Install win xp over a network

[David Maynard]

Transferring data with it instead of TCPIP would be one of
those, fairly popular circumstances.




No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem,

An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.

However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.

the
focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
the topic was already isolating one parameter.

I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't
that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for
netbeui don't justify keeping it.

 

[kony]

An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.

It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.

However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.

"Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
care what it's doing with the network is idle, only that
during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.

I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't
that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for
netbeui don't justify keeping it.

No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
limit isn't reasonable to assume either.

 

[David Maynard]

It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.

No, it's a meaningless thing, was my point, because no one gives a tinker's
dam about the 'efficiency' of doing nothing, e.g. an "idle network."

"Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
care what it's doing with the network is idle,

"Idle" is a useless state to debate about.

only that
during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.

However, when there are things to do a protocol that takes up bandwidth
even when IT is 'idle' is not a good thing and network admins fight that
problem all the time.

No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
limit isn't reasonable to assume either.

Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
protocol and it's attendant burdens.

You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
isn't worth the hundred bucks.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
protocol and it's attendant burdens.

Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.

You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
isn't worth the hundred bucks.

That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
penny

 

[kony]

Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.

LOL, pot calling kettle black.

 

[David Maynard]

Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.

Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.

That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
penny

Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.

What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
for a 100 bucks analogy.

 

[Curious George]

Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.

As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
something much less than a "debate." Exchanging valid arguments is
one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.

Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.

I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
"certain situations".

What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
for a 100 bucks analogy.

If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
maintains, is indeed also a factor.

 

[Curious George]

2000 is better than XP.

Only if you have HW or SW that doesn't play nice with XP. XP is far
from broken.

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?

Only the first time after boot. Then it should come up just as quick,
maybe even quicker, and should, by default, find network resources for
you in the background.

 

[JAD]

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

Don't you mean, if Microsoft can't secure it? because users know nothing,
remember?

 

[kony]

As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
something much less than a "debate."

Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
opposing view.

Exchanging valid arguments is
one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.

Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
situations?

I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
"certain situations".

You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
certainly did mention routablity previously.

If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
maintains, is indeed also a factor.

I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
default?

 

[kony]

Don't you mean, if Microsoft can't secure it? because users know nothing,
remember?

I mean, since MS hasn't secured it, there is additional
configuration and choice necessary from users.

So far you're the only one claiming users know nothing. Do
you really have to try to put words in people's mouths to
make an argument?

 

[David Maynard]

As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
something much less than a "debate." Exchanging valid arguments is
one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.




I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
"certain situations".

I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed

If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior

According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
be 'superior' Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.

than why not "force" NETBUI on
the market, esp the small network consumer market?

Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.

Certainly the
answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
maintains, is indeed also a factor.

Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
consider it.

Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
protocol.

 

[David Maynard]

Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
opposing view.




Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
situations?




You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
certainly did mention routablity previously.





I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
default?

That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
was going away before Win98 hit the streets.

So what's your next conspiracy theory?

 

[kony]

That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
was going away before Win98 hit the streets.

So what's your next conspiracy theory?

I didn' realize that making XP networking easier for new
users was a conspiracy theory. I was told Netbeui was going
away? It seems more like it was supported at the time.

 

[David Maynard]

I didn' realize that making XP networking easier for new
users was a conspiracy theory.

It isn't, but you tried to make it one nonetheless.

I was told Netbeui was going
away?

Yes. Whether you paid attention or not is another matter.

It seems more like it was supported at the time.

It was. And it's common practice to announce end of life *before* support
is pulled. Otherwise it's not much of a warning, now is it?

 

[Curious George]

Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
opposing view.

It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense - like
you're doing now. There's no logical conflict with continuing to
argue/explaing something for the duration of flawed attempts at
counter-arguments, and at the same criticizing the very same argument
style which, esp several post in, frequently floods a thread with crap
& defensiveness instead of insight, just like this (now) silly thread.

There's no reason why an internet "debate" can't or shouldn't have
mostly valid arguments with little repetition and of varying
persuasiveness.

Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?

Nope. You're again proving my point. Unable to develop more
convincing arguments or tolerate criticism, you're still just
generating text, getting defensive, and making no sense.

I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
situations?

If you put something out there and it turns out to be wrong, then suck
it up and move on. If its being challenged and you can make it more
convincing then do so. Believing your right no matter what and
getting mad instead of more clear/convincing is just plain stupid,
delusional & a waste of bandwidth. Just because you haven't
challenged me very successfully in the past doesn't mean I can never
acknowledge when I'm wrong or missing details. It happens- you're
just not there.

You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
certainly did mention routablity previously.

Mention? Indeed little more.

and? So? Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP takes advantage of the
routability of these communication devices and is routable. You've
been talking down any impact from protocol combinations and talking up
the benefits of NETBUI. That you "mentioned" routability doesn't
really impeach that observation - or at least it doesn't do it very
well.

I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
default?

The interface for configuring networking has been pretty standard or
at least closely related to/since the Win 95,NT days. Nothing's been
dummed down, really. It's only that some backwards-compatibility for
an EOL protocol is limited/problematic. It's not like 2000 came by
default with NETBIOS and no TCP-IP by default.

 

[Curious George]

I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed

I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.

NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.


remember:

... and if you've got internet
access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.

No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.

</quote>

and it's supposed context to "chatter"

According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
be 'superior' Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.


Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.
Indeed


Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
consider it.

Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
protocol.

Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.

Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
bad.

 

[Curious George]

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.

A couple months ago you were claiming most businesses run win98.
That's a really fast migration

 

[kony]

A couple months ago you were claiming most businesses run win98.
That's a really fast migration

WOW you really are sore about not being right all the time.
Did you REALLY want all your past posts recanted and argued
all over again? Sure seems that way. This is borderline
troll activity.

Note that I wrote most one time, dominant the other. For
example, the pond is mostly small fish but the larger fish
are dominant.

Even so, the last survey I had seen did put win98 boxes as
the majority. I cannot assume Win2K becomes a majority
until a subsequent survey finds it to be the case. I have
seen both used extensively but one thing is for certain,
that WinXP usage is still in the minority. At least, it WAS
at that time, a level of support for 2K has now been dropped
and it is expected that will cause a few more businesses to
migrate to XP. Will it then be a majority? How long would
it take? I won't guess but rather waiting for some evidence
of it.

 

[kony]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:56:34 GMT, Curious George

It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense.

That's a pretty short-sighted thing for you to write
considering that you had ample opportunity to argue
logically in past discussions but kept drifting off.

Did you REALLY think waiting awhile them using even fewer
facts did anything more than look pathetic?

You're not criticizing for any reason but your bruised ego.