1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Install win xp over a network

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Bandul, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. Bandul

    Bandul Guest

    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.
     
    Bandul, Jul 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bandul

    Dion Guest

    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
     
    Dion, Jul 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bandul

    Some Guy Guest

    No cd drive? They're what, $30 now adays?
    Too bad. XP is a piece of shit. It's an over-managed, convoluted,
    bloated operating system with no real benefits over Win-2K (or even
    Win-98) for the typical office. It's a security nightmare from a
    network point of view (we use netbuei for inter-office file sharing -
    microsoft made it practically impossible to use netbuei on XP).

    If the computers are exactly the same - same amount of memory, same
    CPU, same hard drive (same make and model number), same motherboard,
    then you might be able to make a master drive and clone it.

    Go one step further and install all the apps (office, A/V software,
    utilities like winzip, multi-media, flash, quicktime, etc). Then use
    ghost and duplicate the drives.

    Not having an optical drive (cd/dvd) will make it a little tougher to
    have the clones pass the WPA activation, but if the computers really
    are identical then you should have enough "votes" to get the clones to
    pass the WPA.

    You'll have to put a CD drive in the master system (just to install XP
    from a CD).

    These will have to be desk-top computers - not laptops (unless the
    hard drives are removable).
     
    Some Guy, Jul 2, 2005
    #3
  4. I think you'll find what you need in the Resource Kit folder on the XP CD.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Jul 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Synapse Syndrome, Jul 2, 2005
    #5
  6. You can install netbeui on XP but the real problem is in using an
    antiquated protocol that MS has told you should be migrated away from since
    Windows 98.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 2, 2005
    #6
  7. Synapse Syndrome, Jul 2, 2005
    #7
  8. why dont you just buy a cheap CDROM for $20.00 and just install it normally.
     
    Last Boy Scout, Jul 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Bandul

    Some Guy Guest

    Netbuie is non-routable and is a more secure protocal to use on a
    mixed network where any given PC needs to have TCP/IP (for general
    internet access) and also needs to access internal file shares (where
    netbuie can be used without fear that those same shares can be
    accessed from outside the network)

    I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
    with netbuie - other than Microsoft wanted to base all their new shit
    on TCP and to hell with Netbuie (and it's security benefits). Some
    on-line writeups recommend that you use netbuie for this reason, and
    they say to use Win-2k netbuie DLL files on XP systems because of
    problems with XP's version of netbuie.

    We've never gotten XP to work properly on our network using netbuie,
    so our servers and developer systems run either NT4 or Win-2K. XP is
    just too much a piece of shit (configuration wise) to be worth using.

    What microsoft wants in terms of product migration is because it
    serves their revenue needs, not because their old stuff isin't good
    enough or magically stops working. IT droids see the words
    "unsupported" and run in fear like a bunch of lemmings to XP or 2003
    or what-ever. Exactly what Macro$oft wants. Then everyone runs
    around putting out security fires on the new stuff until it's stable
    but by then it's time to get people to move to the next OS.
     
    Some Guy, Jul 2, 2005
    #9
  10. Bandul

    Conor Guest

    Buy a USB CDROM drive.
     
    Conor, Jul 2, 2005
    #10
  11. Bandul

    kony Guest

    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.
     
    kony, Jul 2, 2005
    #11
  12. 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, Jul 2, 2005
    #12
  13. That sounds so terribly 'consumer noble' but the fact of the matter is
    there's no good reason to support an antiquated protocol.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 3, 2005
    #13
  14. Which is one reason why it is of limited use and not worth supporting.
    TCP/IP can also be used 'without fear' when set up properly.

    You can also use IPX.
    You just listed one. It's non-routable.
    One can find all sorts of nonsense on web sites.

    The point was there's no valid reason to use it in the first place.
    You're free to run unsupported software if you like.
    We shoot, man, stay with WFW 3.11. Using your logic it must be stable as
    hell by now.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 3, 2005
    #14
  15. Bandul

    kony Guest

    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.
     
    kony, Jul 3, 2005
    #15
  16. 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.

    It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
    Neither are buggy whips, to those who 'use them'. but there's little reason
    to 'support' them in "horseless carriages."
    They're free to use it. They'll just have to provide their own 'support',
    or a third party who might be interested.
    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..
    Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 3, 2005
    #16
  17. Bandul

    Black Adder Guest

    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.

    There are only security issues when the I.T. bloke can't secure the network
    properly. Anyone today who buys a windows 98 or windows 2000 network and
    uses network procedures from the mid 90's already has a security nightmare!
    GO BACK TO SCHOOL!
     
    Black Adder, Jul 3, 2005
    #17
  18. Bandul

    Conor Guest

    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, Jul 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Bandul

    Black Adder Guest

    Yes, but I do it properly

    Notice how long it takes to
    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.
     
    Black Adder, Jul 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Bandul

    Fred is back Guest

    Much better?
    No. My doctor advised against it.
    No. Never noticed how long it takes to list the contents of the your netowrk
    places folder before.
     
    Fred is back, Jul 3, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.