Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: David Maynard on 3 Jul 2005 02:41 kony wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:05:09 -0500, David Maynard > <nospam(a)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.
From: Conor on 3 Jul 2005 07:19 In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585(a)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)
From: Black Adder on 3 Jul 2005 08:25 "Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4(a)news.individual.net... > In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585(a)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)
From: Fred is back on 3 Jul 2005 08:36 Conor <conor.turton(a)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.
From: Conor on 3 Jul 2005 14:10
In article <42c7d91e$0$843$61c65585(a)uq-127creek-reader- 03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>, Black Adder says... > > "Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <42c79838$0$863$61c65585(a)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) |