Archive for the ‘computing’ Category

« Older Entries

Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD Layer – Nine-Track Forensic Analysis

Saturday, September 26th, 2026
Completing the nine-track comparison with the 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering

2013 Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2099 — CD layer. The nine-track forensic investigation.

In the previous article, Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: Forensic Analysis of the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD Layer, I examined the relationship between the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer and the original 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering.

That initial investigation established that the Mobile Fidelity release was not simply a level-shifted copy of the Ludwig CD.

The obvious next question was whether the behaviour seen in the individual examples represented a consistent mastering characteristic across the entire album.

That question can now be answered.

I have completed the same analysis across all nine tracks of the album.

The question we set out to answer

The purpose of this second-stage investigation was straightforward:

Does the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer exhibit a consistent mastering pattern across all nine tracks, or did individual tracks receive materially different treatment?

To answer that, the complete Mobile Fidelity CD layer was compared against the complete 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering.

The analysis covered:

  • sample alignment
  • gain relationships
  • waveform correlation
  • frequency-domain transfer
  • magnitude-squared coherence
  • magnitude-only EQ matching
  • complex transfer behaviour
  • residual analysis

This gives us a much stronger basis for assessing the MoFi than analysing a single track.

The nine tracks

# Track
1 So Far Away
2 Money For Nothing
3 Walk of Life
4 Your Latest Trick
5 Why Worry
6 Ride Across the River
7 The Man’s Too Strong
8 One World
9 Brothers in Arms

The Mobile Fidelity files were extracted from the CD layer as 44.1 kHz / 16-bit stereo PCM and verified using AccurateRip/CTDB.

Track alignment

The corresponding material in the two masterings does not begin at exactly the same sample position.

The offsets required to align the MoFi with the Ludwig reference were:

Track MoFi relative offset
So Far Away 37,146 samples
Money For Nothing 8,240 samples
Walk of Life 2,314 samples
Your Latest Trick 1,582 samples
Why Worry 2,305 samples
Ride Across the River 940 samples
The Man’s Too Strong 941 samples
One World 476 samples
Brothers in Arms 1,028 samples

These are simply the offsets required to place the corresponding audio in the same time reference.

They are not evidence of different musical performances.

Gain-only comparison

The first test was deliberately simple.

Align the two masterings, calculate the optimum gain relationship, and compare the resulting waveforms.

If the MoFi were simply the Ludwig mastering at a different level, this should produce an almost perfect match.

It doesn’t.

Track Left gain Left residual Right gain Right residual
So Far Away +2.79 dB -9.89 dB +2.86 dB -10.68 dB
Money For Nothing +2.75 dB -11.93 dB +2.59 dB -12.17 dB
Walk of Life +3.48 dB -13.97 dB +3.30 dB -13.91 dB
Your Latest Trick +6.55 dB -11.99 dB +6.05 dB -12.90 dB
Why Worry +9.66 dB -15.50 dB +9.83 dB -15.12 dB
Ride Across the River +6.24 dB -11.68 dB +6.10 dB -11.79 dB
The Man’s Too Strong +5.57 dB -13.17 dB +5.12 dB -12.89 dB
One World +3.46 dB -12.60 dB +3.11 dB -12.65 dB
Brothers in Arms +6.04 dB -12.51 dB +6.21 dB -12.29 dB

The residuals are far too large for this to be a simple gain change.

So the first conclusion from the nine-track analysis is reinforced:

The MoFi is a genuinely different digital mastering.

The tonal-transfer signature

The next stage was to examine the frequency-domain relationship between the two masterings.

Each track was analysed using Welch power spectral density measurements. The resulting transfer curves were smoothed and then normalised to remove the overall level difference.

The purpose was not to produce an absolute EQ curve for the MoFi, but to identify the shape of the tonal difference between the two masterings.

All nine tracks show a broadly similar MoFi-minus-Ludwig tonal-transfer signature.

The individual tracks are not identical, but they cluster around a common shape.

Broadly speaking, the MoFi shows:

  • more energy through the lower frequencies
  • a broadly similar midrange
  • less energy through much of the upper midrange and treble

Album-average normalised transfer

Frequency MoFi relative to Ludwig
50 Hz +0.34 dB
100 Hz +1.18 dB
200 Hz +1.51 dB
500 Hz +0.64 dB
1 kHz +0.31 dB
2 kHz +0.14 dB
5 kHz -1.04 dB
10 kHz -1.74 dB
15 kHz -2.16 dB
20 kHz* +0.82 dB

*The 20 kHz result is unstable compared with the rest of the spectrum and should not be treated as a definitive EQ value.

How consistent is the tonal difference?

This is perhaps the most important result of the entire second-stage investigation.

The RMS deviation of each track from the album-average transfer, measured over the more reliable 50 Hz–10 kHz range, was:

Track Deviation from album mean
So Far Away 0.48 dB
Money For Nothing 0.65 dB
Walk of Life 0.61 dB
Your Latest Trick 0.88 dB
Why Worry 0.61 dB
Ride Across the River 0.90 dB
The Man’s Too Strong 0.67 dB
One World 0.61 dB
Brothers in Arms 0.70 dB

The largest deviation is still less than 1 dB.

That is strong evidence that the broad tonal difference is an album-wide characteristic, rather than something caused by one or two individual tracks.

Money For Nothing as an example

The spectral relationship for Money For Nothing illustrates the general pattern particularly well.

Frequency MoFi minus Ludwig
20–50 Hz +0.04 dB
50–100 Hz +0.28 dB
100–200 Hz +0.52 dB
200–500 Hz +0.35 dB
500 Hz–1 kHz +0.26 dB
1–2 kHz -0.07 dB
2–5 kHz -1.66 dB
5–10 kHz -2.18 dB
10–20 kHz -2.64 dB

This is clearly not a simple gain difference.

MoFi-minus-Ludwig spectral difference. Overall level has been normalised before measuring the frequency-dependent difference.

Magnitude EQ matching

The next experiment was to ask whether the spectral difference alone could explain the waveform relationship.

A magnitude-only transfer was derived and applied to the Ludwig reference.

This improves the match considerably.

For Brothers in Arms, for example, the residual improved from approximately:

-12.2 dB ? -14.3 dB

after magnitude EQ.

This confirms that frequency response is an important part of the difference.

However, the match is still not perfect.

There is therefore more happening than a simple EQ curve.

Coherence across the album

Magnitude-squared coherence was examined to determine how strongly the two signals remain related at different frequencies.

The coherence is extraordinarily high over most of the audible spectrum.

For the majority of the tracks, median coherence is effectively at or extremely close to unity across the main audible bands.

Even where it falls slightly at the extreme high-frequency end, the relationship remains very strong.

This is significant because it demonstrates that the MoFi and Ludwig signals are not merely similar in a broad spectral sense.

They retain a very strong frequency-by-frequency relationship.

Complex-transfer analysis

The final stage was to move beyond magnitude response and examine the complex transfer relationship.

This considers both magnitude and phase/filter behaviour.

Complex-transfer residuals for selected tracks. These are residual measurements, not mastering EQ curves.

The resulting correlations are exceptionally high.

Track Left correlation Right correlation
Brothers in Arms 0.999992 0.999987
Your Latest Trick 0.999930 0.999950
Why Worry 0.999999 0.999999
One World 0.999841 0.999942

Selected residual levels were:

  • Brothers in Arms: approximately -18.15 dB left / -18.76 dB right
  • Your Latest Trick: approximately -6.29 dB left / -5.10 dB right
  • Why Worry: approximately -50.40 dB left / -31.38 dB right
  • One World: approximately -19.19 dB left / -9.70 dB right

The variation is important.

It demonstrates that although the underlying relationship is extremely strong, the exact transfer behaviour is not identical on every track or channel.

Was the mastering time-varying?

One possibility considered during the investigation was that the transfer characteristics might change substantially throughout individual songs.

That would potentially suggest time-varying processing.

However, the local transfer measurements did not provide sufficient evidence to support that conclusion.

The transfer curves remained broadly stable when examined at different points in the programme.

The earlier apparent variation seen in some local FIR experiments was therefore not treated as evidence of time-varying mastering.

This is an important example of why intermediate experimental results need to be validated before being treated as conclusions.

What have we actually established?

After completing the complete nine-track analysis, the evidence supports several conclusions.

The MoFi is a different mastering

The gain-only comparison leaves substantial residual differences across the album.

The tonal difference is album-wide

The nine tracks exhibit a remarkably similar broad transfer shape.

The tracks are not mathematically identical

The detailed transfer characteristics vary between songs and channels.

EQ explains part of the difference

Magnitude correction improves the match.

EQ does not explain everything

Significant residual differences remain after magnitude correction.

The underlying waveform relationship is exceptionally strong

Complex-transfer analysis produces correlations extremely close to unity on the tracks examined in detail.

What this does not tell us

The analysis describes the relationship between the digital PCM signals.

It does not establish the physical analogue source used to create the Mobile Fidelity master.

Therefore, the measurements do not prove whether the MoFi originated from:

  • the original master tape
  • a safety copy
  • another analogue-generation copy
  • a digital intermediate
  • or another source

Nor can the waveform analysis identify the exact analogue playback equipment, converter or mastering chain.

Those questions require documentary evidence.

The 1985 Ludwig comparison provides an important reference

The earlier comparison of the 1985 Bob Ludwig and John Dent editions provides a useful benchmark.

After correcting for channel orientation, gain and sample alignment, tracks 1, 2 and 4–9 of those two releases match to approximately ±1 LSB.

The residuals are around the -61 to -69 dB region.

The MoFi residuals are substantially larger and more structured than that on most tracks.

This reinforces the conclusion that the 2013 Mobile Fidelity release is not simply another digital representation of the same 1985 mastering.

Final conclusion

The original question was whether the differences observed between the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer and the 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering followed a consistent mastering pattern.

Having now analysed all nine tracks, the answer is clear:

There is a consistent broad mastering pattern across the album, while the precise transfer characteristics vary from track to track and channel to channel.

The 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer is therefore a genuinely distinct digital mastering.

It has:

  • a higher average level than the original Ludwig CD
  • a different tonal balance
  • a measurable frequency-dependent transfer
  • transfer characteristics that cannot be explained by gain alone
  • differences that cannot be completely explained by magnitude EQ alone
  • an exceptionally strong underlying waveform relationship with the Ludwig mastering

The most defensible summary is:

The 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer is a distinct mastering of Brothers in Arms, with different level, tonal and transfer characteristics from the 1985 Bob Ludwig CD, while retaining an exceptionally strong underlying waveform relationship to the original programme.

We can now say this with confidence across the entire nine-track album, rather than relying on one or two representative tracks.

So what does this mean?

The investigation does not establish which physical tape Mobile Fidelity used.

It does establish something more immediately measurable:

The 2013 MoFi CD layer is not simply the 1985 Ludwig CD at a different volume.

It has its own tonal and transfer characteristics, and those characteristics are present across the album.

At the same time, the exceptionally high waveform relationship shows just how much common information remains between the two masterings.

That combination is what makes the 2013 Mobile Fidelity edition particularly interesting.

Analysis complete

This completes the planned nine-track forensic comparison of the 2013 Mobile Fidelity Brothers in Arms CD layer.

The analysis has moved from a single-track investigation to a complete album-level examination, providing a much stronger basis for describing the relationship between the MoFi and the original 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering.

Analysis by Andy Hancock.

Measurements are based on the actual extracted CD-layer PCM data. Figures labelled as summary or illustrative should not be treated as raw measurement plots.

Related article

This article is the follow-up to:

Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: Forensic Analysis of the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD Layer

That article introduced the MoFi investigation and set out the initial findings. This follow-up completes the planned nine-track analysis.

 

Coming Next: The SACD Versions

The CD-layer investigation is now complete, but there is another part of the Brothers in Arms story still to explore.

Come back soon as we turn our attention to the SACD versions — including the 2005 20th Anniversary Hybrid SACD, the 2013 Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2099, and the 2014 SHM-SACD.

We’ve already seen how differently the CD masterings can behave. The next stage is to examine what these SACD releases actually contain and how their high-resolution stereo programmes compare.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, Audiophile, CD, computing, gadgets, mp3, music | Comments Off on Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD Layer – Nine-Track Forensic Analysis

Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: Forensic Analysis of the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD Layer

Friday, September 25th, 2026

Introduction

The 2013 Mobile Fidelity release of Brothers in Arms is often discussed alongside the original 1985 CD masterings, but listening alone cannot tell us exactly how the mastering relates to those earlier versions.

I therefore treated the CD layers as digital data and compared the actual PCM samples. The aim was not simply to measure loudness, but to determine how closely the Mobile Fidelity mastering is related to the 1985 programme and what processing separates the two.

The editions compared

  • 1985 John Dent — Matrix 06
  • 1985 Bob Ludwig — Matrix 12/17
  • 1996 SBM
  • 2005 20th Anniversary
  • 2013 Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2099 — CD layer
  • 2025 40th Anniversary
Important: Matrix 12 and Matrix 17 of the 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering were found to be digitally identical after accounting for a 255-sample offset, so they represent one unique mastering for this analysis.

The Mobile Fidelity CD layer

The Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2099 CD layer is a standard 44.1 kHz / 16-bit stereo programme. The nine tracks were extracted and verified with AccurateRip and CTDB. All nine tracks returned high-confidence AccurateRip results with no extraction errors.

The measured EAC peak levels range from 53.7% to 99.3%. More importantly, the average level is substantially higher than the 1985 masterings, while the crest factor remains much closer to the original CDs than to the later, more heavily levelled editions.

Dynamic level comparison

Median RMS level across the album. The 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer is considerably louder than the 1985 masterings, but remains substantially more dynamic than the 1996, 2005 and 2025 editions.

The album-wide median RMS figures are approximately:

Mastering Median RMS Median crest
1985 Bob Ludwig -27.73 dBFS 22.52 dB
1985 John Dent -25.54 dBFS 22.33 dB
2013 Mobile Fidelity -22.86 dBFS 21.51 dB
1996 SBM -18.18 dBFS 18.18 dB
2025 40th Anniversary -16.36 dBFS 15.36 dB
2005 20th Anniversary -12.84 dBFS 12.74 dB

Test 1 – Is the Mobile Fidelity version simply a level-shifted 1985 mastering?

No. A simple gain adjustment does not reproduce the Mobile Fidelity waveform.

For example, on Brothers in Arms, Your Latest Trick and Why Worry, aligning corresponding events and optimising the gain produces very high waveform correlations, but leaves substantial residual energy. The residuals are far above the level expected from simple 16-bit quantisation differences.

Test 2 – Spectral differences

The tonal balance is also different. Money For Nothing provides a useful example. After normalising total 20 Hz–20 kHz power, the approximate Mobile Fidelity-minus-Ludwig spectral difference is:

Band Difference
20–50 Hz +0.04 dB
50–100 Hz +0.28 dB
100–200 Hz +0.52 dB
200–500 Hz +0.35 dB
500 Hz–1 kHz +0.26 dB
1–2 kHz -0.07 dB
2–5 kHz -1.66 dB
5–10 kHz -2.18 dB
10–20 kHz -2.64 dB

Approximate spectral difference after overall power normalisation: Mobile Fidelity minus 1985 Bob Ludwig, Money For Nothing.

This is not the signature of a simple digital gain change. The Mobile Fidelity version has a different frequency balance, with relatively more low-frequency energy and less upper-mid/high-frequency energy than the Ludwig reference.

Test 3 – Can magnitude-only EQ explain the difference?

Magnitude-only EQ improves the match significantly, but it does not completely explain the waveform relationship.

For example, on Brothers in Arms, the gain-only residuals were approximately -12 dB, while a magnitude-EQ correction reduced them to roughly -14 dB. The waveform correlation also increased.

That tells us that tonal balance is part of the difference, but not all of it.

Test 4 – Coherence

The most striking result is the magnitude-squared coherence between the two masterings.

  • Brothers in Arms: approximately 0.999–1.000 across essentially the entire audio band.
  • Your Latest Trick: approximately 1.000 through most of 100 Hz–20 kHz.
  • Why Worry: approximately 1.000 through most of 100 Hz–10 kHz.
  • One World: still extremely high, with the largest reduction occurring at the very top end.

This does not prove that the two CDs came from the same physical analogue tape or mastering chain. It does, however, demonstrate an exceptionally strong deterministic relationship between their waveforms.

Test 5 – Complex transfer behaviour

The next step was to allow both magnitude and phase/filter behaviour to vary rather than attempting to describe the difference with EQ alone.

After aligning the programmes, a complex transfer analysis produced very high correlations and substantially lower residuals on several tracks. The results vary by track and channel, which is important: there is no evidence here for one universal album-wide transfer function.

Residual levels after complex-transfer modelling for selected tracks and channels.

Test 6 – FIR filtering

Finite impulse response filtering was also tested. Increasing filter length improved the match in some cases, but the improvement eventually plateaued. This is consistent with a relationship that contains more than a simple static EQ curve, while not by itself proving a particular analogue or digital processing chain.

Illustrative progression of the matching methods used during the investigation. The chart is a summary of the analysis rather than a raw measurement plot.

Test 7 – Is the mastering changing over time?

An important possibility was that the Mobile Fidelity transfer might contain time-varying processing. Local transfer measurements were therefore compared at different points in the programme.

The transfer behaviour proved sufficiently stable that a claim of genuine time-varying mastering processing could not be justified from these tests. Some variation appeared in local FIR fits, but that variation was at least partly dependent on the musical content and limitations of the model.

Final complex-transfer results

The final reproducible complex-transfer validation gave the following approximate residuals:

Track Left Right
Brothers in Arms -18.15 dB -18.76 dB
Your Latest Trick -6.29 dB -5.10 dB
Why Worry -50.40 dB -31.38 dB
One World -19.19 dB -9.70 dB

The very low residual on the left channel of Why Worry is particularly interesting, with
the residual approaching the regime where quantisation and numerical effects become relevant.
However, the same cannot be said of every track, so the Mobile Fidelity mastering cannot simply
be described as a quantised copy of the Ludwig master.

Quantisation noise and the 1985 comparison

The relationship between the two 1985 masterings provides a useful control experiment. After channel reversal, gain correction and track-specific sample alignment, the John Dent and Bob Ludwig files match within approximately ±1 least-significant bit on most tracks. Their residuals are typically around -61 to -69 dB.

The Mobile Fidelity residuals are materially higher on several tracks. That is strong evidence against describing the 2013 CD layer as merely a digital level-shift or quantised copy of the 1985 Ludwig mastering.

What the analysis actually proves

  • The 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD layer is a distinct mastering.
  • It is not simply a global gain change of the 1985 Bob Ludwig mastering.
  • Its tonal balance is measurably different.
  • Magnitude-only EQ cannot fully explain the relationship.
  • The two programmes retain an exceptionally strong waveform relationship.
  • Complex transfer behaviour accounts for substantially more of the relationship than simple EQ.
  • A single universal album-wide transfer function has not been demonstrated.
  • Time-varying processing has not been demonstrated.
  • The waveform data alone cannot identify the physical analogue source tape.

What it does not prove

Digital waveform analysis cannot tell us with certainty which physical tape was used at the Mobile Fidelity mastering stage. A strong waveform relationship is evidence about the digital signals; it is not direct evidence about the provenance of the analogue source.

Likewise, these measurements do not establish the exact analogue mastering chain, converter, equaliser, compressor, limiter or other equipment that may have been used. Those conclusions would require documentation or additional independent evidence.

Conclusion

The 2013 Mobile Fidelity UDSACD 2099 CD layer is best described as a genuinely distinct digital mastering of Brothers in Arms. It is not simply the 1985 Bob Ludwig CD with its level changed.

At the same time, the forensic measurements show an unusually strong underlying relationship between the two programmes. The Mobile Fidelity version appears to preserve the same musical programme extremely closely while applying a different tonal and transfer characteristic.

That makes the 2013 CD layer particularly interesting: the differences are not adequately described by loudness alone, but neither does the evidence support treating it as an unrelated digital source.

Next stage

The next stage of the investigation is to run the same full analysis across all nine tracks and compare the transfer behaviour track by track. That should show whether the differences follow a consistent mastering pattern or whether individual tracks received materially different treatment.

Analysis by Andy Hancock. Measurements are based on the actual extracted CD-layer PCM data. Figures
labelled as summary or illustrative should not be treated as raw measurement plots.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, CD, computing, gadgets, mp3, music, vinyl | Comments Off on Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms: Forensic Analysis of the 2013 Mobile Fidelity CD Layer

Automating Windows 2000 Professional in VirtualBox with PowerShell

Monday, 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:

  1. Prompts for a VM name and cleans up any existing VM with that name.
  2. Creates a new VirtualBox VM (Windows2000 guest type, PIIX4 IDE controller, 1 CPU — matches what this OS actually needs).
  3. Creates and attaches a virtual hard disk.
  4. Kicks off VBoxManage unattended install pointed 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.
  5. Polls the VM’s state until it powers itself off.
  6. Exports the finished VM to a .ova appliance 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 install are 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 against VBoxManage unattended install --help for your installed version.
  • Windows 2000 needs 1 CPU and --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-additions needs to run first).
  • Downloaded scripts get blocked by Windows. If you see “not digitally signed” when running the .ps1 file, 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!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, ExpertsExchange, Hancock's VMware Half Hour, vExpert, vintage, Virtualisation, Virtualization, VMware | Comments Off on Automating Windows 2000 Professional in VirtualBox with PowerShell

Fleetwood Mac: What’s the Difference Between These Two Compact Discs?

Wednesday, August 26th, 2026
Lets start this by saying….As a “HiFi snob”! With lots of audio equipment!
Apart from the obvious difference — one has a black spine and the other has a clear spine — what’s the difference between these two compact discs?That was the question that started this little investigation.At first glance, both CDs contain the same Fleetwood Mac album. One is an early West German Target CD and the other is the 2004 remastered and expanded edition.But are the original album tracks actually the same?Does the 2004 version simply contain the same digital master at a higher volume?Or did the mastering change?I decided to find out.

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:

    1. Monday Morning
    2. Warm Ways
    3. Blue Letter
    4. Rhiannon
    5. Over My Head
  1. Crystal
  2. Say You Love Me
  3. Landslide
  4. World Turning
  5. Sugar Daddy
  6. 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:

  1. Jam, No. 2
  2. Say You Love Me
  3. Rhiannon (Will You Ever Win)
  4. Over My Head
  5. 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.


Fleetwood Mac 1994 versus 2004 crest factor comparison
Change in crest factor between the 1994 West German Target and 2004 editions. Negative values indicate reduced peak-to-average separation on the 2004 version.

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?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, Audiophile, CD, gadgets, mp3, music, vintage | Comments Off on Fleetwood Mac: What’s the Difference Between These Two Compact Discs?

Fortnite Sprites — Got to Catch Them All!

Friday, 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

Tags: , , ,
Posted in All, computing, games | Comments Off on Fortnite Sprites — Got to Catch Them All!

Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Fix the Failed to Update CPU#0 Microcode PSOD with ESXi 8.0.3i ESXi 8.0u3i

Wednesday, March 11th, 2026

Minisforum 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

  1. Boot the ESXi 8.0.3i installer.
  2. When the ESXi boot screen appears, press Shift + O.
  3. This opens the ESXi boot options.
  4. Add the required kernel option shown in the video.
  5. 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!

Buy Me an Espresso Coffee

Donate via PayPal

Follow Hancock’s VMware Half Hour

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, computing, ExpertsExchange, Hancock's VMware Half Hour, homelab, vExpert, Virtualisation, Virtualization, VMware | Comments Off on Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Fix the Failed to Update CPU#0 Microcode PSOD with ESXi 8.0.3i ESXi 8.0u3i

HOW TO: Create a Custom ESXi 9.0 ISO with the Realtek Driver Fling

Sunday, 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.zip

Step 2 – Load the Realtek Driver Depot

Add-EsxSoftwareDepot .\VMware-Re-Driver_1.101.01-5vmw.800.1.0.20613240.zip

Step 3 – List Available Image Profiles

Get-EsxImageProfile | Select Name

Step 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

dir

You 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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, computing, ExpertsExchange, Hancock's VMware Half Hour, homelab, vExpert, Virtualisation, Virtualization, VMware | Comments Off on HOW TO: Create a Custom ESXi 9.0 ISO with the Realtek Driver Fling

HOW TO: Create a Custom ESXi 8.0 ISO with the Realtek Driver Fling

Wednesday, 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.zip

Add the Realtek Driver Depot

Add-EsxSoftwareDepot .\VMware-Re-Driver_1.101.01-5vmw.800.1.0.20613240.zip

List Image Profiles

Get-EsxImageProfile | Select Name

Clone 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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, computing, ExpertsExchange, Hancock's VMware Half Hour, homelab, vExpert, Virtualisation, Virtualization, VMware | Comments Off on HOW TO: Create a Custom ESXi 8.0 ISO with the Realtek Driver Fling

Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Install the NEW Realtek driver on ESXi 9.0

Wednesday, 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.zip

After 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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, computing, ExpertsExchange, Hancock's VMware Half Hour, homelab, intel, vExpert, Virtualisation, Virtualization, VMware | Comments Off on Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Install the NEW Realtek driver on ESXi 9.0

Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Install the NEW Realtek driver on ESXi 8.0

Sunday, January 11th, 2026


Minisforum MS-A2: How to Install the New Realtek Driver on VMware ESXi 8.0

Running VMware ESXi 8.0 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 8.0
  • 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.zip

After installation, a reboot is required for the new network interfaces to become available.

Video Chapters

00:00 - Intro
00:06 - Welcome to Hancock's VMware Half Hour
00:31 - Today’s Video – Minisforum MS-A2
01:01 - Installing the ESXi Realtek Driver for ESXi 8.0
01:16 - Shoutout to member Henrychan1973!
02:03 - HTML Client view of network interfaces
03:00 - Broadcom engineering compiled a driver for ESXi 8.0
04:00 - Driver is available as a Broadcom Fling
05:00 - Download the driver from Broadcom Fling portal
05:44 - WinSCP – Copy driver ZIP to ESXi datastore
06:14 - Put host into maintenance mode
07:11 - Only three interfaces supported out of the box on MS-A2
07:16 - Start an SSH session using PuTTY
07:34 - Using lspci | grep Realtek
08:22 - Supported Realtek PCIe devices
08:35 - Installing the driver using esxcli
09:59 - Whoops! Typo!
10:37 - Can you spot it?
11:08 - Driver installed – reboot required
11:27 - Nano KVM issue accepting root password?
11:41 - Reboot via the GUI
12:30 - MS-A2 restarting
13:42 - Driver installed and Realtek interfaces available
14:54 - Thanks to Henrychan1973!
15:15 - 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 !!!

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in All, computing, ExpertsExchange, Hancock's VMware Half Hour, homelab, vExpert, Virtualisation, Virtualization, VMware | Comments Off on Minisforum MS-A2 HOW TO: Install the NEW Realtek driver on ESXi 8.0

« Older Entries