-File -Path '.\Deploy-Win2kProVM.ps1'- A genuine product key is required. There’s no way around supplying a real one in the unattended install parameters.
What You End Up With
Run the script, type a VM name, and walk away — no manual clicking through Setup, no hand-built floppy images. A few minutes later, you’ve got a fully installed, Guest-Additions-equipped Windows 2000 Professional VM exported as a ready-to-share .ova.
That exported file also becomes a reusable template — importing it for a fresh copy is far faster than rerunning the whole install.
Watch the Full Video
This post covers the highlights, but the video walks through the whole process live — including the actual errors we hit and fixed along the way. Check it out here: https://youtu.be/Nz2vhgU01qM
If you’ve automated your own VirtualBox workflows, I’d love to hear how — drop a comment on the video or below!
Fleetwood Mac: What’s the Difference Between These Two Compact Discs?
August 26th, 2026
The Two CDs
The 1994 West German Target CD
The first CD is the West German Target pressing.
The most immediately noticeable feature is the black spine, along with the distinctive Target-style disc design associated with these early CD releases.
The disc contains the original 11-track album:
-
- Monday Morning
- Warm Ways
- Blue Letter
- Rhiannon
- Over My Head
- Crystal
- Say You Love Me
- Landslide
- World Turning
- Sugar Daddy
- I’m So Afraid
The disc was manufactured in West Germany and is one of the early Target-style compact discs associated with the original CD era.
There is something rather special about these early Target CDs. They belong to the first generation of commercially produced CDs and have become collectible in their own right.
But I wasn’t interested in the Target CD simply because it looks good.
I wanted to know how it sounds.
The 2004 Edition
The second disc is the 2004 remastered and expanded edition.
And immediately there is another obvious physical difference.
The spine is clear rather than black.
But the differences go much further than that.
The 2004 edition contains 16 tracks, rather than the original 11.
The five additional recordings are:
- Jam, No. 2
- Say You Love Me
- Rhiannon (Will You Ever Win)
- Over My Head
- Blue Letter
So before we even listen to the two CDs, we already know that the 2004 edition is more than a simple reissue.
It is an expanded and remastered edition.
But what happened to the original 11 tracks?
Let’s Rip the CDs
Rather than relying on my ears alone, I wanted to make this as objective as possible.
Both CDs were ripped using Exact Audio Copy (EAC), using secure extraction, and saved as lossless FLAC files.
The EAC results were then checked against AccurateRip and the CUETools Database.
The results were excellent.
1994 West German Target
All 11 tracks were reported as accurately ripped.
No errors occurred.
2004 Edition
All 16 tracks were also reported as accurately ripped.
No errors occurred.
The 2004 tracks had an AccurateRip confidence of 200, providing extremely strong confirmation of the extraction.
This means we weren’t comparing two recordings made from a CD player.
We were comparing the actual digital audio data extracted from the CDs.
The First Track: Monday Morning
I started with the opening track, Monday Morning.
And this is where things immediately became interesting.
The 1994 CD has a peak level of approximately:
-2.47 dBFS
The 2004 version reaches:
-0.10 dBFS
So the 2004 version is getting extremely close to digital full scale.
But peak level alone doesn’t tell the whole story.
The average level is even more revealing.
The 1994 version measures approximately –20.6 dBFS RMS.
The 2004 version measures approximately –13.2 dBFS RMS.
That’s roughly a 7.3 dB increase in average level.
In simple terms, the 2004 version is substantially louder.
But I wanted to know whether that was the whole story.
Is the 2004 Version Simply Louder?
This was the obvious question.
If the 2004 CD was simply the 1994 mastering with the volume turned up, reducing the 2004 version by the appropriate amount should make the two recordings essentially identical.
It doesn’t.
I level-matched the two versions, removing the large difference in overall volume, and then compared them again.
There were still measurable differences.
That means the 2004 version isn’t simply the 1994 master with the volume increased.
The mastering has changed.
The Dynamic Range Difference
One of the measurements we can use to examine this is crest factor — the difference between the average level of a recording and its peaks.
A higher crest factor generally means greater separation between the average level and the peaks.
For Monday Morning:
1994: approximately 17.6 dB
2004: approximately 13.1 dB
That’s a difference of approximately 4.5 dB.
And this wasn’t unique to Monday Morning.
When all 11 tracks appearing on both CDs were analysed, 10 of the 11 tracks showed a reduction in crest factor on the 2004 version.
That is a significant pattern.
It tells us that the 2004 mastering has generally been made louder and denser.
It does not, by itself, mean that the CD is clipped. High peak levels and clipping are two different things.
The Whole Album Tells the Story
This is where the comparison becomes much more convincing.
Rather than looking at one song, I analysed all 11 tracks that appear on both CDs.
The average RMS difference across the album is approximately:
5.3 dB louder on the 2004 edition
Every single one of the 11 common tracks is louder on the 2004 CD.
The graph makes the pattern very easy to see.
The 2004 version is consistently louder across the original album.
But What About the EQ?
This was the next question.
Perhaps the 2004 mastering was simply compressed and made louder.
To test that, I removed the volume difference by level-matching the two versions.
Then I compared their frequency spectra.
And again, the results showed that the two CDs aren’t identical.
The broad album-wide differences were approximately:
| Frequency range | 2004 compared with 1994 |
|---|---|
| 20–60 Hz | -1.6 dB |
| 60–120 Hz | -0.8 dB |
| 120–250 Hz | +0.7 dB |
| 250–500 Hz | +0.7 dB |
| 500 Hz–1 kHz | +1.2 dB |
| 1–2 kHz | +0.7 dB |
| 2–4 kHz | +1.2 dB |
| 4–8 kHz | +1.7 dB |
| 8–16 kHz | +1.6 dB |
| 16–20 kHz | +0.9 dB |
The important point isn’t each individual number.
It’s the overall shape.
After the overall volume difference was removed, the 2004 mastering still showed less energy in the very lowest frequencies and more energy through much of the midrange and upper frequencies.
So the tonal balance has changed too.
A Picture Tells a Thousand Words
Put the two discs next to each other and the physical differences are immediately obvious.
The black spine and clear spine are only the beginning.
The artwork, disc design, catalogue information, packaging and track content all provide clues that these aren’t simply two identical CDs from different production runs.
But the really interesting difference is something you can’t see by looking at the discs.
It’s in the audio data.
Eleven Tracks, Same Conclusion
The strongest evidence comes from looking at all 11 tracks common to both editions.
Every track is louder on the 2004 CD.
Ten out of eleven have a lower crest factor.
The frequency analysis also shows a different tonal balance after level matching.
This means we can confidently say that the 2004 edition is not simply the 1994 mastering with the volume turned up.
There has been a change in the mastering.
And Then There Are the Five Bonus Tracks
The 2004 edition adds five additional recordings.
These aren’t relevant when comparing the mastering of the original 11 tracks, because there is no corresponding recording on the 1994 disc.
But they are still an important part of the comparison.
The 2004 CD therefore offers something the 1994 Target doesn’t:
additional material.
So Which One Is Better?
Now we get to the difficult question.
Which CD sounds better?
The measurements can tell us what changed.
They can’t tell us what you will personally prefer.
The 1994 West German Target
- Lower overall mastering levels
- Greater peak-to-average separation
- More headroom
- A different tonal balance
- The original 11-track album
The 2004 Edition
- A substantially higher average level
- Peaks much closer to digital full scale
- Reduced peak-to-average dynamics on most tracks
- A different tonal balance
- Five additional recordings
If you prefer a mastering with greater dynamic headroom and less aggressive level management, the 1994 Target is likely to be the more interesting choice.
If you prefer a louder, more forward presentation and want the bonus material, the 2004 edition has obvious advantages.
The Conclusion
So, what’s the difference between these two compact discs?
Quite a lot.
It started with something as simple as noticing that one had a black spine and the other had a clear spine.
But once the discs were ripped and analysed, the differences became much more substantial.
The 2004 edition isn’t simply the 1994 CD with the volume turned up.
Across all 11 tracks common to both editions, the 2004 version is approximately 5.3 dB louder on average.
Ten of the 11 tracks show reduced crest factor.
And after level-matching the recordings, there are still measurable differences in frequency balance.
In other words, these are different masterings.
The 1994 West German Target represents a much more conservatively mastered presentation, with greater peak-to-average separation.
The 2004 edition offers a louder, more forward mastering, a different tonal balance and five additional recordings.
So the answer to the question I started with is:
The difference isn’t just the spine.
The two CDs may contain the same Fleetwood Mac album, but they don’t contain exactly the same sound.
And now that we’ve got the measurements, the question becomes a much more interesting one:
Which one do you prefer?
Sri Lanka 2025 – The Photos Are Finally Ready!
August 18th, 2026It has only taken us 18 months…
Yes, you read that correctly.
We travelled to Sri Lanka in January and February 2025, and I can finally say:
The photographs are done!
Don’t want to read all the technical waffle? No problem. You can jump straight to the Andysworld! Holiday Photograph Album and select Qatar & Sri Lanka, and/or visit YouTube to watch lots of clips, I rendered into a 32 minute video, just in case your tempted to visit Sri Lanka!
Youtube video is here –
After more than a year of sitting on the original collection, sorting through photographs, removing the rubbish, organising everything, converting file formats, writing scripts and re-coding the website album, the Sri Lanka 2025 photographs are finally ready and published on Andysworld!
And it turns out that getting a holiday photo album published is considerably more complicated than simply clicking the “Upload” button.
1,500+ Photographs and Videos
When we came home from Sri Lanka, we had managed to accumulate more than 1,500 photographs and videos.
And all of them were taken using just two phones:
- iPhone 8
- iPhone 13 Pro Max
No SLR.
No DSLR.
No expensive lenses.
No professional photography equipment.
Just two iPhones.
And between them, they managed to capture more than 1,500 photographs and videos during our Sri Lankan adventure.
Looking back through them, I’m genuinely impressed by just how good some of the photographs are.
Of course, not all of them made the final cut.
In fact, the original collection of more than 1,500 eventually became a much more manageable collection of around 1,000 photographs to work through.
First Stop – iCloud
The first challenge was simply getting everything together.
The photographs had been taken on two different iPhones and stored in iCloud, so the first job was to download the complete collection.
From there, everything was moved onto our Synology NAS, giving us a proper local copy of the photographs and videos.
That gave us somewhere sensible to work from and, importantly, somewhere to keep the original collection safely stored.
Synology Photos
Once everything was on the NAS, the photographs were loaded into Synology Photos.
This is where the serious sorting began.
Lindsey worked through the collection and organised the photographs by location, while at the same time identifying the photographs that simply weren’t worth keeping.
And there were plenty of those.
- Duplicates
- Blurry photographs
- Accidental photographs
- People blinking
- People looking the wrong way
- Photographs that were almost identical
- Photographs where we still don’t know why we took them
And then there was the wildlife.
If an elephant moves its trunk slightly, that’s obviously a completely different photograph.
Apparently.
At one point we had an impressive collection of photographs of essentially the same elephant.
Eventually, the great Sri Lankan photograph cull was complete.
What remained was our definitive collection.
Then I Had To Download Them Again!
With the final collection selected, the photographs were downloaded from the Synology onto a PC for the final preparation.
And this is where things got a little more technical.
The iPhones had produced photographs in HEIC format.
For Andysworld, I wanted standard JPG files.
So the next step was:
HEIC -> JPG
But that wasn’t enough.
I also wanted a consistent file naming convention.
That meant dealing with the various possible file extensions:
.HEIC
.JPEG
.jpeg
.JPG
.jpgEverything needed to end up as:
.jpg
And the filenames themselves needed to be lowercase.
So something like:
SriLanka-IMG_1234.JPEGbecame:
srilanka-img_1234.jpgPowerShell and Python To The Rescue
There was absolutely no way I was going to manually rename hundreds of photographs.
That’s what scripting is for.
I used a combination of PowerShell and Python to automate the repetitive parts of the process.
The scripts handled the file preparation, including:
- Converting HEIC photographs to JPG
- Renaming JPEG files
- Standardising file extensions
- Converting filenames to lowercase
- Applying a consistent naming convention
- Preparing the final collection for the website
It’s a simple rule:
If you have to do something hundreds of times, write a script.
And Finally – Andysworld
With the photographs finally sorted, culled, converted and renamed, there was one final job.
Build the album.
These photographs aren’t simply being dumped into a generic photo-sharing service.
They’re being added to the custom album system on Andysworld.
That meant going back into the code and creating the Sri Lanka 2025 album.
The photographs had to be incorporated into the various locations, the album structure had to be created, and the website code had to be updated.
Then came the testing.
- Check the thumbnails
- Check the full-size photographs
- Check the navigation
- Check the location structure
- Check the album layout
- Check everything works on different devices
And finally…
Upload everything to Andysworld.
Why Go To All This Trouble?
Why not just upload the photographs to Facebook, Google Photos or one of the many other photo-sharing services?
Because that’s not really what I wanted.
These are our memories of a fantastic trip, and I wanted to create a proper photographic record that we could come back to in the future.
The Synology gives us the local archive.
Synology Photos gives us the organisation and sorting.
Lindsey helped turn more than 1,500 photographs into a definitive collection.
PowerShell and Python dealt with the repetitive technical work.
And Andysworld gives me complete control over the final album.
It was considerably more work than simply uploading a few photographs.
But it’s also considerably more satisfying.
18 Months Later…
The trip itself lasted a few weeks.
The photographs took seconds to capture.
Getting them ready for publication took considerably longer.
But finally, 18 months later, the job is done.
More than 1,500 photographs and videos have been downloaded, sorted, culled, organised, converted and processed.
The rubbish has gone.
The good photographs have survived.
The filenames are lowercase.
The HEIC files have become JPGs.
The custom album has been coded.
And the finished collection is now sitting on Andysworld.
So, after all this time…
Welcome Back To Sri Lanka!
The Sri Lanka 2025 photographs are finally ready.
And yes, somewhere in that collection there are still probably more photographs of elephants than anyone really needs.
But that’s what holidays are all about.
Memories, photographs, stories…
…and occasionally taking the same photograph twenty times because the elephant moved its trunk.
Sri Lanka 2025 – finally finished, finally published, and finally ready to enjoy.
Welcome to our Sri Lanka 2025 photo album on Andysworld!
Fortnite Sprites — Got to Catch Them All!
August 14th, 2026
Wow… five months since my last blog post! ?!
I know, I know. Five months is a long time between posts, but I’ve been keeping myself rather busy behind the scenes. So, when I finally sat down to write something, I thought I’d pick a topic that’s a little more… topical.
And what could possibly be more topical than Fortnite Sprites?
Yep — those little things.
Got to catch them all!
If you’ve played Fortnite recently, you’ll know that Sprites have become another little part of the Fortnite experience. They’re small, they’re cute, they’re useful… and, inevitably, you start wanting to catch them all.
It reminds me of Pokémon.
You’ve got to catch them all!
Only this time, rather than wandering around the Pokémon world throwing Poké Balls at everything that moves, you’re running around Fortnite looking for Sprites.
And, of course, once you find one, you can’t just leave it there.
You have to catch it.
Why am I talking about Fortnite?
Well, partly because it’s something completely different from my usual posts.
Those who know me will know that most of my blog posts tend to involve VMware, Proxmox, OpenNebula, Linux, networking, storage, scripting or some other form of infrastructure that inevitably involves staring at a terminal window.
Sometimes it’s nice to write about something that doesn’t involve a command prompt.
And let’s be honest — Fortnite is fun.
There’s something strangely satisfying about exploring the map, finding things you weren’t necessarily looking for and discovering another Sprite along the way.
Five months later…
It’s actually made me realise just how quickly time disappears.
Five months ago I was writing my previous blog post, and since then there’s been a whole load of projects, changes, experiments and general IT madness going on.
I’ve still got plenty of technical subjects I’d like to write about, particularly some of the work I’ve been doing around infrastructure automation and self-service.
But for now…
I’m going hunting.
Sprites, here I come.
? Got to catch them all!
And perhaps, after another five-month gap, I’ll even write another blog post before Christmas. ?
#Fortnite #Sprites #Gaming #GotToCatchThemAll
OOONO Co-Driver NO2 – I purchased it ! – It’s Rubbish! – Refunded
August 14th, 2026
This should be called OOONO I purchased it !!!!
So lets just start by stating Amazon UK
WOULD NOT PUBLISH MY REVIEW OF THIS PRODUCT which I returned for a REFUND! – but I can review it here!
Because it’s crap and a “scam” in my opinion! They state
“We could not post your review because it does not meet our community guidelines” – odd when so many other fake reviews, telling you how good it is!
it’s called the
OOONO Co-Driver NO2 (2024 model)
Social Media Hyped – Rubbish – Don’t Waste Your Money
So here’s the thing…
Amazon UK refused to publish this review — the exact one below — after I returned the product for a refund.
Apparently it “does not meet community guidelines.”
You can make your own mind up…
My rejected Amazon review:
So I was intrigued — so many TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube reviews — which I assume are clickbait and monetised.
It’s called Ooo No — because that’s what you say when you’ve wasted your money.
All these reviews on Amazon must be bots — because I genuinely don’t understand how this gets rated so highly.
Value for money? Waste of money.
Why is this even needed? You still have to pair it with your phone via Bluetooth and run the app! So why not just use Waze, Google Maps, Apple Maps, or even an old-school TomTom with the PocketGPS database — far cheaper and far more accurate.
In use, it warns far too early about cameras, isn’t accurate, and even warns about cameras on the wrong side of the road.
Yes, it’s community-driven — but there’s clearly very little verification of camera positions.
I’ve used it over ~700 miles across villages, towns and cities:
- False warnings
- Cameras flagged where none exist
- Misses common mobile camera locations (compared to PocketGPS)
- Incorrect speed limits
I would give this zero stars if I could.
Final comment: £50 paid — complete waste of money.
Just use your phone. If it’s in a hands-free dock, run Waze — don’t waste your cash.
I’m returning this for a refund.
It’s a social media–driven scam in my opinion.
Product: OOONO Co-Driver NO2 (2024 model)
So there you go — that’s the review Amazon didn’t want you to read.
Take those 5? reviews with a pinch of salt…
Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Fix the Failed to Update CPU#0 Microcode PSOD with ESXi 8.0.3i ESXi 8.0u3i
March 11th, 2026Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Fix the Failed to Update CPU#0 Microcode PSOD with ESXi 8.0.3i ESXi 8.0u3i
HOW TO: Fix “Failed to update CPU#0 microcode” PSOD on ESXi 8.0.3i (Minisforum MS-A2)
In this guide from Hancock’s VMware Half Hour, I demonstrate how to fix the
Purple Screen of Death (PSOD) error:
“Failed to update CPU#0 microcode”
This issue occurs when installing or booting VMware ESXi 8.0 Update 3i (ESXi 8.0.3i)
on the Minisforum MS-A2 mini workstation.
ESXi 8.0.3i, released on 2 March 2026, includes security fixes for
CVE-2025-15467, an OpenSSL vulnerability. If you are running ESXi and have not
patched yet, you should update as soon as possible.
However, this update also includes new AMD CPU microcode updates, which currently
appear to trigger a PSOD during boot on the Minisforum MS-A2 platform.
The Problem
When booting the ESXi 8.0.3i installer (for example from Ventoy) on the
Minisforum MS-A2, the system may fail during boot with the following PSOD message:
The system has found a problem on your machine and cannot continue. Failed to update CPU#0 microcode
This prevents ESXi from completing the boot process or installer launch.
Why This Happens
The ESXi 8.0.3i update includes newer AMD microcode updates intended to improve
security and stability. Unfortunately, these updates currently appear to be
incompatible with the MS-A2 platform, which results in the microcode update failing
during boot.
When the microcode update fails, ESXi halts the boot process and displays the PSOD.
The Workaround
Until VMware releases a permanent fix, the issue can be worked around by using a
kernel boot option during ESXi startup.
Steps to Fix
- Boot the ESXi 8.0.3i installer.
- When the ESXi boot screen appears, press Shift + O.
- This opens the ESXi boot options.
- Add the required kernel option shown in the video.
- Press Enter to continue booting.
With the boot option applied, ESXi should boot successfully on the Minisforum MS-A2.
Video Walkthrough
Watch the full walkthrough below where I demonstrate the issue and apply the workaround.
What You Will Learn
- What changed in ESXi 8.0.3i
- Why AMD microcode updates trigger a PSOD
- How to reproduce the issue during boot
- The Shift + O ESXi boot workaround
- How to confirm the fix works successfully
Credits
Huge thanks to members of the VMware community who investigated and documented this issue:
- Stephen Wagner
- Patrick Kernstock
- vAndu
- Martin Gustafsson
Their research and testing helped identify the workaround shown in this video.
Resources:
Support My Work
? Enjoying the content? Support the channel with an espresso!
Follow Hancock’s VMware Half Hour
- YouTube – YouTube Channel
- Twitter – Twitter
- LinkedIn – LinkedIn
Support British Beekeeping ?
If you’d like to support British beekeeping, you can purchase
raw pure honey from my apiaries.
Meltonby Honey – Raw Pure Honey
UK shipping currently only.
HOW TO: Create a Custom ESXi 9.0 ISO with the Realtek Driver Fling
March 1st, 2026
HOW TO: Create a Custom VCF 9.0 VMware ESXi 9.0 ISO with Realtek Driver (PowerCLI)
Author: Andy – Andysworld.org.uk
Good news for homelab enthusiasts! We finally have a working Realtek network driver for ESXi 9.0. In this guide, I’ll show you step-by-step how to create a customised VMware ESXi 9.0 ISO for VCF 9.0 with the Realtek driver injected (slipstreamed) using PowerShell 7 and VMware PowerCLI.
Why This Matters
If you’re running ESXi in a homelab environment using consumer hardware, Mini PCs, or whitebox builds, Realtek NIC support has historically been a challenge. With the latest Realtek driver available, we can now build a custom ESXi 9.0 ISO that works perfectly in lab environments.
This process allows you to:
- Inject the Realtek driver into the ESXi 9.0 image profile
- Create a bootable ISO installer
- Export an offline ZIP bundle
Important Disclaimer
ESXi 9.0 depot files require a valid Broadcom contract. I do not distribute depot files, customised ISOs, or any Broadcom software. Please obtain required files through official channels.
Prerequisites
- PowerShell 7
- VMware PowerCLI (latest version)
- Python 3.12
- VMware ESXi 9.0 Depot ZIP
- VMware Realtek Driver ZIP
Method 1 – Manual Image Build (PowerCLI)
Step 1 – Load the ESXi Depot
Add-EsxSoftwareDepot .\VMware-ESXi-9.0.0.0.24755229-depot.zipStep 2 – Load the Realtek Driver Depot
Add-EsxSoftwareDepot .\VMware-Re-Driver_1.101.01-5vmw.800.1.0.20613240.zipStep 3 – List Available Image Profiles
Get-EsxImageProfile | Select NameStep 4 – Clone the Standard Profile
$newProfile = New-EsxImageProfile `
-CloneProfile 'ESXi-9.0.0-14755229-standard' `
-Name 'ESXi-9.0.0-14755229-standard-Realtek-nic' `
-Vendor "Andysworld.org.uk"
Step 5 – Inject the Realtek Driver
Add-EsxSoftwarePackage -ImageProfile $newProfile -SoftwarePackage "if-re"Step 6 – Export the Custom ISO
Export-ESXImageProfile -ImageProfile $newProfile -ExportToIso -FilePath "$($newProfile.Name).iso"Step 7 – Export the Offline Bundle
Export-ESXImageProfile -ImageProfile $newProfile -ExportToBundle -FilePath "$($newProfile.Name).zip"Step 8 – Verify Output
dirYou should now have both a customised ISO and ZIP bundle ready for deployment in your homelab.
Method 2 – Scripted Approach
If you prefer automation, you can use a PowerShell script to perform the entire process in one go. The script automates:
- Loading depot files
- Cloning image profiles
- Injecting the Realtek driver
- Exporting ISO and ZIP bundles
This method is ideal for repeat builds or lab rebuilds.
Who Is This For?
- Homelab enthusiasts
- VMware learners
- Mini PC / Whitebox ESXi users
- VCF 9.0 lab deployments
This guide is intended for lab and educational use only, not production environments.
Final Thoughts
Creating a custom ESXi image is a valuable skill for anyone running a VMware homelab. With the Realtek driver now available for ESXi 9.0, lab builders can continue using affordable hardware while staying current with VMware releases.
If you found this guide helpful, check out more VMware content here at Andysworld.org.uk.
HOW TO: Create a Custom ESXi 8.0 ISO with the Realtek Driver Fling
January 28th, 2026
In this post, we’re going to walk through how to create a customised VMware ESXi 8.0 ISO with the Realtek network driver injected. This is particularly useful for homelab users running ESXi on consumer or whitebox hardware where Realtek NICs are common.
With the release of the ESXi 8.0 Realtek Driver Fling, Realtek-based systems can once again be used for lab and learning environments without unsupported hacks.
What You Will Learn
- What ESXi depot files and image profiles are
- How to inject (slipstream) the Realtek driver into ESXi 8.0
- How to build a custom ESXi ISO and ZIP bundle
- Manual and scripted methods using PowerShell
Prerequisites
Before starting, ensure you have the following:
- PowerShell 7 (required)
- VMware PowerCLI (or VMware Cloud Foundation PowerCLI)
- Python 3.12
- ESXi 8.0 depot ZIP file
- Realtek Driver Fling ZIP file
Note: ESXi 8.0.3e and 8.0.3f depot files are publicly available. Later versions such as 8.0.3g and 8.0.3h require a valid Broadcom support contract. I do not distribute depot files or customised ISOs.
Method 1: Manual ISO Creation
Add the ESXi Depot
Add-EsxSoftwareDepot .\VMware-ESXi-8.0U3h-25067014-depot.zipAdd the Realtek Driver Depot
Add-EsxSoftwareDepot .\VMware-Re-Driver_1.101.01-5vmw.800.1.0.20613240.zipList Image Profiles
Get-EsxImageProfile | Select NameClone the Standard Profile
$newProfile = New-EsxImageProfile `
-CloneProfile 'ESXi-8.0U3h-25067014-standard' `
-Name 'ESXi-8.0U3h-25067014-standard-Realtek-nic' `
-Vendor "Hancock's VMware Half Hour"Inject the Realtek Driver
Add-EsxSoftwarePackage `
-ImageProfile $newProfile `
-SoftwarePackage "if-re"Export the Custom ISO
Export-ESXImageProfile `
-ImageProfile $newProfile `
-ExportToIso `
-FilePath "$($newProfile.Name).iso"Export the ZIP Bundle (Optional)
Export-ESXImageProfile `
-ImageProfile $newProfile `
-ExportToBundle `
-FilePath "$($newProfile.Name).zip"Method 2: Scripted Approach
If you prefer automation, a PowerShell script called Hancocks-VMware-Half-Hour-ESXi-Customizer1.ps1 is available from GitHub and automates the entire process.
As shown in the video, even scripts can break — troubleshooting is part of the learning process.
Installation and Verification
- Boot your ESXi host using the custom ISO
- Complete the ESXi installation
- Verify that the Realtek NIC is detected during install
If the driver has been injected correctly, the Realtek network adapter will be visible and usable within ESXi.
Important Notes
- I do not provide ESXi depot files
- I do not provide customised ESXi ISOs
- I have no rights to distribute Broadcom software
- This guide is intended for lab and homelab use only
Final Thoughts
This is a major step forward for the homelab community. With the Realtek Driver Fling, ESXi 8.0 is once again a viable option on affordable hardware.
Thanks for reading, and as always — happy virtualising!
Andy
Andysworld.org.uk
Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Install the NEW Realtek driver on ESXi 9.0
January 14th, 2026
Minisforum MS-A2: How to Install the New Realtek Driver on VMware ESXi 9.0
Running VMware ESXi 9.0 on the Minisforum MS-A2 is a fantastic option for homelabs and edge deployments, but out of the box you may notice that not all Realtek network interfaces are detected.
In this guide, based on my latest episode of Hancock’s VMware Half Hour, I walk through installing the new Broadcom-compiled Realtek driver (available as an official Broadcom Fling) to unlock additional NIC support.
What This Guide Covers
- Why Realtek NICs are limited by default on ESXi 9.0
- Where to download the official Broadcom Fling driver
- Installing the driver using
esxcli - Rebooting safely and verifying NIC availability
Supported Realtek Network Adapters
The driver demonstrated in this guide supports the following Realtek PCIe devices:
- RTL8111 – 1GbE
- RTL8125 – 2.5GbE
- RTL8126 – 5GbE
- RTL8127 – 10GbE
Driver Installation Command
Once the driver ZIP has been copied to your ESXi datastore and the host is in maintenance mode, install it using:
esxcli software component apply -d path VMware-Re-Driver_1.101.00-5vmw.800.1.0.20613240.zipAfter installation, a reboot is required for the new network interfaces to become available.
Video Chapters
00:00 - Start 00:03 - Welcome to Hancock's VMware Half Hour 00:37 - Todays video - HOW TO Install Realtek driver on ESXi 9.0 00:55 - Broadcom Released the Realtek Driver fling in November 2025 01:55 - Minisforum MS-A2 - VCF 9.0 Homelab of the Year 2025 ! 02:26 - Available as a Broadcom Fling - Tech Preview - not for production 02:55 - I'm not a fan of Realtek let it be known! 03:11 - Go to Broadcom Fling Portal site to download - https://support.broadcom.com/group/ecx/productdownloads?subfamily=Flings&freeDownloads=true 03:22 - Download the driver don't forget to Accept the Agreement! 03:51 - Enable SSH on Host, and use WinSCP to copy to local datastore 04:31 - Whoops Zoom is broke again! 05:07 - Connect to host using SSH 05:22 - Use lspci to show PCI devices in the host 06:05 - Use grep - lspci | grep Realtek 07:01 - Install the driver using esxcli software component apply -d /VMware-Re-Driver_1.101.00-5vmw.800.1.0.20613240.zip 07:59 - A reboot is required, reboot the server 08:36 - Reboot server 09:20 - The reason for the 10th Outake ! 10:01 - Login to ESXi 9.0 using HTML Client 10:51 - Realtek driver is installed and network interfaces are available for use 11:07 - HenryChan1973 this video is for you! 12:23 - Thanks for Watching
Final Thoughts
This Broadcom Fling makes ESXi 8.0 far more usable on modern mini PCs like the Minisforum MS-A2, especially for homelabbers who rely on multi-gig Realtek networking.
Huge thanks to Henrychan1973 for their contribution and support.
If this guide helped you, consider subscribing on YouTube and checking out more VMware content on the blog.
– Andrew Hancock
Hancock’s VMware Half Hour
![[Valid RSS]](http://andysworld.org.uk/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")