🚀 go-pugleaf

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:da5i0p$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.
>
> 

Bandul wrote:
> 
> I've got 10 problems.
> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. 

No cd drive?  They're what, $30 now adays?

> I must install win xp pro on every one.

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).

"Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message 
news:da5i0p$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. 

"Synapse Syndrome" <paradroid2000@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:da66uq$c1n$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Bandul" <ivan.curac@du.htnet.hr> wrote in message 
> news:da5i0p$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/additionalinstall.shtml

http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/1466511

This may be useful too.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/deploy/default.mspx

ss. 

Some Guy wrote:
> Bandul wrote:
> 
>>I've got 10 problems.
>>I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. 
> 
> 
> No cd drive?  They're what, $30 now adays?
> 
> 
>>I must install win xp pro on every one.
> 
> 
> 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).

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.


> 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).

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.

kony wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:01:06 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Some Guy wrote:
>>
>>>Bandul wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've got 10 problems.
>>>>I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom. 
>>>
>>>
>>>No cd drive?  They're what, $30 now adays?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I must install win xp pro on every one.
>>>
>>>
>>>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).
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> 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.

Some Guy wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Netbuie is non-routable

Which is one reason why it is of limited use and not worth supporting.

> 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)

TCP/IP can also be used 'without fear' when set up properly.

You can also use IPX.

> I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
> with netbuie

You just listed one. It's non-routable.

> - 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.

One can find all sorts of nonsense on web sites.


> 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.

The point was there's no valid reason to use it in the first place.

> 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.

You're free to run unsupported software if you like.

>  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.

We shoot, man, stay with WFW 3.11. Using your logic it must be stable as 
hell by now.

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.  

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.

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!

"Some Guy" <Some@Guy.com> wrote in message news:42C69324.E7CE4F55@Guy.com...
> Bandul wrote:
>>
>> I've got 10 problems.
>> I bought 10 computers recent. Comp dont have a cd/dvd-rom.
>
> No cd drive?  They're what, $30 now adays?
>
>> I must install win xp pro on every one.
>
> 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). 

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)

"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) 

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.

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)

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)

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.

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.

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. 

"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. 

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-%20Let'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".

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)

kony wrote:
> 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,

Yes, "support" takes effort.

>   "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.

>  It
> requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
> as functionality is concerned.

Poppycock. You simply remove that protocol from the default list. And 
that's a hell of a lot easier than testing the stupid thing as the O.S. 
evolves.

And since you claim it doesn't 'work' it would obviously take time and 
effort to *make* it 'work'.

>  If they want to drop active
> technical support policies for implementing it, that is
> another story and understandable.

They did that. Which also included testing the thing.


>>>Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
>>
>>It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
> 
> 
> Again, no.

Again, yes.

> Adding features that someone doesn't need,

Show me how the internet, or any network with any complexity at all, will 
work with a non routable protocol.

> 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.

Nonsense. What it comes down to is supporting useful protocols and also 
wasting time and effort supporting one that has limited usefulness and that 
adds not one thing which the current protocols don't also offer.


>>>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. 

I'm not choosing buggy whips, it's you who are promoting them.


> 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.

No, it isn't.


>>> 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".

I didn't say it did. This argument is about their freedom to use it.

>  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.

That like saying the horseless carriage will only antiquate the horse and 
buggy when it does exactly the same thing, including drop shit on the road.

It's just nonsense.

And you trying to make a 'feature' of dropping shit on the road doesn't 
make it so.

>>>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.

Just because some yahoo can't figure out how to configure TCP/IP, run a 
firewall, use IPX if he wants to unbind ports, or any number of 
alternatives, doesn't mean Microsoft has to 'support' a piece of junk like 
Netbeui.


>>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.

No, it isn't 'irrelevant'. It takes time and effort to make things work, as 
well as to 'support' them, and it's absurd to expend that effort on 
protocols that add nothing.

>  Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
> for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
> the job.

Netbeui isn't the 'right tool' for ANY job, just as buggy whips aren't the 
'right tool' to control your car motor, regardless of how much you pine for 
the horse and buggy days and the 'simplicity' of whipping them to make them go.


>>> 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.

What's senseless is to expect anyone to continue 'supporting' a protocol 
that has such limited use.

And it doesn't matter if, in your opinion, paper tape "does the job" 
either. It isn't supported. Neither is data on audio cassette tapes. Oh, 
and Netbeui.

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.


>
>>  It
>> requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
>> as functionality is concerned.
>
>Poppycock. You simply remove that protocol from the default list. And 
>that's a hell of a lot easier than testing the stupid thing as the O.S. 
>evolves.

yeah, removing it vs not.  More work.
As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
anything.  In fact, since it already worked, and since it
does still work, these random ideas about support are
irrelevant.


>
>And since you claim it doesn't 'work' it would obviously take time and 
>effort to *make* it 'work'.

I made no such claim.
Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.


>
>>  If they want to drop active
>> technical support policies for implementing it, that is
>> another story and understandable.
>
>They did that. Which also included testing the thing.


And?
Who said any different?


>
>
>>>>Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
>>>
>>>It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
>> 
>> 
>> Again, no.
>
>Again, yes.
>
>> Adding features that someone doesn't need,
>
>Show me how the internet, or any network with any complexity at all, will 
>work with a non routable protocol.

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. 

It is NOT a choice of "one or the other, every single person
must use only one protocol for everything".

Rather, multiple protocols exist for different reasons.  The
bottom line is that using TCP/IP when one doesnt' need ANY
of the TCP/IP specific features, is the worst possible
choice.  If you need the features, use it.

>
>> 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.
>
>Nonsense. What it comes down to is supporting useful protocols and also 
>wasting time and effort supporting one that has limited usefulness and that 
>adds not one thing which the current protocols don't also offer.

I have one of those multi-functio knifes.  It does a lot of
things too, but most things it does poorly compared to the
right tool for the job.  



>
>
>>>>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. 
>
>I'm not choosing buggy whips, it's you who are promoting them.

You choose based on things that are not applicable to all
situations, and the result being use of a protocol that is
overweight and slower.


>
>
>> 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.
>
>No, it isn't.

You are entiteled to use whatever you want... apparently, so
long as it's only TCP/IP.



>>>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".
>
>I didn't say it did. This argument is about their freedom to use it.

Who is they?
Microsoft?

I have not claimed even once that Microsoft should spend
another moment on it.  However, spending a moment to remove
features is counter-productive.  That's not all "this
argument is about" though, as you are also trying to argue
the use of TCP/IP when it's inferior for the tasks as well
as when it's needed.



>
>>  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.
>
>That like saying the horseless carriage will only antiquate the horse and 
>buggy when it does exactly the same thing, including drop shit on the road.

You keep getting it backwards.  If the horse and buggy were
faster than a car, and worked reliably with no maintenance,
more people would use it.  Netbeui is faster, works
reliably, and no maintenance.  It is simply better because
of it's simplicity.

Suppose you're going out to dinner tonight.  You could take
your wallet, a gun, hammer, rope, candles, and a whole lot
of stuff you won't need.  With these 100 lbs. of gear,
certainly you're ready for a whole lot more situations than
just dining- do you carry all that stuff with you or would
you prefer to be unencumbered and able to move around faster
and/or with less effort?   When one doesn't need the
features of TCP/IP, the situation is similar.



>
>It's just nonsense.

Yes, completely uncalled for to pick a bloated protocol when
it's not needed.


>
>And you trying to make a 'feature' of dropping shit on the road doesn't 
>make it so.

Whatever you want to do, go right ahead.
Those who use other protocols than just TCP/IP, don't really
have any concerns about "shit on the road".



>
>>>>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.
>
>Just because some yahoo can't figure out how to configure TCP/IP, run a 
>firewall, use IPX if he wants to unbind ports, or any number of 
>alternatives, doesn't mean Microsoft has to 'support' a piece of junk like 
>Netbeui.

Sounds like a whole lot of work to end up with lower
performance.  

If you need TCP/IP, use it.  


>>>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.
>
>No, it isn't 'irrelevant'. It takes time and effort to make things work, as 
>well as to 'support' them, and it's absurd to expend that effort on 
>protocols that add nothing.

This must mean your time & effort. I can see that 90% of it
would be the mental block you have against anything but
TCP/IP, so yes, it would take a lot of time- time I don't
care to spend.


>
>>  Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
>> for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
>> the job.
>
>Netbeui isn't the 'right tool' for ANY job, just as buggy whips aren't the 
>'right tool' to control your car motor, regardless of how much you pine for 
>the horse and buggy days and the 'simplicity' of whipping them to make them go.

In your opinion.
Use whatever.  Pretend it's a good choice even if it has
only detriments in some applications.  It seems that mostly,
you personally don't have a use, and therefore assume nobody
else does.  




>> 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.
>
>What's senseless is to expect anyone to continue 'supporting' a protocol 
>that has such limited use.

I can see that the world should only have in it what you
like.  


>
>And it doesn't matter if, in your opinion, paper tape "does the job" 
>either. It isn't supported. Neither is data on audio cassette tapes. Oh, 
>and Netbeui.

Then don't use it.
Let us know if someone tries to force you to use it.

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-%20Let'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.

Some Guy <Some@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:42C8555F.3F99B21@Guy.com...
> 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.

Mindless pig ignorant drivel.

> It does not support the routing of messages to other networks.

So its well past its useby date now.

> 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.

Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a fucking clue.

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

> Look people.

Get fucked, animal.

> Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda -
> to make money (like most corporations).

Nothing what so ever to do with dropping NETBEUI.

> However, their main product (desktop OS's)
> aren't like most consumer goods (ie like a car).

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwits ?

> How do you know when an OS is "worn out" ?

It doesnt do what you want to do as well as a better OS, fuckwit.

> 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).

Utterly mindless pig ignorant conspiracy theory.

The reality is that extra stuff is added as it become
useful, FAT32 when the limitations of FAT16 become
a significant limitation as hard drives get bigger etc.

With USB support, it was completely redone with Win98 and
as a result of that works a lot better than it ever did with Win95.

> 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.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a 
fucking clue.

Have fun explaining how come even Linux keeps adding extra capability.

> 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.

Because more and more personal users need that stuff, most
obviously with multiple users per PC and multiple PCs per house etc.

> Which leads to the next point:

> Microsoft values reducing the need for customer
> support far more than workstation security.

And thats what most personal desktop users want too, fuckwit.

> The default settings for 2K and XP are set to be most
> appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and fire-wall).

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a 
fucking clue.

> For the small company or home user, XP is (and
> was) a disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a 
fucking clue.

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

Nothing.

> It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality.

Wrong. NETBEUI is much simpler than TCP/IP, if they
actually did go for simplicity, they'd have kept it, stupid.

> If TCP will work everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc)

And hordes of personal systems have that stuff now, stupid.

> then it becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI.

Its a protocol, not a 'protocal', you pig ignorant clown.

> It will mean fewer support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies.

They dont do support that way, fuckwit.

> It doesn't mean NetBEUI is bad or inferior

It is anyway.

> (it seems it may have a performance edge on small networks vs TCP,

Wrong.

> and it certainly has a security edge over TCP).

Wrong.

> It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life simpler.

Wrong.

> 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.

Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

> 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.

Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

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

> As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".

Pathetic, really. 

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. 

Troll

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Path: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm02.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
> From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware
> Subject: Re: Install  win xp over a network
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 08:58:50 +1000
> Lines: 162
> Message-ID: <3ir8vvFmuko4U1 individual.net>
> References: <da5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr> <42C69324.E7CE4F55@Guy.com> <11cdei2sde3uhf3@corp.supernews.com> <stkdc19egceetqcmeipbslcsg5ssn2q7a9@4ax.com> <11ceovm1q8rbafc@corp.supernews.com> <4crec15k5j63euhgt75i4git3605r5a26v@4ax.com> <11cf24flg4pbl4a@corp.supernews.com> <42C8555F.3F99B21@Guy.com>
> X-Trace: individual.net jciotOZvCyJxmfU6CYRACg600kbyy2/SbV444BspxumC8bfoA=
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
> Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware:280683 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:213693 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:440212 aus.computers:179787 comp.hardware:42558
> 
> 
> Some Guy <Some@Guy.com> wrote in message
> news:42C8555F.3F99B21@Guy.com...
>> 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.
> 
> Mindless pig ignorant drivel.
> 
>> It does not support the routing of messages to other networks.
> 
> So its well past its useby date now.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a fucking clue.
> 
>> http://cob.bloomu.edu/afundaburk/personal/NBEA%20-%20Let's%20Go%20Wireless%20Presentation.ppt
>> -----------
> 
>> Look people.
> 
> Get fucked, animal.
> 
>> Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda -
>> to make money (like most corporations).
> 
> Nothing what so ever to do with dropping NETBEUI.
> 
>> However, their main product (desktop OS's)
>> aren't like most consumer goods (ie like a car).
> 
> You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist fuckwits ?
> 
>> How do you know when an OS is "worn out" ?
> 
> It doesnt do what you want to do as well as a better OS, fuckwit.
> 
>> 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).
> 
> Utterly mindless pig ignorant conspiracy theory.
> 
> The reality is that extra stuff is added as it become
> useful, FAT32 when the limitations of FAT16 become
> a significant limitation as hard drives get bigger etc.
> 
> With USB support, it was completely redone with Win98 and
> as a result of that works a lot better than it ever did with Win95.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a 
> fucking clue.
> 
> Have fun explaining how come even Linux keeps adding extra capability.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Because more and more personal users need that stuff, most
> obviously with multiple users per PC and multiple PCs per house etc.
> 
>> Which leads to the next point:
> 
>> Microsoft values reducing the need for customer
>> support far more than workstation security.
> 
> And thats what most personal desktop users want too, fuckwit.
> 
>> The default settings for 2K and XP are set to be most
>> appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and fire-wall).
> 
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a 
> fucking clue.
> 
>> For the small company or home user, XP is (and
>> was) a disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.
> 
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a 
> fucking clue.
> 
>> What's this got to do with NetBEUI vs TCP/IP?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
>> It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality.
> 
> Wrong. NETBEUI is much simpler than TCP/IP, if they
> actually did go for simplicity, they'd have kept it, stupid.
> 
>> If TCP will work everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc)
> 
> And hordes of personal systems have that stuff now, stupid.
> 
>> then it becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI.
> 
> Its a protocol, not a 'protocal', you pig ignorant clown.
> 
>> It will mean fewer support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies.
> 
> They dont do support that way, fuckwit.
> 
>> It doesn't mean NetBEUI is bad or inferior
> 
> It is anyway.
> 
>> (it seems it may have a performance edge on small networks vs TCP,
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> and it certainly has a security edge over TCP).
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life simpler.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
> 
>>> Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.
> 
>> As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".
> 
> Pathetic, really. 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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:da5i0p$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.
>
> 

John Doe wrote:
 
> Troll

Looks like Bill Gates chose the wrong week to start taking
amphetamines.

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.


>>> It
>>>requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
>>>as functionality is concerned.
>>
>>Poppycock. You simply remove that protocol from the default list. And 
>>that's a hell of a lot easier than testing the stupid thing as the O.S. 
>>evolves.
> 
> 
> 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.

> 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."

>  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.

> 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.


>>And since you claim it doesn't 'work' it would obviously take time and 
>>effort to *make* it 'work'.
> 
> 
> 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.


>>> If they want to drop active
>>>technical support policies for implementing it, that is
>>>another story and understandable.
>>
>>They did that. Which also included testing the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> Who said any different?

You did by implying it's 'free' to "support" it.


>>>>>Perhaps it's only antiquated in your and MS's minds.
>>>>
>>>>It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again, no.
>>
>>Again, yes.
>>
>>
>>>Adding features that someone doesn't need,
>>
>>Show me how the internet, or any network with any complexity at all, will 
>>work with a non routable protocol.
> 
> 
> 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.

> 
> It is NOT a choice of "one or the other,

Didn't say it was. I said it was a choice of 1 or TWO (or 2 vs 3, or 4 vs 
5, or any other ratio you chose). And that one is less effort than two and 
unless the second provides some exceedingly good reason over the other it's 
a waste of effort to continue 'support' for it.


> every single person
> must use only one protocol for everything".

Don't have to. Use IPX if you have a hankering for something 'different'.

> 
> Rather, multiple protocols exist for different reasons.

Correct. And there just ain't a good one for Netbeui.

>  The
> bottom line is that using TCP/IP when one doesnt' need ANY
> of the TCP/IP specific features, is the worst possible
> choice.

No, it isn't.

>  If you need the features, use it.

I do.

> 
> 
>>>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.
>>
>>Nonsense. What it comes down to is supporting useful protocols and also 
>>wasting time and effort supporting one that has limited usefulness and that 
>>adds not one thing which the current protocols don't also offer.
> 
> 
> I have one of those multi-functio knifes.  It does a lot of
> things too, but most things it does poorly compared to the
> right tool for the job.  

Netbeui isn't the right tool.

>>>>>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. 
>>
>>I'm not choosing buggy whips, it's you who are promoting them.
> 
> 
> You choose based on things that are not applicable to all
> situations, and the result being use of a protocol that is
> overweight and slower.

And you argue useless things into 'features', then demand someone go to the 
time and effort to provide the useless along with the useful.


>>>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.
>>
>>No, it isn't.
> 
> 
> You are entiteled to use whatever you want...

So are you.

> apparently, so
> long as it's only TCP/IP.

No one said you could 'only use TCP/IP'. You can use Netbeui all you like, 
however you like. Microsoft just isn't going to provide "support" for it.

>>>>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".
>>
>>I didn't say it did. This argument is about their freedom to use it.
> 
> 
> Who is they?

Anybody.

> Microsoft?
> 
> I have not claimed even once that Microsoft should spend
> another moment on it.

Yes, you have by arguing they should "support" it. You can whine all day 
long that 'support' is 'free' but the plain fact of the matter is it isn't.

>  However, spending a moment to remove
> features is counter-productive.

All they 'removed' was it's entry in the default list.

>  That's not all "this
> argument is about" though, as you are also trying to argue
> the use of TCP/IP when it's inferior for the tasks as well
> as when it's needed.

I argued no such thing. What I said was Netbeui does not provide anything 
worth the support it would take.


>>> 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.
>>
>>That like saying the horseless carriage will only antiquate the horse and 
>>buggy when it does exactly the same thing, including drop shit on the road.
> 
> 
> You keep getting it backwards.

Sorry, but no. The whole problem is your erroneous presumption that 
"support" is somehow free.

>  If the horse and buggy were
> faster than a car, and worked reliably with no maintenance,
> more people would use it.

But it isn't.

>  Netbeui is faster, works
> reliably, and no maintenance.

False premise. It is *not* "no maintenance." And if it were then why do you 
give a tinker's dam whether it's 'supported' or not?

>  It is simply better because
> of it's simplicity.

False premise.

A buggy's "simplicity" does not make it 'simply better'.

> Suppose you're going out to dinner tonight.  You could take
> your wallet, a gun, hammer, rope, candles, and a whole lot
> of stuff you won't need.  With these 100 lbs. of gear,
> certainly you're ready for a whole lot more situations than
> just dining- do you carry all that stuff with you or would
> you prefer to be unencumbered and able to move around faster
> and/or with less effort?   When one doesn't need the
> features of TCP/IP, the situation is similar.

You're free to take a pocket knife to a gun fight if you like but I'm not 
going to 'support' it.

>>It's just nonsense.
> 
> 
> Yes, completely uncalled for to pick a bloated protocol when
> it's not needed.

It's even sillier to insist on muzzle loading flintlocks.

Your premise is simply false. Show me how 'bloated' TCP/IP severely impacts 
a simple non routed network so that a user would have the slightest clue 
which was being used from the 'uncalled for bloat'.

And then they add their wireless router for the notebooks and, gee Marge, 
how come I can't see those machines?

>>And you trying to make a 'feature' of dropping shit on the road doesn't 
>>make it so.
> 
> 
> Whatever you want to do, go right ahead.
> Those who use other protocols than just TCP/IP, don't really
> have any concerns about "shit on the road".

Netbeui is not the totality of "other protocols."

>>>>>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.
>>
>>Just because some yahoo can't figure out how to configure TCP/IP, run a 
>>firewall, use IPX if he wants to unbind ports, or any number of 
>>alternatives, doesn't mean Microsoft has to 'support' a piece of junk like 
>>Netbeui.
> 
> 
> Sounds like a whole lot of work to end up with lower
> performance.  
> 
> If you need TCP/IP, use it.

And if you think you 'need' Netbeui then use it. Just don't expect 
'support' from MS.


>>>>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.
>>
>>No, it isn't 'irrelevant'. It takes time and effort to make things work, as 
>>well as to 'support' them, and it's absurd to expend that effort on 
>>protocols that add nothing.
> 
> 
> This must mean your time & effort.

No.

> I can see that 90% of it
> would be the mental block you have against anything but
> TCP/IP, so yes, it would take a lot of time- time I don't
> care to spend.

You're not even in the ball park.


>>> Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
>>>for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
>>>the job.
>>
>>Netbeui isn't the 'right tool' for ANY job, just as buggy whips aren't the 
>>'right tool' to control your car motor, regardless of how much you pine for 
>>the horse and buggy days and the 'simplicity' of whipping them to make them go.
> 
> 
> In your opinion.
> Use whatever.  Pretend it's a good choice even if it has
> only detriments in some applications.  It seems that mostly,
> you personally don't have a use, and therefore assume nobody
> else does.  

This has nothing to do with what 'I' use. It has to do with your strange 
notion that 'support' for a protocol is 'free'.


>>>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.
>>
>>What's senseless is to expect anyone to continue 'supporting' a protocol 
>>that has such limited use.
> 
> 
> I can see that the world should only have in it what you
> like.  

Has nothing to do with what "I like." It has to do with why Microsoft 
should spend the time and effort to 'support' a protocol for no good reason.


>>And it doesn't matter if, in your opinion, paper tape "does the job" 
>>either. It isn't supported. Neither is data on audio cassette tapes. Oh, 
>>and Netbeui.
> 
> 
> Then don't use it.
> Let us know if someone tries to force you to use it.

Let me know if someone tries to 'stop' you.

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-%20Let'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>

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.

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Some Guy <Some@Guy.com> desperately attempted
to bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
news:42C87CBD.A8ECD6B0@Guy.com...
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

> Looks like Bill Gates chose the wrong week to start taking amphetamines. 

Rod Speed wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a fucking clue.

PLONK

-- 
"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

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.

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?

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:42C8B114.6CD128E@yahoo.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:

>> Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a fucking clue.

> PLONK

Fat lot of good that will ever do you, you stupid uniwanker fuckwit. 

Some Guy <Some@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:42C8BACD.6DE8EE7D@Guy.com...

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

You're wrong. They didnt install it by default WAY back in 98.

> - plenty of evidence on the net that such instability exists, and some
> work-arounds (like using some files from Win-2K) have been suggested.

And only a fool bothers with it at all. You qualify.

> M$'s corporate direction of embracing the internet
> (after first dismissing it in the mid 1990's)

Lie.

> 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).

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

> 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,

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

> as this blurb of theirs indicates:

Like hell it does.

> -------------
> 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.
> ------------

NOTHING even remotely resembling anything like 'a propaganda smear
campaign against it' you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

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

Just another of your pathetic little conspiracy theorys.

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

> Hell - who want's to associate themselves with the likes of WFWG or Win-95?
> Yech!

Leaves anything you have ever done for dead, fuckwit.

And its those that saw MS completely dominate personal desktop systems too.

> 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.
> --------------

Pathetic, really.

> Hmmm.

Humming aint gunna save your bacon, child.

> For more level-headed discourse on NetBeui, have a look here:
> http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/42.htm

Soorree, doesnt qualify.

> 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

Corse it aint, anyone with a clue uses a firewall, fuckwit.

> (most of which don't use NAT routers)

Another lie.

> and that wireless networking makes it worse.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> 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).

Another pig ignorant lie.

> 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.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> But no, that can't be.  We all trust M$ to always
> make the best, the wise decisions - right?

Wota terminal fuckwit.

> For more venting about M$ (and a little bit on NetBeui) look here:
> http://www.brain.com.pk/~mnk/Tutorials/HateMS.htm

Just more puerile silly shit.

> 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.

Only fools bother with it with 2K too.

> But don't think they stopped "support" for it because
> it's antiquated (TCP is about 5 years older).

Pathetic, really.

> 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.

Nothing funny about your puerile pig ignorant drivel. 

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.

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>

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.

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!

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.

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

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. 

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
news:dmgic15jtpj1jqe74g1ggfl34bnslct609@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. 

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message 
news:dmgic15jtpj1jqe74g1ggfl34bnslct609@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 

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) 

Black Adder <home@home.com> wrote:

> not at all.

Classic evasion of the point.

> Just used conventional networking practices.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

> I agree that some features are not necessary, and are only there for
> people who don't know what they're doing.

Who in their right mind would agree with that?

> Like the home networking wizard!

Classic reading comprehension problem.

> What a shamozzle!

Do I look like I give a fuck what a shamozzle?