snekul

That's about all I know of either. However, I assume Astalavista adds some programs or hotfixes to his unattended disc. So, what if one were to add an email script to, say the Net framework or Sun Java's self extracting exe. Use some freeware info tools and a command line email program to email the Mac, IP, name, time, date, etc. to a predetermined IP address. You'd have to write the command line script, but I quite sure some freeware tools could do that. I don't know if Astalavista would want to persue this idea further, but it would give you a good report if somebody used your disc. EDIT: That assumes they leave it online when they run it.

If you have the recources, using RIS on a domain would probably be much safer. Set the permissions on the network drive with the RIS image to only allow a special ris user to have access, and set deny permissions on that account for logging on to any computer. If you don't have a domain or a server for RIS, I think you might be best off just keeping very close eyes on the disk, lock it up when not in use. Make them get you before they can have it.

Try and use the code tags, it cleans the board up. Repartition=No Should be Repartition=Yes assuming you only want 1 partition on the first disk, and wish it to erase anything on that drive. Personally, I find it better to still have the partition screen show up, gives you more control and one last chance to back out. From there on, everything else is unattended.

Simply put, if you don't want somebody to copy the cd, don't let anybody have it. I think you best use a simple copy protection, since anybody could still copy all the files off of the cd and rebuild the ISO with the cdimage download here at msfn.

That is true of so many other things in politics. Anyway, we should probably leave the politics up to the politicians.

You're right, but some people just get really sensitive. Plus, I read somewhere that some countries have outlawed Nazi symbols, if the font was included in non US versions.

They probably listed it as critical because you could get yourself in a lot of trouble with a Nazi symbol in some places. Think about schools in the US, with their zero tolerance policies towards discrimination and racism.

I gave it a great. At home it worked flawlessly. At work, it failed on about 5 out of 400 computers. Upon further investigation, those 5 machines had users with local admin rights, and guess what, they were loaded with spyware. Ran a spyware scan off a boot disk, ran it again after booting, and then the install worked just fine.

Hi everyone, I've installed VMWare Workstation 4.5.2 just a week ago and noticed some interesting things. First of all, it creates a new user and group on the local machine named __vmware__ and in the local security policy it gave that user rights to log on locally. I searched the forums, google, and the help file, and couldn't seem to find anything relevant. Does anyone have any idea if this should be regarded as a security risk? Furthermore, why does VMware even need to create these? Is this so limited users can run the program without hassle? Just seemed a little odd to me, VMWare is definately a program that adds a lot of stuff to the computer. Thanks.

Thanks for your help. After further study, it does appear that there are some serious drawbacks to the admin install. I'll have to do some trial and error testing to decide if its worth it or not.

I work with the Volume License edition of Office 2003 and have a downloaded install source from Microsoft. It includes the Professional suite, but Onenote and Frontpage are separate installs (also inlcludes all the programs as separate installs). I have created an admin install for the Professional suite and Frontpage and Onenote--each in a separate folder and applied the appropriate SP1 update to each, using the wonderful directions found here at MSFN . My question is, each of the admin installs have a lot of duplications. Does anyone know if there are any issues with merging the separate application installs into the suite installers. So there would be multiple MSI files, each still running separately from the same install directory. I'll be going to sleep here, but I'll check back in about 10 hours or so. Thanks for any help in advance.

I've dealt with a few upgrade disc installs and have had no luck forcing it to install without prompting for proof of an upgrade. Luckily, as 00buck stated, there is no harm after you switch discs. The only other option would be to make a multiboot disc that would first copy a slim win9x install to the drive and then have the winnt.sif file set to wipe out any data on the drive, but that gets too complicated, and not worth the extra time. I think the old Win98 upgrade discs only looked for win.com on the drive, but my guess is they've gotten smarter since then, but it probably is just looking for a few things to determine if you can upgrade.