where am I wrong ...

[Molecule]

I've been studying "slipstreaming" too long ... and am still confused as to what it means.

As a cpm/dos/w98 user, my difficulty in understanding it stems from two areas

First what are accounts -- it's apparent to me that the so-called "administrator" account (default first-user logon after fresh install) is not the RSA account (Real Systemwide Administrator account) which occurs during T-12 when CMDLINES.TXT is executed. That account sets up the first-user so-called "Administrator" account, which I call the VA account (Virtual Administrator -- something like a virtual dos box is not real dos). What this means is that a system built at T-12 by the RSA is not the same as a system built (patched) by the VA.

Thus a slipstreamed system is not the same thing as a patch-Tuesday built system.

unless slipstreaming means creating a new install CD every patch Tuesday, and then every patch Tuesday you have two choices, (a) look at your new CD and do nothing with it, or (B) reinstall your new slipstreamed system over top of your existing system, every patch Tuesday. Is that what slipstreaming means?

But slipstreaming is the only way we can have access to the True T-12 dos-level Administrator account.

Also software installed by a Virtual Administrator is not the same thing as software installed by the RSA.

Second, after awakening to the problem of the RSA T-12 account versus the post-gui VA account, comes a lack of understanding of the overall installation process. Most unattended "how-to's" are writting by well-meaning engineers who think that their post-gui account (a Virtual Administrator box) is the same thing as the dos-level RSA account, and so the falsity of the idea that the VA box = RSA (dos) is propagated, resulting in confusion.

If someone redoes the msfn unattended site, (a huge success!!) I suggest that they start with an overview of the installation process and build on that. But then again, I started with cpm and dos, so I want to try to understand what slipstreaming is from that point of view.

[Yzöwl]

@Molecule, what you've done is dangle your argumentative carrot in the hope that we'll bite; If you wish to discuss your theory then please provide us with yours. That way this Topic is less likely to be construed as potential flame bait and more of informative dialogue.

First of all you need to start by wiping the slate clean and forgetting about DOS. Once you achieved that you could perhaps try to explain to us why you believe that Software|Patches installed by a User Level Administrator account are any different from those installed under the System Level Administrator account.

[Molecule]

it's not so much that it's hard to tabula rasa myself of dos ... my difficulty is understanding the theory, and implementation, of groups

according to Aaron's post (post#2, link below) it is apparently possible (or desirable?) to require that the same piece 20M software be installed twice, for example one group installs it for itself, and then another for itself, or something like that, creating something called a redundancy, which I don't understand, but which seems so obvious to everybody else there is a communication breakdown, and people think I am flaming, which I am not. I am confused. It is implied as well that when reg tweaks are installed by an "administrator" they are treated differently than when they are slipstreamed or added during installation.

post#2 at http://www.msfn.org/board/reg-tweaks-not-w...all-t24548.html

I started out with the misception that something installed by an administrator would be available to everybody under her or him. It seemed only natural -- higher in the heirachy, therefore visible to everybody below it. I am just now starting to figure out that exactly the opposite may be the case.

But, something installed at T-12 (by an installer-administrator) is available to everybody, yet something installed as administrator is not ... so that's a difference between a slipstream administrator (a T-12 programmer, which is apparently a branch of programming with its own specialized skills), and a post-install or "logon administrator."

Overall, the installation process (slipstream or post-gui keyboard, including installation of programs ... question later) is somehow interwoven with the whole groups policy thing, the implementation of which lays the groundwork for the entire design, and I am still struggling with "getting it."

It's scary to ask, but if I don't understand group policy stuff, how do I install a program, post gui, which will be available to everybody. Also, I've never used the "My Documents" folder in win98se, but apparently I'm going to have to learn about "Documents and Settings" in win2000. As administrator, can I install a program to "All Users" folder (assuming that means that All Users can use its settings), instead of to the "Administrator" folder? But since apparently that isn't where programs are installed, it's apparent that I am really having some problems here at the ground level.

It's not flaming ... it's cognitive shock failure or something. I will say one thing ... your distinction between a User Level Administrator and a System Level Administrator is helpful. The former manages accounts, the latter manages the system? When I first log on as "administrator" after installation, which one am I?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Molecule

[Guest]

An admin is an admin. There are not 2 types of admins. The only caveat to that is that the built in admin account can not be deleted where others can.

The only places where users differ is in in HKCU, HKU registry hives and docs n settings\<username>

[CoffeeFiend]

First what are accounts -- it's apparent to me that the so-called "administrator" account (default first-user logon after fresh install) is not the RSA account (Real Systemwide Administrator account) which occurs during T-12

There is no such thing as a "RSA" or "VA" accounts. The Administrator account is as much of an administrator as it gets (you're locked out of nothing). The installation (T-12 phase) is running as the system account though.

Is that what slipstreaming means?

Slipstreaming essentially means "integrating" (most of the time, referring to service packs). Just so you don't have to download and install a ridiculous amount of patches every time you install the OS on a machine. That's all there is to it.

slipstreaming is the only way we can have access to the True T-12 dos-level Administrator account

There is no such thing as a true dos-level admin account. There aren't any dos "parts" to begin with...

If someone redoes the msfn unattended site

It's likely getting redone, but for modern versions of Windows (Vista/Win7) and their brand new installer, not for OS'es that are a decade old and their even older installer (dating from the NT 3.x days).

my difficulty is understanding the theory, and implementation, of groups according to Aaron's post (post#2, link below) it is apparently possible (or desirable?) to require that the same piece 20M software be installed twice, for example one group installs it for itself, and then another for itself, or something like that, creating something called a redundancy, which I don't understand, but which seems so obvious to everybody else there is a communication breakdown, and people think I am flaming, which I am not. I am confused.

I don't see groups mentioned anywhere in his post, nor talk about installing software. He's talking about HKCU reg tweaks specifically, which at T-12 end up being applied to the default user profile, as the install is running under the system account. All new user profiles created afterwards (including the Administrator account) will inherit that (making it redundant to re-apply them to your account later indeed).

I have no idea where you're going with the group policy stuff there either.

how do I install a program, post gui, which will be available to everybody

It totally depends on the program and its installer. Some installers will provide options or switches to do this, others don't. Sometimes, it's merely the start menu shortcuts that are created in a specific users' start menu instead of the all users start menu (then it's only a matter of moving them) and sometimes there's a lot more to it (registry entries, files in the user profile, etc) in which case there is no easy way.

It doesn't look like you're flaming at all, but rather that you got several things confused (accounts don't lock you out of anything, and don't magically give the Pentagon access to your computer -- sorry, we are not in a movie). But no, there is no universal way to install anything for all users, if that answers the real question. And patches are applied system-wide. And if you want to mess with the default users' registry (and not at T-12), you'll have to mount it first.

Not that I'd be moving to an OS that's a decade old, several versions out of date, with a 0.5% market share, whose extended support is just about over, has poor compatibility with modern apps and all that...