Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Install win xp over a network

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 2, 2005 2:09:58 PM

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.

More about : install win network

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 2, 2005 3:24:15 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 2, 2005 6:05:14 PM

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
news:D a5i0p$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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 2, 2005 6:12:26 PM

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
news:D a66uq$c1n$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message
> news:D a5i0p$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/guides/additionalinsta...

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/146651...

This may be useful too.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/d...

ss.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 2, 2005 10:49:00 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 2, 2005 11:17:45 PM

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!)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 12:34:42 AM

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
news:D a5i0p$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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 4:38:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers (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.
>
>
If all identical build and install on one then ghost across the network
will take only a few minutes to drag across..
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 4:38:05 AM

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

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:38:04 +0800, Uncle-Fester <go@from.home> 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.
> If all identical build and install on one then ghost across the network
> will take only a few minutes to drag across..


Ghost is the way to go if all computers are identical
don't ya have to make 10 floppies and make sure the network drivers is all
setup properly
or is it more easier with Ghost 9

Will XP Install from the Harddrive folder..
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 8:43:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 8:43:41 AM

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.
July 3, 2005 12:30:06 PM

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

X.Ray wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:38:04 +0800, Uncle-Fester <go@from.home> 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.
>> If all identical build and install on one then ghost across the network
>> will take only a few minutes to drag across..
>
>
>
> Ghost is the way to go if all computers are identical
> don't ya have to make 10 floppies and make sure the network drivers is
> all setup properly
> or is it more easier with Ghost 9
>
> Will XP Install from the Harddrive folder..
boot from floppy , make commands and copy image across , reboot . if I
can do it so can you , last time we did this was over a gig network in
an Internet cafe and averaged 10 minute installs with several running at
once .
total job took about 85 minutes for 40 machines ghosted.. good luck.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 4:19:24 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 4:36:11 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 8:22:11 PM

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

At least ONE of the computers has to have a CD-Rom drive to start the
installation on the network.

--
DaveW



"Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D a5i0p$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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 9:15:11 PM

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

David Maynard wrote:

> > The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
> > that it's routable..
>
> Ain't no 'little' thing.

-------------
NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) is a new, extended
version of NetBIOS lets computers communicate within a local
area network. NetBEUI is the best performance choice for
communication within a single LAN. It does not support the
routing of messages to other networks. It is recommended to
install both NetBEUI and TCP/IP in each computer and set the
server up to use NetBEUI for communication within the LAN and
TCP/IP for communication beyond the LAN.

http://cob.bloomu.edu/afundaburk/personal/NBEA%20-%20Le...'s%20Go%20Wireless%20Presentation.ppt
-----------

Look people.

Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda - to make money (like most
corporations). However, their main product (desktop OS's) aren't like
most consumer goods (ie like a car). How do you know when an OS is
"worn out" ? Well, for Microsoft (which is really (in the real world)
the only game in town when it comes to OS's) they can call the shots
to some degree by forcing the obselence of older os's by forcing
certain new technologies into the market (the migration from Win-95 to
Win-98 was coaxed by such things as USB and FAT-32).

This is really just another way to say that a good deal of the claimed
differences between different versions of Windows is marketing
bullshit designed to instill a degree of psycological bias against the
older OS. It creates a notion that the older OS is "worn out" in an
almost physical way.

The other aspect of what Microsoft does is to gear Windows first and
formost towards their best paying customer - that being large
corporations (and the gov't). They want work-station security, they
want (need) routable protocals, they want remote administration
capability, they want permission-based user hirarchies. So Windows
(2K and XP) comes "out of the box" with all sorts of services and
ports configured as active by default. Which leads to the next point:

Microsoft values reducing the need for customer support far more than
workstation security. The default settings for 2K and XP are set to
be most appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and
fire-wall). For the small company or home user, XP is (and was) a
disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.

What's this got to do with NetBEUI vs TCP/IP?

It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality. If TCP will work
everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc) then it
becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI. It will mean fewer
support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies. It doesn't mean
NetBEUI is bad or inferior (it seems it may have a performance edge on
small networks vs TCP, and it certainly has a security edge over
TCP). It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life
simpler. I'm sure a big part of it was to force some degree of
incompatibility between exiting networks (with NT4 servers) which
would force those systems into the garbage in favor of XP-pro.

It's funny how jaded we all pretty much are towards Microsoft the
corporate pirahna fish that they are, how they use strong-arm tactics
to kill competition, yet we let their mantra of OS obselescence sink
into our heads exactly according to their plan.

> Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited,
> protocol.

As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 11:11:03 PM

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)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 3, 2005 11:52:31 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 12:03:09 AM

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

John Doe wrote:

> Troll

Looks like Bill Gates chose the wrong week to start taking
amphetamines.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 12:04:11 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 1:45:28 AM

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

Some Guy wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>that it's routable..
>>
>>Ain't no 'little' thing.
>
>
> -------------
> NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) is a new, extended
> version of NetBIOS lets computers communicate within a local
> area network. NetBEUI is the best performance choice for
> communication within a single LAN. It does not support the
> routing of messages to other networks. It is recommended to
> install both NetBEUI and TCP/IP in each computer and set the
> server up to use NetBEUI for communication within the LAN and
> TCP/IP for communication beyond the LAN.
>
> http://cob.bloomu.edu/afundaburk/personal/NBEA%20-%20Le...'s%20Go%20Wireless%20Presentation.ppt
> -----------

And I can find web sites that claim Elvis is alive and aliens live in comet
tails. Doesn't make them 'true'.

The issue isn't whether one can make an esoteric case that, under special
circumstances, Netbeui, in the cases where it can actually work and not
fall flat on it's ass, might be 'more efficient' than TCP/IP, assuming one
has a good enough network analyzer to measure it. It's whether that
insignificance is worth double supporting protocols when the newer, more
capable, one is perfectly fine at handling all cases and not just a select few.

And it isn't.

>
> Look people.
>
<snip of delusional paranoia>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 2:25:11 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 2:25:12 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 2:48:56 AM

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 17:15:11 -0400, Some Guy <Some@Guy.com>
wrote:

>David Maynard wrote:
>
>> > The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>> > that it's routable..
>>
>> Ain't no 'little' thing.
>
>-------------
>NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) is a new, extended
>version of NetBIOS lets computers communicate within a local
>area network. NetBEUI is the best performance choice for
>communication within a single LAN. It does not support the
>routing of messages to other networks. It is recommended to
>install both NetBEUI and TCP/IP in each computer and set the
>server up to use NetBEUI for communication within the LAN and
>TCP/IP for communication beyond the LAN.
>
>http://cob.bloomu.edu/afundaburk/personal/NBEA%20-%20Le...'s%20Go%20Wireless%20Presentation.ppt
>-----------
>
>Look people.
>
>Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda - to make money (like most
>corporations). However, their main product (desktop OS's) aren't like
>most consumer goods (ie like a car). How do you know when an OS is
>"worn out" ? Well, for Microsoft (which is really (in the real world)
>the only game in town when it comes to OS's) they can call the shots
>to some degree by forcing the obselence of older os's by forcing
>certain new technologies into the market (the migration from Win-95 to
>Win-98 was coaxed by such things as USB and FAT-32).
>
>This is really just another way to say that a good deal of the claimed
>differences between different versions of Windows is marketing
>bullshit designed to instill a degree of psycological bias against the
>older OS. It creates a notion that the older OS is "worn out" in an
>almost physical way.
>
>The other aspect of what Microsoft does is to gear Windows first and
>formost towards their best paying customer - that being large
>corporations (and the gov't). They want work-station security, they
>want (need) routable protocals, they want remote administration
>capability, they want permission-based user hirarchies. So Windows
>(2K and XP) comes "out of the box" with all sorts of services and
>ports configured as active by default. Which leads to the next point:
>
>Microsoft values reducing the need for customer support far more than
>workstation security. The default settings for 2K and XP are set to
>be most appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and
>fire-wall). For the small company or home user, XP is (and was) a
>disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.
>
>What's this got to do with NetBEUI vs TCP/IP?
>
>It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality. If TCP will work
>everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc) then it
>becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI. It will mean fewer
>support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies. It doesn't mean
>NetBEUI is bad or inferior (it seems it may have a performance edge on
>small networks vs TCP, and it certainly has a security edge over
>TCP). It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life
>simpler. I'm sure a big part of it was to force some degree of
>incompatibility between exiting networks (with NT4 servers) which
>would force those systems into the garbage in favor of XP-pro.
>
>It's funny how jaded we all pretty much are towards Microsoft the
>corporate pirahna fish that they are, how they use strong-arm tactics
>to kill competition, yet we let their mantra of OS obselescence sink
>into our heads exactly according to their plan.
>
>> Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited,
>> protocol.
>
>As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".


OH MY.

Nice post.

Mr. Maynard is going to be busy for the next week with this
one.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 4:27:57 AM

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

I suspect that Macro$oft discovered some degree of incompatibility or
instability with NetBeui on XP - plenty of evidence on the net that
such instability exists, and some work-arounds (like using some files
from Win-2K) have been suggested. M$'s corporate direction of
embracing the internet (after first dismissing it in the mid 1990's)
meant that TCP/IP took on more importance over NetBeui (I'm sure they
gritted their teeth at the realization that they couldn't force their
own protocal on the internet).

With the introduction of XP, M$ knew it would face some raised
eyebrows with the official "non-support" of NetBeui, so they began a
propaganda smear campaign against it, as this blurb of theirs
indicates:

-------------
Support for the NetBEUI network protocol has been discontinued in
Windows XP. This protocol is not available to install in Windows XP.
The NetBEUI protocol was developed in 1985. It is used by network
operating systems such as Microsoft LAN Manager, Microsoft Windows for
Workgroups, Microsoft Windows 95, and Microsoft Windows NT. The
NetBEUI protocol implements the OSI LLC2 protocol, and is a
non-routable protocol.
------------

Interesting that they somehow fail to mention that Windows 98 and
Windows 2000 also included NetBeui as a supported protocal. Hell -
who want's to associate themselves with the likes of WFWG or Win-95?
Yech!

The above blurb is quoted on this page:

http://www.marcspages.co.uk/nsd/rpm0124.htm

and is followed by this line:

--------------
But it is this last fact that still makes it one of the fastest
around, and is why Reliable Power Meters still use it.
--------------

Hmmm.

For more level-headed discourse on NetBeui, have a look here:

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/42.htm

Tell me that the default shares on XP and the default use (and
settings) of TCP bindings aren't a recipe for disaster on home
networks (most of which don't use NAT routers) and that wireless
networking makes it worse. But nope - can't blame M$ for how they
configured XP. Took them 4 years for SP2, but it's too late for the
armies of trojan'd home computers that have turned the internet into
spam-hell (that, ironically, corporations have to deal with).

What was sacrificed to make corporate use of XP smooth and painless
has instead given them grief because of all the infected XP boxes on
residential networks. But no, that can't be. We all trust M$ to
always make the best, the wise decisions - right?

For more venting about M$ (and a little bit on NetBeui) look here:

http://www.brain.com.pk/~mnk/Tutorials/HateMS.htm

Bottom line is that if you're forced by your own delusions (or by
misguided corporate policy) to "upgrade" to XP, you're better off not
to mess with NetBeui because M$ got it wrong with XP. But don't think
they stopped "support" for it because it's antiquated (TCP is about 5
years older).

It's funny to see people rationalize the decisions M$ makes about this
or that - as if they had the best interests of their current or
previous customers in mind. History has shown time and time again
that they are always looking to see how they can (1) ease their
support load and (2) better control the obselesence of their own
products. Logic and engineering rational fall victim to the marketing
dept.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 7:08:03 AM

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

Some Guy wrote:
> I suspect that Macro$oft discovered some degree of incompatibility or
> instability with NetBeui on XP

Amazing how they 'discovered' that over 7 years ago when they announced,
prior to Windows 98, that Netbeui would be going away so start making plans
to do without it.

> - plenty of evidence on the net that
> such instability exists, and some work-arounds (like using some files
> from Win-2K) have been suggested. M$'s corporate direction of
> embracing the internet (after first dismissing it in the mid 1990's)
> meant that TCP/IP took on more importance over NetBeui (I'm sure they
> gritted their teeth at the realization that they couldn't force their
> own protocal on the internet).

Except it's an IBM protocol, developed for them by Sytec Inc, for token ring.

It [Netbios followed by Netbeui] was created at a time when small
stand-alone networks were still rather common but, in case you hadn't
noticed, to find even a two computer home network that isn't internet
connected is extremely rare. And the esoteric 'speed advantage', assuming
one could manage to notice it, is all but erased when running multiple
protocols; and the 'small size [netbios] so it fits well into DOS 640K' is
meaningless to modern machines.


> With the introduction of XP, M$ knew it would face some raised
> eyebrows with the official "non-support" of NetBeui,

You mean among people who never read announcements?

> so they began a
> propaganda smear campaign against it, as this blurb of theirs
> indicates:
>
> -------------
> Support for the NetBEUI network protocol has been discontinued in
> Windows XP. This protocol is not available to install in Windows XP.
> The NetBEUI protocol was developed in 1985. It is used by network
> operating systems such as Microsoft LAN Manager, Microsoft Windows for
> Workgroups, Microsoft Windows 95, and Microsoft Windows NT. The
> NetBEUI protocol implements the OSI LLC2 protocol, and is a
> non-routable protocol.
> ------------

And where's the "smear?"


> Interesting that they somehow fail to mention that Windows 98 and
> Windows 2000 also included NetBeui as a supported protocal. Hell -
> who want's to associate themselves with the likes of WFWG or Win-95?
> Yech!

It was provided as backward support, not a recommended protocol, and anyone
who reads announcements knew it was going away.

<snip of more paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 7:15:57 AM

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 21:25:07 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:56:58 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K.
>>>
>>>It didn't appear by magic and I'll bet you expected it to work because the
>>>magic word "supported" was there.
>>
>>
>> We don't have to care whether it was magic, only that it WAS
>> there and only removed through additional effort.
>
>If you'd try thinking for a few minutes instead of trying to 'invent'
>nonsense you'd realize they didn't decide to waste effort 'removing it' for
>no reason.
>
>The simple fact is it costs money, more than to 'remove it', to trouble
>shoot and 'support' the damn thing for no good reason.

Only if we presuppose it is significant to troubleshoot
something that already worked.

Howvever, you again presuppose I suggest MS should be
accountable for something. I do not. I dont' expect to
call them up and be told how to Netbeui anything.



>> yeah, removing it vs not. More work.
>
>Wrong. It has to be tested and validated to be 'left in' and that's a hell
>of a lot more work that removing the entry in the "add protocol" table.

No, because it was already working. You don't have to
revalidate something that remains static.


>> As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
>> anything.
>
>If you already mentioned it then you were just as wrong then as you are
>now. Support *means* it 'works'. And that means it must be "officially tested."

Only in one narrow definition of "support", which is why I
mentioned that previously, the context of a "support"
definition. Clearly I do not put much weight in what
WIndows officially supports in your mind, since in my mind,
it doesn't even officiall or non-officially "support" things
they claim it "suports", like security. COULD it be set up
to be more secure? Yes, but likewise, Netbeui could be set
up to work. Support HAS to be taken in context.


>
>> In fact, since it already worked, and since it
>> does still work,
>
>It was claimed it didn't work. If it works then there's no issue at all.
>Use it.

Ok, then the rest of our discussion is pointless.


>
>> these random ideas about support are
>> irrelevant.
>
>No it isn't because "support" is a warranty and an offer to provide, tada,
>'support' for problems you have when it doesn't.

That's one definition, but certainly not the only one.



>> I made no such claim.
>> Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.
>
>I never said there was a problem. I said there's no reason to 'support' a
>protocol that offers no significant value.

Again it boils down to the definition of "support". It can
be supported as-in, easily implemented instead of hidden
away in a folder one has to actively seek, even if it isn't
supported as a warranty/policy/etc. There are quite a few
things windows can do easily that Microsoft does _not_ (per
your definition), "support", yet they still easily
implement.


>> And?
>> Who said any different?
>
>You did by implying it's 'free' to "support" it.

Because it is.
"Support" does not mean "warranty" in general. That's why
we have these two distinct terms. Only when specifically
defined in this narrow context would it be true. When a
term is used in general, it cannot automatically be assumed
to mean only the most narrow of interpretations.



>> Again, I have never argued not to use TCP/IP for internet.
>> The key thing you keep overlooking is that not all things on
>> a lan need routing.
>
>I'm not 'overlooking' anything. What you're 'overlooking' is it's less time
>and effort to support one protocol than 2 and that a couple of disgruntled
>yahoos who can't configure a network is not a "good reason" to 'support'
>the obsolete one.

Yes, networks are trival, so are any concerns that conflict
with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 7:15:58 AM

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

kony wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:25:07 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:56:58 -0500, David Maynard
>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K.
>>>>
>>>>It didn't appear by magic and I'll bet you expected it to work because the
>>>>magic word "supported" was there.
>>>
>>>
>>>We don't have to care whether it was magic, only that it WAS
>>>there and only removed through additional effort.
>>
>>If you'd try thinking for a few minutes instead of trying to 'invent'
>>nonsense you'd realize they didn't decide to waste effort 'removing it' for
>>no reason.
>>
>>The simple fact is it costs money, more than to 'remove it', to trouble
>>shoot and 'support' the damn thing for no good reason.
>
>
> Only if we presuppose it is significant to troubleshoot
> something that already worked.

It is, even if for no other reason than you have to prove it *still* 'works'.

> Howvever, you again presuppose I suggest MS should be
> accountable for something. I do not. I dont' expect to
> call them up and be told how to Netbeui anything.

If you also don't care if it works 'right', whatever that might mean (a non
trivial thing to define as well), then you're not talking about "support"
and the issue is moot.

>>>yeah, removing it vs not. More work.
>>
>>Wrong. It has to be tested and validated to be 'left in' and that's a hell
>>of a lot more work that removing the entry in the "add protocol" table.
>
>
> No, because it was already working. You don't have to
> revalidate something that remains static.

Yes, you do. Perhaps not as much but I assure you that if you say that in a
software QA lab you'll get slapped.

>>>As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
>>>anything.
>>
>>If you already mentioned it then you were just as wrong then as you are
>>now. Support *means* it 'works'. And that means it must be "officially tested."
>
>
> Only in one narrow definition of "support", which is why I
> mentioned that previously, the context of a "support"
> definition. Clearly I do not put much weight in what
> WIndows officially supports in your mind, since in my mind,
> it doesn't even officiall or non-officially "support" things
> they claim it "suports", like security. COULD it be set up
> to be more secure? Yes, but likewise, Netbeui could be set
> up to work. Support HAS to be taken in context.

Now I see what the problem is: your vision of 'support'. And I'm telling
you that even if you *think* nothing has 'changed' it has to be retested.
And if you provide 'support' you have to at least provide bug tracking and
some level of assistance, even if it's to tell someone it doesn't work that
way when they screw it up.

And that doesn't even count that the odds you'll find nothing to 'fix', or
a workaround to explain, after an O.S. change is next to zero. And the more
sure you are "nothing can go wrong" the closer to zero it is.

I can't tell you how many times a programmer's answer to a problem has been
"but I didn't change anything THERE" only to be followed a few hours later
but "oh wait, that interacts with..."

Remember, our original poster is all pissed because HE CAN'T MAKE IT WORK
and is incensed MS no longer 'supports' it because he wants them to MAKE IT
WORK. So what do you think *he* means by 'support'?


>>> In fact, since it already worked, and since it
>>>does still work,
>>
>>It was claimed it didn't work. If it works then there's no issue at all.
>>Use it.
>
>
> Ok, then the rest of our discussion is pointless.
>
>>>these random ideas about support are
>>>irrelevant.
>>
>>No it isn't because "support" is a warranty and an offer to provide, tada,
>>'support' for problems you have when it doesn't.
>
>
> That's one definition, but certainly not the only one.

It's the one the lawyers will pull out if you don't provide it.

>>>I made no such claim.
>>>Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.
>>
>>I never said there was a problem. I said there's no reason to 'support' a
>>protocol that offers no significant value.
>
>
> Again it boils down to the definition of "support". It can
> be supported as-in, easily implemented instead of hidden
> away in a folder one has to actively seek, even if it isn't
> supported as a warranty/policy/etc. There are quite a few
> things windows can do easily that Microsoft does _not_ (per
> your definition), "support", yet they still easily
> implement.
>

See below.

>
>>>And?
>>>Who said any different?
>>
>>You did by implying it's 'free' to "support" it.
>
>
> Because it is.

No, it isn't.

> "Support" does not mean "warranty" in general.

Yes, it does, although not to the extent you're trying to imply.

"We support X."

Does it work? No. Are you going to make it work? No. Is there a
workaround? No.

Then why the hell do you say you "support" it?

Well, it's on the menu.

Sounds like a Monty Python skit.

The 'warranty' isn't that the whole system is 'flawless' but your liability
increases with the significance of the function.

> That's why
> we have these two distinct terms. Only when specifically
> defined in this narrow context would it be true. When a
> term is used in general, it cannot automatically be assumed
> to mean only the most narrow of interpretations.

You're trying to invent a meaning to the term 'support' that does not exist
in the industry and is essentially useless.

Near as I can tell, your version of 'support' is 'make it easy to install'
by leaving it on the menu. Which boils down to, again using your 'free'
version of 'support', "put it on the menu even though you won't tell me how
to use it, track bugs, make it work or provide a workaround if it fails,
talk to me about it if I call, or do anything whatsoever."

And while you may like to call that "support" I assure you that no one else
will.


>>>Again, I have never argued not to use TCP/IP for internet.
>>>The key thing you keep overlooking is that not all things on
>>>a lan need routing.
>>
>>I'm not 'overlooking' anything. What you're 'overlooking' is it's less time
>>and effort to support one protocol than 2 and that a couple of disgruntled
>>yahoos who can't configure a network is not a "good reason" to 'support'
>>the obsolete one.
>
>
> Yes, networks are trival,

It's precisely because it isn't trivial that you'd want it clear you do not
support it. Like by taking it off the standard menu and putting it in the
'your own responsibility' folder.

> so are any concerns that conflict
> with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.

Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the
other party is concerned with their wallet too?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 10:19:24 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 10:19:25 AM

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

In article <3iqvifFmds12U1@individual.net>, Rod Speed says...

> And you dont have to fart around with multiple accounts with XP, you do with 2K.
>
Err, that's why Windows XP boxen are owned within 30 seconds of hooking
up to the internet.


--
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)
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 10:20:15 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 11:36:16 AM

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 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:


>> so are any concerns that conflict
>> with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>
>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the
>other party is concerned with their wallet too?

Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 11:36:17 AM

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

kony wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>>
>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the
>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>
>
> Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?

No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.

But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while
simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 12:07:25 PM

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

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.


You bring up a very important point- we're all just
hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what
to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every
time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up.

At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that
'wasn't installed by default' matters at all.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 12:07:26 PM

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

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.
>
>
>
> You bring up a very important point- we're all just
> hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what
> to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every
> time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up.
>
> At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that
> 'wasn't installed by default' matters at all.

No. The point is it's de facto evidence that Netbeui hasn't been a
preferred or recommended protocol for ages.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 1:00:12 PM

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.1d3266934fe56c5898a215@news.individual.net...
> Rod Speed wrote

>> And you dont have to fart around with multiple accounts with XP, you do with
>> 2K.

> Err, that's why Windows XP boxen are owned
> within 30 seconds of hooking up to the internet.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 6:04:17 PM

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

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>>>
>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the
>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>>
>>
>> Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
>
>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.
>
>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while
>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.

No, you were the one arguing about it costing them money, so
within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
they had a competitive market.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 6:04:18 PM

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

kony wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>>>>
>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the
>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
>>
>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.
>>
>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while
>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.
>
>
> No,

Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's wallet,"
which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost cutting even
though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.

> you were the one arguing about it costing them money,

Yes, I was and am. Because it does.

> so
> within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
> have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
> they had a competitive market.

Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a meaningless
protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.

Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage in
'supporting' inferiority.

You're letting emotion obscure reasoning.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 6:05:16 PM

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

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:30:32 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.
>>
>>
>>
>> You bring up a very important point- we're all just
>> hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what
>> to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every
>> time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up.
>>
>> At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that
>> 'wasn't installed by default' matters at all.
>
>No. The point is it's de facto evidence that Netbeui hasn't been a
>preferred or recommended protocol for ages.

Really?

So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred
too!
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 6:05:17 PM

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

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:30:32 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>><rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You bring up a very important point- we're all just
>>>hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what
>>>to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every
>>>time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up.
>>>
>>>At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that
>>>'wasn't installed by default' matters at all.
>>
>>No. The point is it's de facto evidence that Netbeui hasn't been a
>>preferred or recommended protocol for ages.
>
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

>
> So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred
> too!

As a default, yes, because everything would work with it and, if one didn't
know any better, you could use it that way for the rest of your life. It
'works'.

Everything doesn't work with Netbeui no matter how you 'configure' it. In
fact, very little, in the way of network topologies, works with it.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 9:39:08 PM

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

David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:

> kony wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard
>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>kony wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
>>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed
when the
>>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
>>>
>>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.
>>>
>>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was
'free' while
>>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.
>>
>>
>> No,
>
> Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's
wallet,"
> which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost
cutting even
> though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.
>
>> you were the one arguing about it costing them money,
>
> Yes, I was and am. Because it does.
>
>> so
>> within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
>> have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
>> they had a competitive market.
>
> Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a
meaningless
> protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.
>
> Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage
in
> 'supporting' inferiority.

Are you talking about Windows? As decided by our courts, Microsoft
in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
system market.

> You're letting emotion obscure reasoning.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 10:01:27 PM

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

David Maynard wrote:
> kony wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
>> Howvever, you again presuppose I suggest MS should be
>> accountable for something. I do not. I dont' expect to
>> call them up and be told how to Netbeui anything.
>
> If you also don't care if it works 'right', whatever that might
> mean (a non trivial thing to define as well), then you're not
> talking about "support" and the issue is moot.
>
.... snip ...
>>
>> Only in one narrow definition of "support", which is why I
>> mentioned that previously, the context of a "support"
>> definition. Clearly I do not put much weight in what
>> WIndows officially supports in your mind, since in my mind,
>> it doesn't even officiall or non-officially "support" things
>> they claim it "suports", like security. COULD it be set up
>> to be more secure? Yes, but likewise, Netbeui could be set
>> up to work. Support HAS to be taken in context.
>
> Now I see what the problem is: your vision of 'support'. And I'm
> telling you that even if you *think* nothing has 'changed' it has
> to be retested. And if you provide 'support' you have to at least
> provide bug tracking and some level of assistance, even if it's
> to tell someone it doesn't work that way when they screw it up.
>
> And that doesn't even count that the odds you'll find nothing to
> 'fix', or a workaround to explain, after an O.S. change is next
> to zero. And the more sure you are "nothing can go wrong" the
> closer to zero it is.
>
> I can't tell you how many times a programmer's answer to a problem
> has been "but I didn't change anything THERE" only to be followed
> a few hours later but "oh wait, that interacts with..."
>
> Remember, our original poster is all pissed because HE CAN'T MAKE
> IT WORK and is incensed MS no longer 'supports' it because he
> wants them to MAKE IT WORK. So what do you think *he* means by
> 'support'?

uSoft (and most others) have never offered support that includes
'make it work'. At most they will offer some lame excuse for it
not working, and possibly a work around. Then there are also the
instances of simple customer ignorance, which is not appreciably
curtailed by the total absence of instruction and reference
manuals.

For the type of support you want you have to go to the open source
world, and a few conscientious vendors. The latter are few and far
between. As an example, I have found that FinePrint is a
compromise (though they won't admit it). Several times I have
informed them of a failing, awkwardness, etc. in their package, and
they have effectively said "that's the way things are". However I
have often found that within a couple of months their next release
(available free) incorporates the fix. Sometimes it has waited for
the next major release and has cost me $10.00 to upgrade.

Real support, where someone knowledgeable listens, and goes off to
investigate, only exists in the opensource and the odd small
vendor. I have had that sort of thing in the dim past from various
compiler (and other) vendors. Zortech used to be a shining
example, until bought and destroyed by Symantec. The problem with
such support is that you have to separate the "I bought a Yugo and
it doesn't perform like a Benz" types and ignore them.

>
.... snip ...
>
>> "Support" does not mean "warranty" in general.
>
> Yes, it does, although not to the extent you're trying to imply.
>
> "We support X."
>
> Does it work? No. Are you going to make it work? No. Is there
> a workaround? No.

All support means is "We admit it is our product. Pay us".

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 4, 2005 11:24:41 PM

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

John Doe wrote:
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard
>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>kony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
>>>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed
>
> when the
>
>>>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
>>>>
>>>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.
>>>>
>>>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was
>
> 'free' while
>
>>>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.
>>>
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's
>
> wallet,"
>
>>which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost
>
> cutting even
>
>>though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.
>>
>>
>>>you were the one arguing about it costing them money,
>>
>>Yes, I was and am. Because it does.
>>
>>
>>>so
>>>within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
>>>have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
>>>they had a competitive market.
>>
>>Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a
>
> meaningless
>
>>protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.
>>
>>Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage
>
> in
>
>>'supporting' inferiority.
>
>
> Are you talking about Windows?

I'm talking about Kony's assertion of what would happen in a "competitive
market."

> As decided by our courts, Microsoft
> in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
> system market.

Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a
"competitive market."


>>You're letting emotion obscure reasoning.
>
>
> Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Typical knee jerk illogic.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 5, 2005 3:47:59 AM

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

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D mgic15jtpj1jqe74g1ggfl34bnslct609@4ax.com...
> So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred
> too!

On a 19" screen it's great - I don't need my glasses
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 5, 2005 9:20:55 AM

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

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:24:41 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:


>> As decided by our courts, Microsoft
>> in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
>> system market.
>
>Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a
>"competitive market."


No, it's not.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 5, 2005 10:40:25 AM

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

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns968980B7A1EBCwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>> kony wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard
>>> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>kony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard
>>>>><nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict
>>>>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed
> when the
>>>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?
>>>>
>>>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.
>>>>
>>>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was
> 'free' while
>>>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.
>>>
>>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's
> wallet,"
>> which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost
> cutting even
>> though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.
>>
>>> you were the one arguing about it costing them money,
>>
>> Yes, I was and am. Because it does.
>>
>>> so
>>> within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
>>> have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
>>> they had a competitive market.
>>
>> Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a
> meaningless
>> protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.
>>
>> Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage
> in
>> 'supporting' inferiority.
>
> Are you talking about Windows? As decided by our courts, Microsoft
> in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
> system market.

Like hell it does when even someone as
stupid as you should have noticed Linux.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 5, 2005 10:45:23 AM

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

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:airhc1t8uraiadcjn5kq3k96up68q1qtkc@4ax.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> Interesting that they somehow fail to mention that Windows 98
>>> and Windows 2000 also included NetBeui as a supported protocal.

>> Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.

> You bring up a very important point- we're all just hamster's
> running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what to do
> with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every
> time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up.

> At least, that seems to be your argument if you
> think that 'wasn't installed by default' matters at all.

Best get your seems machinery seen to.

Thats the evidence that MS gave up on it LONG ago
and just kept it for the dinosaurs stupid enough to use it.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 5, 2005 10:47:15 AM

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

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D mgic15jtpj1jqe74g1ggfl34bnslct609@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:30:32 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You bring up a very important point- we're all just
>>> hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what
>>> to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every
>>> time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up.
>>>
>>> At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that
>>> 'wasn't installed by default' matters at all.
>>
>>No. The point is it's de facto evidence that Netbeui hasn't been a
>>preferred or recommended protocol for ages.
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

> So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred too!

Thats done that way for completely different reasons and XP for
example encourages you to change it to something better when
the drivers have been installed and can support something better.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 6, 2005 12:19:26 AM

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

kony wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 19:24:41 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>As decided by our courts, Microsoft
>>>in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
>>>system market.
>>
>>Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a
>>"competitive market."
>
>
>
> No, it's not.


Yes, it is.

Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract
them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's
already been dealt with)

So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of
how they would behave in a competitive market?


Answer: it doesn't.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
July 6, 2005 1:02:21 AM

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

not at all. Just used conventional networking practices.
I agree that some features are not necessary, and are only there for people
who don't know what they're doing.

Like the home networking wizard! What a shamozzle!

"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"
>
>
>
> --
> 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)
!