Jump to content

andrewcrawford

Member
  • Posts

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Everything posted by andrewcrawford

  1. For some reason ever time i download MSDBuiold.exe it is corrupt and it does not work, i can not get the cmd files or inf files extracted is there anyway to jsut donwlaod them manually?
  2. My own personal test suggest windows 7 is better than xp, when comparing i used the exact same machine and compare witht he same progmra everytihng suggests windows 7 to be about 10% faster than xp. i wont go down to say what the gap between xp/7 and vista is its more than 60%
  3. the MSDBUILD download file is corrupt, i have tried to download it 5 times on 3 different computers, ever time it downloads it only 2kb and 7zip says the archive is corrupt any way to get this other than the downloader
  4. Hi All, Does anyone know how i can merge the two 2003 server installs disc i have into single dvd so when it installs it does not keep asking me for disc 1 or disc 2
  5. To be hones ti very doubt many people will sit and read all that there far to much there, the error could be anywhere. I only read the first 1st of a page and gave up. BTW it should be winnt.sif
  6. The reason you are haivng problems is you are using the integrate method as well as svcpack, if you do it fully svcpack it fine but when you use integrate problem arise i have got both working just took a lot of tweaking
  7. cool thanks for that, if you have a link to hus poost i will be grateful otherwise i will search
  8. that is what i am thinking just wondering if it can be done oh well
  9. OH right that is cool, means i can use any motherboard that has xp drivers that suits what i need. thanks for that
  10. does anyone know if you can use nlite to extract the contents and then slipstream etc and make unattended without any hassle on 32bit machine, i tried the manual way and i got telling me it could not copy a certain file so not sure if it possible or not.
  11. Ok i know this is probably dum but i thought i best to check. I was told by a technical support person today that i can use xp drivers on 2003 if there is no 2003 driver in both 32bit and 64 bit. the 64bit might be more possible since xp64bit is basically 2003 64bit. I just want to know if this is true? cause i am plan on getting a motherboard and hope to install 2003 server on it. i am more curious of 64 bit as i prefer to go do this line
  12. Doesw anyone know any motherboards that wilkl work with 2003 server? just seems msi ones dnt not sure if the motherboard is comable with 2000 will mean it will work on 2003 though
  13. you could try making a cmd file that automatically does it for you not 100% sure off the top of my head how oyu do it but you need some sort of check to mske sure it does the right one it could also set teh drive letters etc for oyu to if they wher ebeing probmatic
  14. Following on from greenmahine original post, hre are teh june updates switchs kb951376-v2.exe /q /n /z /o /b:sp3gdr kb950760.exe /q /n /z /o /b:sp3gdr kb898461.exe /q /n /z /o kb915865.exe /q /n /z /o /b:sp2gdr KB923789.EXE /Q kb950759.exe /q /n /z /o /b:sp2gdr [ProductCatalogsToInstall] KB951376-V2.CAT size 497,162 kb950760.exe 488,176 kb898461.exe 536,888 kb915865.exe 555,072 KB923789.EXE 8,914,472 kb950759.exe 605,224 kb951376-v2.exe all can be found on microsoft update catalog
  15. Has anyone got thsi working? because i cant get the legitcheck control to work or windows or microsoft udaptes activex to install. btw i am doign it on xpsp3
  16. Junes updates aint listed and one of them wont install via svcpack
  17. What about clicking on every red flasing button on the internet that requires administrative privileges to install malware? I seriously take security and time into account, not to mention the downtime to reinstall the server back-ups that I make daily... For workstations a much more simple method is to have a Ghost or Acronis image But hey, I manage a 15k computer farm spread all over the country EDIT: I really don't want to start a dispute or flaming, I'm just trying to get my point across Well if microsoft get there way people will make software that doesnt need admin rights anyway so amdins will have harder job stoppign that stuff so anti malware software will become more used
  18. What about clicking on every red flasing button on the internet that requires administrative privileges to install malware? I seriously take security and time into account, not to mention the downtime to reinstall the server back-ups that I make daily... For workstations a much more simple method is to have a Ghost or Acronis image But hey, I manage a 15k computer farm spread all over the country EDIT: I really don't want to start a dispute or flaming, I'm just trying to get my point across agreed only making apoint i think the attuide to ban and not give users some powers is the worng way as well. just froma personal experaince but agree that ther ehas to be some control at low level network. btw i would never give a user access ot the server not even as a user account
  19. A good admin is a fat admin. If people at work really need admin privilege for work, they just have to ask for it. Then the hierarchy checks and says yes or no. It's as simple as that. Letting people think they can do what ever they want with "their" computer is simply not manageable if you have a fair amount of users. And you get reminded of this fact every day. Yes but whena user is training to be a netwokr admin they need admin privilages and it that sort of attuide that prevent a lot of people i know being trained right. The fat admin are teh daft ones who are power hungry there has to be some come and go but most network admin attuide stink there only intrerested in one thing deny, deny deny. I know one that was so stuipd they put a deny on full control for the everyone group..... and forgot the administrator group is part of the everyone group so the entire network was gubbed and they never took proper backups soa lot of information was lost.
  20. Did you take in consideration the legal side of it too? What programs the users install on their pc's? What impact that has on the domain / LAN / traffic? And yes, leaving users with administrator privileges DOES make the set-up less secure. And I don't mean only the network... Doesnt matter if the user isa guest they can take over teh comptuer and the domain if they know what there doing, i agree with you have to have some control but not the poitn you lock them out completely. Ye i took that into consideration but the user will fall fool of the law if they break it, but at the same time if there machine is connect you can easily watch what there doing. if you lock them out at network level (i mean osi level 2-4) it doesnt havea efffect ont eh LAN, traffic or the domain because there machien is a stand alone. havinf admin prilivages on a machie that conencted toa network domain doesnt give a average user much more .... why because unles they know what there doign they cant do anything, my policy is if the user knows what there doing if they mess with the network then i agree with you that gettign sacked is the right option. and if you are a good network admin you will have backups etc so if anything goes worng it will be back up and running within a few horus, most admins i know are to lazy and just liek sitting there watchign people or jsut doign nothing and want people locked out ocmpletely.
  21. doesnt work the reg goes to reg user and as the reg user numebr change ever time you install it fails, plus it doesnt merge correctly anyway, trust me i have tried ever way possiable Registration is located here: [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Smart Projects\IsoBuster] "ID"= "ID21"= "ID22"= "ID23"= "ID24"= "ID25"= "ID26"= and it works to import from an installation to another (for version 2.4.0.1) Edit: Disable online check (set it to Never): [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Smart Projects\IsoBuster] "VersionCheckCriteria"=dword:00000000 ah that onlien check might be the problem ill give that a try thanks it also appears in hkey_user which by default changes ever time it instals well HKEY_USERS\S-1-5-21-* where * is created on install
  22. Thats the sort of attuide form network admins i hate, personal i just lock them from the network but leave them to do what they want on the other OS, and no it doesnt make the netwokr insecure but more friendly witht eh users. The truth is no matter what os you are running if oyu know what you are doing you can take control of the domain easily.
  23. making the switchless one isnt a problem just wanted to knwo if there was a problem because framework 3 doesnt appear on updates list when you try to update after a frresh install so thought it was a compabilty issue
×
×
  • Create New...