Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

I've got 10 problems.
I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
win xp pro on every one.
Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

You can install XP over a network but you usually need 3rd party  software  
like ghost , altiris deployment server(think you can try this one out for  
free)  or a RIS server.
 
Dion
 
"Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message  
newsa5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr...
> I've got 10 problems.
> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
> win xp pro on every one.
> Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
> Thanks.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message  
newsa5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr...
> I've got 10 problems.
> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
> win xp pro on every one.
> Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
> Thanks.
>
>
 
I think you'll find what you need in the Resource Kit folder on the XP CD.
 
ss.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Synapse Syndrome" <paradroid2000@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message  
newsa66uq$c1n$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message  
> newsa5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr...
>> I've got 10 problems.
>> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
>> win xp pro on every one.
>> Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>
> I think you'll find what you need in the Resource Kit folder on the XP CD.
>
> ss.
>
 
Ok.  Here are a couple of tutorials.
 
http://www.mcmcse.com/windows_xp/g [...] tall.shtml
 
http://www.serverwatch.com/tutoria [...] hp/1466511
 
This may be useful too.
 
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/p [...] fault.mspx
 
ss.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

Bandul wrote:
> I've got 10 problems.
> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
> win xp pro on every one.
> Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
> Thanks.
>  
>  
why dont you just buy a cheap CDROM for $20.00 and just install it normally.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

In article <da5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr>, Bandul says...
> I've got 10 problems.
> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
> win xp pro on every one.
> Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
> Thanks.
>  
Buy a USB CDROM drive.
 
 
--  
Conor
 
-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room  
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message  
news:MPG.1d30e3e43942626a98a1db@news.individual.net...
> In article <da5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr>, Bandul says...
>> I've got 10 problems.
>> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. I must install
>> win xp pro on every one.
>> Can i do that over a network.( got switch) or someting else.
>> Thanks.
>>
> Buy a USB CDROM drive.
>
 
Or even an ordinary internal one and fit it in each machine for the duration  
of the XP installation.     It is only a 5 minute job.
--  
Keith Willcocks
(If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living!)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:05:09 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:
 
 
>> No, the problem is XP's networking.  If anything, antiquated
>> protocols have been around so long there is simply no excuse
>> for problems from the OS.  
>>  
>> MS does not "tell us" what to migrate away from.  When they
>> give me a free PC then they can dictate what it uses, not
>> when it's listed as a "supported" feature.
>
>That sounds so terribly 'consumer noble' but the fact of the matter is  
>there's no good reason to support an antiquated protocol.
>
 
Define support.
 
There is no good reason NOT to support it to the extent that
it works.  There is no good reason not to support ANY
protocol, even one completely home-grown, to the extend that
it installs in same manner and is supported though whatever
features it, itself, supports in a standardized manner.  
 
Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
Certainly not so to anyone who uses it.  That doesn't even
begin to mean someone else shouldn't use something that
suits their needs more than your own personal alternative
would.
 
The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
that it's routable..  Once you remove that need, you're left
with a slower protocol.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

kony wrote:
 
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:05:09 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>  
>  
>  
>>>No, the problem is XP's networking.  If anything, antiquated
>>>protocols have been around so long there is simply no excuse
>>>for problems from the OS.  
>>>
>>>MS does not "tell us" what to migrate away from.  When they
>>>give me a free PC then they can dictate what it uses, not
>>>when it's listed as a "supported" feature.
>>
>>That sounds so terribly 'consumer noble' but the fact of the matter is  
>>there's no good reason to support an antiquated protocol.
>>
>  
>  
> Define support.
>  
> There is no good reason NOT to support it to the extent that
> it works.  There is no good reason not to support ANY
> protocol, even one completely home-grown, to the extend that
> it installs in same manner and is supported though whatever
> features it, itself, supports in a standardized manner.  
 
That is simply silly. 'Support', of any kind, costs time and effort and  
when the return doesn't justify it then one doesn't do it.
 
 
> Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
 
It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
 
> Certainly not so to anyone who uses it.
 
Neither are buggy whips, to those who 'use them'. but there's little reason  
to 'support' them in "horseless carriages."
 
>  That doesn't even
> begin to mean someone else shouldn't use something that
> suits their needs more than your own personal alternative
> would.
 
They're free to use it. They'll just have to provide their own 'support',  
or a third party who might be interested.
 
> The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
> that it's routable..
 
Ain't no 'little' thing.
 
Not to mention it's universally supported across virtually every platform  
on the planet instead of a single O.S..
 
>  Once you remove that need, you're left
> with a slower protocol.  
 
Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says...
> Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than XP.  
> Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs  
> faster than those OS's.
>  
2000 is better than XP.
 
Have you ever tried networking with XP? Notice how long it takes to  
list the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces folder and how long it takes  
to list the contents of a share?
 
 
--  
Conor
 
-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room  
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message  
news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4@news.individual.net...
> In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says...
>> Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than XP.
>> Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs
>> faster than those OS's.
>>
> 2000 is better than XP.
Absolute Rubbish!
>
> Have you ever tried networking with XP?
Yes, but I do it properly
 
Notice how long it takes to
> list the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces folder and how long it takes
> to list the contents of a share?
Can't say that I have, it must be you.  A proper network uses login scripts  
to map paths to a server.  Not have piddly network shares scattered accross  
2 dozen XP home PC's.
 
 
>
>
> --  
> Conor
>
> -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
> K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> 2000 is better than XP.
 
Much better?
 
> Have you ever tried networking with XP?
 
No. My doctor advised against it.
 
> Notice how long it takes to list the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces
> folder and how long it takes to list the contents of a share?
 
No. Never noticed how long it takes to list the contents of the your netowrk
places folder before.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

In article <42c7d91e$0$843$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says...
>  
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message  
> news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4@news.individual.net...
> > In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> > 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says...
> >> Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than XP.
> >> Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs
> >> faster than those OS's.
> >>
> > 2000 is better than XP.
> Absolute Rubbish!
> >
> > Have you ever tried networking with XP?
> Yes, but I do it properly
>  
In other words you hacked the registry and turned off some of those  
"features that make XP better than 98/2000"
 
 
 
--  
Conor
 
-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room  
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

In article <4c57a2a9215249fdb321639218a85e98@pd7tw1no>, Fred is back  
says...
 
> No. Never noticed how long it takes to list the contents of the your netowrk
> places folder before.
>  
Nob.
 
 
--  
Conor
 
-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room  
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:41:18 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:
 
 
>> There is no good reason NOT to support it to the extent that
>> it works.  There is no good reason not to support ANY
>> protocol, even one completely home-grown, to the extend that
>> it installs in same manner and is supported though whatever
>> features it, itself, supports in a standardized manner.  
>
>That is simply silly. 'Support', of any kind, costs time and effort and  
>when the return doesn't justify it then one doesn't do it.
 
Nope,   "Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K.  It
requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
as functionality is concerned.  If they want to drop active
technical support policies for implementing it, that is
another story and understandable.
 
 
>
>
>> Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
>
>It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
 
Again, no.
Adding features that someone doesn't need, does not in
itself antiquate something that is better for the user's
needs.  Again it seems to come back to the idea that what
you want, specifically, should suddenly make what someone
else wants, irrelevant.
 
 
 
>
>> Certainly not so to anyone who uses it.
>
>Neither are buggy whips, to those who 'use them'. but there's little reason  
>to 'support' them in "horseless carriages."
 
So apparently you are choosing the buggy whip.  It has more
versatility than a car, since it whips animals and
unfortunately slaves (at the time).  You choose this instead
of the faster alternative.  
 
When one does not need the TCP/IP features, it's simply
counter-productive and illogical to use it when those very
features make it slower.
 
 
>
>>  That doesn't even
>> begin to mean someone else shouldn't use something that
>> suits their needs more than your own personal alternative
>> would.
>
>They're free to use it. They'll just have to provide their own 'support',  
>or a third party who might be interested.
 
Yep, but that has nothing to do with "antiquated".  What
will antiquate Netbeui is when an alternative exceeds it's
performance but also is non-routable.  In other words,
TCP/IP can never possible be the thing that antiquates it,
because both exist for different reasons.
 
>
>> The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>> that it's routable..
>
>Ain't no 'little' thing.
 
Right- BUT if you don't need to route, perhaps even don't
WANT to route, then it is not only a feature that one
wouldn't miss, they choose to avoid it and reap the
performance gain from doing without.
 
 
>
>Not to mention it's universally supported across virtually every platform  
>on the planet instead of a single O.S..
 
... which is completely irrelevant in fixed scenarios where
no routing is needed.  Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
the job.
 
 
>
>>  Once you remove that need, you're left
>> with a slower protocol.  
>
>Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.
 
It is senseless to suggest use of a protocol with more
features when none of those features are needed and it's
slower because of them.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:48:16 +1000, "Black Adder"
<home@home.com> wrote:
 
>Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than XP.  
>Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs  
>faster than those OS's.
 
Thanks for trolling by.
If you can't run Win2k, it's your problem. The rest of the
world does so fine- in FACT, 2K is still the dominant
business OS, not XP.  If you personally can't secure it, and
since it's still dominant, you ought to stop trying to
pretend to know about security.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4@news.individual.net...
> Black Adder wrote
 
>> Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are
>> better than XP. Windows XP has got more functionallity,
>> better communications and runs faster than those OS's.
 
> 2000 is better than XP.
 
Nope, in spades with the networking being discussed.
 
> Have you ever tried networking with XP?
 
Yep, with all of those, actually.
 
> Notice how long it takes to list the contents
> of the My Netowrk PLaces folder
 
Mine is very fast.
 
> and how long it takes to list the contents of a share?
 
Mine is very fast.
 
And you dont have to fart around with multiple accounts with XP, you do with 2K.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message  
news:MPG.1d323a7ce235389798a200@news.individual.net...
> In article <42c7d91e$0$843$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
> 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says...
>>
>> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4@news.individual.net...
>> > In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
>> > 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says...
>> >> Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than XP.
>> >> Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs
>> >> faster than those OS's.
>> >>
>> > 2000 is better than XP.
>> Absolute Rubbish!
>> >
>> > Have you ever tried networking with XP?
>> Yes, but I do it properly
>>
> In other words you hacked the registry and turned off some of those
> "features that make XP better than 98/2000"
 
Wrong again.