Install win xp over a network

[David Maynard]

David Maynard wrote:




-------------
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 - Let's Go Wireless Presentation.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>

 

[kony]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
Some Guy <[email protected]> desperately attempted
to bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a ****ing clue.

PLONK

 

[Some Guy]

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.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

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.

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'?

Ok, then the rest of our discussion is pointless.



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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[wqq]

Rod Speed wrote:

PLONK

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

 

[Rod Speed]

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, ****wit.

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:

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, ****wit.

(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 ****wit.

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.

 

[kony]

Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the
other party is concerned with their wallet too?

Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?

 

[kony]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"

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.

 

[David Maynard]

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>

 

[David Maynard]

Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?

No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.

But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while
simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.

 

[David Maynard]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed"





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.

 

[kony]

No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.

But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while
simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.

No, you were the one arguing about it costing them money, so
within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
they had a competitive market.

 

[kony]

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!

 

[David Maynard]

No,

Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's wallet,"
which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost cutting even
though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.

you were the one arguing about it costing them money,

Yes, I was and am. Because it does.

so
within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
they had a competitive market.

Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a meaningless
protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.

Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage in
'supporting' inferiority.

You're letting emotion obscure reasoning.

 

[David Maynard]

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.

 

[John Doe]

No,

Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's wallet,"
which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost cutting even
though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.

you were the one arguing about it costing them money,

Yes, I was and am. Because it does.

so
within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
they had a competitive market.

Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a meaningless
protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.

Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage in
'supporting' inferiority.

Are you talking about Windows? As decided by our courts, Microsoft
in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
system market.

You're letting emotion obscure reasoning.

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[CBFalconer]

kony wrote:
.... snip ...


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 ...

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 ...


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".

 

[Rod Speed]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard


kony wrote:


On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard




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?


Did you overlook those last two words I wrote?

No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered.

But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while
simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money.


No,

Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's wallet,"
which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost cutting even
though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing.

you were the one arguing about it costing them money,

Yes, I was and am. Because it does.

so
within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd
have to actually add features rather than subtract them if
they had a competitive market.

Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a meaningless
protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange.

Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage in
'supporting' inferiority.

Are you talking about Windows? As decided by our courts, Microsoft
in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
system market.

Like hell it does when even someone as
stupid as you should have noticed Linux.