Working 'subst' equivalent for WinXP?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

Map the drives in the same script. Add the subst commands there.
You can store the mapping info for example, in global environment variables.
Any problem with it?

--PA


"jimrandomh" <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org> wrote in message news:Xns9671D7AFB15FFjimrandomh@207.69.189.191...
> An old post said
> "The reason this now fails is that on Windows XP, virtual drives (sym
> links) are now only visible to the user who created it. On Windows
> 2000, these were visible to users who didn't create them. For security
> reasons, this was closed. As a side effect, it prevents installs on XP
> using subst drives."
>
> I'm presently using Win2k and trying to migrate to XP, but this is a
> showstopping problem for me. I have a subst'ed drive letter which needs
> to be accessible to all users (particularly 'system'). The only
> alternative I've found suggested is to use a mapped network drive
> instead... but then unplugging my network cable becomes equivalent to
> unplugging a hard drive, which is unacceptable.
>
> Security shouldn't be an issue; the command runs as Administrator. I'd
> be willing to use a service or device driver in place of subst, so long
> as it can achieve the same result. How can I map a drive letter to a
> directory under Windows XP? Being able to do this is essential for some
> custom-written software/scripts.
>
> --
> CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
> http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

"Pavel A." <pavel_a@NOwritemeNO.com> wrote:
> Map the drives in the same script. Add the subst commands there.
> You can store the mapping info for example, in global environment
> variables. Any problem with it?

Unfortunately, yes there is a problem. I store and install pretty much
everything on the subst'ed drive, so pretty much everything is
affected. The number of programs which would have to set up the subst
mount themselves would be unmanageable, especially since many of them
are compiled programs and service to which I have no source code.

--
CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

jimrandomh wrote:
> An old post said
> "The reason this now fails is that on Windows XP, virtual drives (sym
> links) are now only visible to the user who created it. On Windows
> 2000, these were visible to users who didn't create them. For
> security reasons, this was closed. As a side effect, it prevents
> installs on XP using subst drives."
>
> I'm presently using Win2k and trying to migrate to XP, but this is a
> showstopping problem for me. I have a subst'ed drive letter which
> needs to be accessible to all users (particularly 'system'). The only
> alternative I've found suggested is to use a mapped network drive
> instead... but then unplugging my network cable becomes equivalent to
> unplugging a hard drive, which is unacceptable.
>
> Security shouldn't be an issue; the command runs as Administrator. I'd
> be willing to use a service or device driver in place of subst, so
> long as it can achieve the same result. How can I map a drive letter
> to a directory under Windows XP? Being able to do this is essential
> for some custom-written software/scripts.

Pavel A. wrote:
> Map the drives in the same script. Add the subst commands there.
> You can store the mapping info for example, in global environment
> variables. Any problem with it?

jimrandomh wrote:
> Unfortunately, yes there is a problem. I store and install pretty much
> everything on the subst'ed drive, so pretty much everything is
> affected. The number of programs which would have to set up the subst
> mount themselves would be unmanageable, especially since many of them
> are compiled programs and service to which I have no source code.

I still do not see the problem.. if everyone who uses the subst first runs a
script (globally - like a startup script for ALL users or a "wrapper" for
the applications that need this subst drive mapping..) then it's just like
it was before. Everyone on the system has the drive when they need it
because there are scripts in place to insure this.. Anyone who does not need
it - won't have it.

You write a script for each application if you have to - that's one per
script. I have unattended installs with a 100+ scripts.. I have had ghost
distributions with even more.. And a logon/startup script in the ALL USERS
area certainly cannot be beyond any sytstem administrator I know..

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still do not see the problem.. if everyone who uses the subst
> first runs a script (globally - like a startup script for ALL
> users or a "wrapper" for the applications that need this subst
> drive mapping..) then it's just like it was before. Everyone on
> the system has the drive when they need it because there are
> scripts in place to insure this.. Anyone who does not need it -
> won't have it.
>
> You write a script for each application if you have to - that's
> one per script. I have unattended installs with a 100+ scripts..
> I have had ghost distributions with even more.. And a
> logon/startup script in the ALL USERS area certainly cannot be
> beyond any sytstem administrator I know..

Two problems with using a logon script. First, other items in the
startup folder and in hkey_local_machine/.../run need the drive mapped,
and there's no way to control the order they run in. Second, that
doesn't cover the System user, or other users which are used only for
running services.

What bothers me most is that this used to be nice and simple, but was
broken for 'security' reasons. I would rather subst were just made
admin-only, or behave differently depending whether it was an admin or
a regular user running it.

--
CalcRogue: TI-89, TI-92+, PalmOS, Windows and Linux.
http://calcrogue.jimrandomh.org/

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

"jimrandomh" <usenetNOSPAM@jimrandomh.org> wrote in message news:Xns9673198D249D1jimrandomh@207.69.189.191...
>....
> Two problems with using a logon script.
>....
Correct. Thus, the mapping needs to be recreated in each *logon session*
(note: a service starts in a separate logon session even if it runs under some user account).

> What bothers me most is that this used to be nice and simple, but was
> broken for 'security' reasons.

Yep. Security isn't simple or easy. It often breaks existing code..
This helps keeping our jobs safe, among other things.

--PA

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:34:00 -0500, "Shenan Stanley"
>jimrandomh wrote:

>> I'm presently using Win2k and trying to migrate to XP, but this is a
>> showstopping problem for me. I have a subst'ed drive letter which
>> needs to be accessible to all users (particularly 'system'). The only
>> alternative I've found suggested is to use a mapped network drive
>> instead... but then unplugging my network cable becomes equivalent to
>> unplugging a hard drive, which is unacceptable.

I must say I've avoided using Subst, Join, etc. as I'm always bracing
themselves to stop working - after all, many of these date from the
old MS-DOS 2, as workarounds for software written in the DOS 1 era
that doesn't understand directory paths.

>Pavel A. wrote:

>> Map the drives in the same script. Add the subst commands there.
>> You can store the mapping info for example, in global environment
>> variables. Any problem with it?

>jimrandomh wrote:
>> Unfortunately, yes there is a problem. I store and install pretty much
>> everything on the subst'ed drive, so pretty much everything is
>> affected. The number of programs which would have to set up the subst
>> mount themselves would be unmanageable, especially since many of them
>> are compiled programs and service to which I have no source code.

>I still do not see the problem.. if everyone who uses the subst first runs a
>script (globally - like a startup script for ALL users or a "wrapper" for
>the applications that need this subst drive mapping..)

You can apply such a script as a Task set to run on logon, if not as
an item in the system (AllUsers, HKLM...Run) or account (Startup,
HKU...Run). But if you have to run it before each app, that's also
not as bad as it sounds - write a wrapper like this...

:: Call this MAP.BAT and put in the Path
@Echo Off
:: Do your mappings here...
Call %0 %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
:: Clean up here

....then insert this into each shortcut's command line, e.g...

"M:\Some\Path\Blah.exe" /Extra /Stuff

....becomes...

MAP "M:\Some\Path\Blah.exe" /Extra /Stuff





>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:32:12 GMT, jimrandomh

>Two problems with using a logon script. First, other items in the
>startup folder and in hkey_local_machine/.../run need the drive mapped,
>and there's no way to control the order they run in. Second, that
>doesn't cover the System user, or other users which are used only for
>running services.

The answer to both may be the same - a system-wide runpoint that is
serialized. I can't remember which one it is; I'd guess
HKLM...RunOnceEx or something like that, but I remember reading it.

The problem is whether this serializes only within itself, or before
everything else. If the former, then you may need something deeper,
such as a Wininit.ini (that runs very early).

Wininit.ini and RunOnce will both need to be re-seeded if they are to
run on every boot. You could re-assert them from any other
integration point or Task.

Even if you get this working on XP SP2, I'd give serious thought to
re-working your system to free it of dependency on Subst. Else you
may well face the same battles all over again in SP3, or LH.



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -