Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: Conor on 3 Jul 2005 14:11 In article <4c57a2a9215249fdb321639218a85e98(a)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)
From: kony on 3 Jul 2005 15:52 On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:41:18 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)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.
From: kony on 3 Jul 2005 16:04 On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:48:16 +1000, "Black Adder" <home(a)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.
From: Rod Speed on 3 Jul 2005 16:19 Conor <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d31da17b5fe455398a1f4(a)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.
From: Rod Speed on 3 Jul 2005 16:20
"Conor" <conor.turton(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d323a7ce235389798a200(a)news.individual.net... > 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" Wrong again. |