InTheWayBoy

Never heard of MIDS, but it sounds interesting. Good for a small network, or maybe a mixed environment. Personally, I like RIS. It's pretty sweet if you're in an all WinXP setting. Combine RIS with Group Policy software deployment, and you have a new machine from scratch (Not imaged) in about an hour. That's with Office, and all your other applications as well. That, and if your machines are PXE capable, then you don't need to bother with a boot CD, it's all over the network! Granted, it involves a lot of time to test, but I think it's the best solution in the end. Especially if you already have a domain setup running 2003. In regards to your CDKey question, I don't think there is an easy fix for this yet. I use a program called RockXP that will both view and edit the CDKey. I had this neat idea about customizing the RIS Menu's to insert the CDKey based on the GUID (PXE). The idea was to have the script check the GUID, then find that in a listing and apply the corresponding CDKey to the install. Never got around to it, but I think it'll work just fine.

1. SP4 should be able to handle any drive made today 2. NTFS is the way to go. I understand the FAT32 for backup, but you should really use NTFS as much as possible. For an easy way to get access to NTFS partitions when you don't have an OS, check out BartPE. 3. For the swap I don't really think it will make a difference, but I would probably go with NTFS as well. However, if you are sharing that drive across multiple OS's, it might be wise to keep it FAT16, for Win9x compatibility. 4. Support is as good as the manufacturer makes it. SP4 has full USB 2.0 support, but some manufacturers are only making WinXP drivers now. And while 2000 and XP are very similar, you could run into problems with certain drivers. HP comes to mind...they always make their software way more complicated than necessary. 5. DOS isn't totally busted, but I suggest you look into this program: DOSBox 6. I tried AutoPatcher before, and it's actually pretty sweet. You can even customize it to run other application installs. But, I gave up on it as I like to be able to do everything myself as much as possible. But it should set you straight! 7. Any Nasties? Hmmmm...Well it's not very consumer friendly, but that's not necesarrily a bad thing. You don't get little wizards to help you with cameras, things like that.

I use it in my lab, and truthfully I don't find much different from 2003 Standard. There are differences, but for normal usage it's not that drastic. The Resource Management feature could be nice, but too much upkeep. As for the OS itself, it's basically Windows XP Server, so it shares most of the tech and adds a little (lot) more. It's built for serving, so it drops some things...but you can 'hack' those in from what I've seen. There are various threads talking about turning 2003 into something more suitable for a workstation. Having used both XP and 2003 on the same system, I can't say I really see the pay-off for the extra work. But it is fun to play with, and technically it is better than XP so...

Even though I hate certs, with the way the job market is today you should nab up as much as possible. Of course, if you have no skills to back the certs up then you're not gonna get far. I've got A+, but only because a previous company required it. I was their only tech when they opened their store, and after a few months they decided I needed to be A+, so I took it. Passed it easily, but that's back when it was super easy...they even tested for DOS back then. In truth I would never work for someone who restricts you just because you don't have a little piece of paper saying you know something. If they are that cold and calculating, then imagine the issues later on... When I was running my own business, the best techs I had were un-certified. We had one MCSE who just turned out to be a royal dick and didn't like be told how to fix a problem (Even though he would call for help, he still would quote bul***** why it's wrong...even though it worked). We had two A+'s, and they weren't as bad as the MCSE guy, but they **** sure didn't know simple things like the difference between logical and primary paritions, or where windows stores profile info. I left the business earlier this year because one of our clients just got so big they needed their own dedicated IT guy...so that's my current job. Now I'm doing things that many MCSE's do...but without those silly certs! I'm not stabbing people who have certs, I think there are several situations where it's good to have certs. The problem I have is with un-qualified people who get certs and then assume they are a tech god. There should be a residency program like in the medical field. If you want to be a Dr., you've got years of school followed by an internship, and then finally a three year residency. So you learn it, then do it...then after you've proven you are capable you starting making the big bucks. Too many people see that whole "And MCSE earns an average of $40,000 a year!" and then drop money into a boot camp to learn the answers. They think they'll be rich compaired to their old jobs now that they are an MCSE...too bad they'll be fired before the first year for being incompitent. If I was hiring you, I would want to see skills first...then I take into consideration personal skills...and then your job history. If I was still unsure, I might take into account your certs...might.

Try just removing that quickformat line...some of the entries in *.sif are always enabled if they are listed. Even though you tell it not to, just by being in the file it gets processed. Just an idea...good luck!

Probably get a better response if this was posted in the Application Installs forum...there are already a few posts talking about this.

If you are worried about installing WinXP with SATA drives, you should be...but it's not really all that hard in the end. If done properly, the install will be the same if you installed it on IDE or SATA drive. The only difference would be the built-in, semi-transparent support for SATA drivers. I have a mixture of Dell's, half IDE the other SATA, and my UA works the same on both. And since I have no floppies in most of them, I have to use this method. I never use nLite...I like to get more hands on. Check this out: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=36194 The first section has a bunch of useful links if you want to do it yourself. It's not that bad, but it's real easy to get it wrong. A lot of text editing...good luck!

I've seen it work fine with just reseating. And then other times I've seen it work fine everywhere else EXCEPT the installation...in that case, I installed WinXP using other known good RAM, then when setup was done I would drop the original RAM back in. Of course, in any scenario you should always question if it's worth keeping the RAM if it is indeed the problem...in all likely hood it will eventually good bad all the way, so why not replace it now. And another thing to check...the BIOS. Depending on the make/model there might be some setting in there that are bombing your install. Maybe the RAM settings are too fast...you could try resetting to defaults to see what happens. Be careful though, as that might require you to configure the BIOS to meet her unique settings (Extra Drives, Disable Onboard Sound, etc). And while you're playing there, check and see if there is a new BIOS for the unit...could help too!

Have you tried RAM? That is another good part to test...can cause errors such as you explained.

Yeah, there is no default %CDROM% or %CD% variable that points to an optical drive. You can run a few lines of code to establish a variable...I never use it so I don't know it, but I know there was a similar post a while back that had the answer in it. You can search for it...

Try this instead: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Desktop\General] "BackupWallpaper"="c:\\windows\\Web\\Wallpaper\\bgn.jpg" "Wallpaper"="c:\\windows\\Web\\Wallpaper\\bgn.jpg" [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop] "ConvertedWallpaper"="c:\\windows\\Web\\Wallpaper\\bgn.jpg" [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Themes\LastTheme] "Wallpaper"="c:\\windows\\Web\\Wallpaper\\bgn.jpg" It's the same as you had but with double "\\" for the path...I can't say for sure but sometimes that can be an issue. Good luck! Oh, and another thing you can add to your winnt.sif to help with the resolution prompt is: AutoConfirm="1" You put that under [Display] and it should remove that prompt...you say it isn't an issue anymore, but just in case you wanted to know.

Would the %USERPROFILE% variable help? That would allow you to write your scripts and just use something like this: %USERPROFILE%\Start Menu\Blah\Blah.lnk Or: %USERPROFILE%\My Documents That should work, but if it doesn't someone else will probably have an answer...good luck!

Sure man, post that code if you don't mind.

Nope...since every install is different in some way, there is no universal silent setup program. There are a few programs that can try and help you: Universal Silent Switch Finder - Not 100%, but it's a good start AutoIT/SciTe ScriptWriter - A little buggy, but it works very well. In essence, you run this program as you install a software, and it records all the actions you perfrom. You can then fine tune the AutoIT script it produces to iron out any bugs. MSFN Search - Just search the forums for the app you are trying to install...good bet that we've already found a way to, and you can just follow the directions in the thread. You'll find in the end the most reliable way is to use the search here...good luck!

Can't believe we're already talking about how Vista is gonna be so much better... Just like XP, and any M$ OS for that matter, the first release is gonna suck...more trouble than it's worth. By the time things are ironed out (SP1?), XP will be the new 2000. Everyone will be happy with XP and not see a reason to go to Vista. True, new tech is always fun, but much like USB, Bluetooth, and Firewire there won't be many reasons to be the first to jump ship to it. And the best reason to stay with XP...is it's not named Vista. WTF were they thinking!?!

So you're thinking the user doesn't have the rights to make the folder when they first logon? Cause that's kinda what I was thinking, but you were quicker

You could use security filtering to determine who the scripts applies to. It's kinda like NTFS File Permissions, but for GPO. Essentially you could tell it to apply to your user group, but not to your admin group. Check this out for more info: http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_...-Filtering.html

Maybe it's an issue with different IDE controllers?

%SystemRoot%\system32\mstsc.exe As for the original question, it really depends on how they monitor the network. At the least they could see that you are using the port required for RDP...if you can change that (I don't know if you can or not) then that might help you slip under the radar. Or, it could expose you...they might not notice any traffic on RDP because they themselves probably use it and just think you are another admin. If you change to a different port then that may get you in hot water. Also, if they have things like packet loggers then they will notice. They could also track you by checking the logs to see what remote connections are made (Only a matter of time before they trace your home IP to you personally), or they might have a employee workstation monitor application that might bust you (Not too common yet).

There might be more switches that the application supports...what application is it?

I don't know if it's protocol or not, but I always edit mine to be as such: ITEM="Answer" Like this: chat="Off" Never run into a problem that way. I always enclose the answer in quotes, even though most examples don't. I just think it's cleaner and more uniform in the end.

Good deal...looks like I'll have some more time to waste converting installs now. Thanx again!

Nice...between this and RISult I have much to play with this weekend! Thanx!!

That's a very nice site...lots of info. But it doesn't seem to address the issue of different hardware. All the machines he uses are Intel based Gateways. It's safe to assume they all use an Intel chipset, which means they aren't very different in the end. The problem mainly comes when you clone an Intel system onto an AMD system. It's not necessarily an issue of the CPU's, but more their sub compononents. You'll have different chipsets, different HD controllers, etc...these are the things that get in the way when making a universal image. But I'm bookmarking that link none the less

I've always wondered about that too...can't wait to see what the issue is.