OK, not a good title for a Linux list, but I couldn't resist commenting on my first attempt at installing Windows XP (Professional) given that people often say Linux is hard to install. First off, there seemed very few questions to answer - Windows assumed it knew best for just about everything, and boy was it wrong?! The end result goes something like this: A: - my 3.5" floppy B: - my 5.25" floppy C: - my ZIP drive D: - my DVD ROM E: - my CD RW F: - same CD RW as above G: - same CD RW as above H: - same CD RW as above I: - same CD RW as above J: - same CD RW as above K: - same CD RW as above L: - same CD RW as above M: - my hard disk with Windows XP installed on it Next comes the networking side of things: IE - fine, can browse the Internet and is pretty fast, can also browse my local Intranet Explorer - cannot see any other machines on the network, when it should be able to see two other Windows 2000 boxes
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Paul Tansom wrote:
OK, not a good title for a Linux list, but I couldn't resist commenting on my first attempt at installing Windows XP (Professional) given that people often say Linux is hard to install.
First off, there seemed very few questions to answer - Windows assumed it knew best for just about everything, and boy was it wrong?! The end result goes something like this:
A: - my 3.5" floppy B: - my 5.25" floppy
sorry, I have to ask.... 5.25"? Why?
A: - my 3.5" floppy B: - my 5.25" floppy
sorry, I have to ask....
5.25"? Why?
I believe it takes a little longer for things to start to fossilise, although it must be getting pretty close. Keep up with oiling the moving parts ;) I've only ever seen a 5.25 floppy on a BBC... actually I think I saw one on a 486 once. It surprises me that Windows XP still supports them... Ben "tola" Francis
** Ben Francis <ben@franci5.fsnet.co.uk> [2003-06-01 00:38]:
A: - my 3.5" floppy B: - my 5.25" floppy
sorry, I have to ask....
5.25"? Why?
Because I have one and I can?! I can't say as I've used it in a long while, but I did have to transfer a batch of data across from 5.25" media a few years back, so since it's available and I have a spare bay in the machine I dropped it in. If I need the bay it'll probably end up in one of my servers just in case!
I believe it takes a little longer for things to start to fossilise, although it must be getting pretty close. Keep up with oiling the moving parts ;)
I've only ever seen a 5.25 floppy on a BBC... actually I think I saw one on a 486 once. It surprises me that Windows XP still supports them...
I used to use them on some old XT and AT boxes some years back. I never had any 8 bit computers that used 5.25". My Amstrad used the ill fated 3" disks and my Amiga had the low density 3.5" ones. Of course I now have a BBC with 5.25" and 3.5" drives, but that's a whole different story! ** end quote [Ben Francis] -- Paul Tansom: - contact paul@aptanet.com for more information Internet and Intranet Solutions -- http://www.aptanet.com/
Next comes the networking side of things:
IE - fine, can browse the Internet and is pretty fast, can also browse my local Intranet Explorer - cannot see any other machines on the network, when it should be able to see two other Windows 2000 boxes
From the other Windows 2000 boxes the machine shows up in Network Neighbourhood, but when I try to see what is shared I get an error saying the machine is not accessible.
Conclusion - Windows XP does not integrate easily into an existing Windows network!
I installed Windows XP on the same day as you and everything worked first time and it connected to my (XP) network, saw all the shares and connected to Internet Connection Sharing with one simple wizard. I think XP is very good at networking with other XP machines but it's notoriously bad for administration on big networks with NT/2000/2003 running on them. I found a hard disk installation of Knoppix almost as easy to connect to a Windows network, and considering it ISN'T windows, I think that's pretty darned impressive! There are even graphic interfaces available to make samba even easier I believe! I'm not sure why Windows has to reboot after every little change, although XP seems a little better in this respect. As for being off topic, don't think people are too fussy. There have now been about 30 posts on what the correct way to reply to a mailing list is... Ben "tola" Francis
From the other Windows 2000 boxes the machine shows up in Network Neighbourhood, but when I try to see what is shared I get an error saying the machine is not accessible.
Conclusion - Windows XP does not integrate easily into an existing Windows network!
I installed Windows XP on the same day as you and everything worked first time and it connected to my (XP) network, saw all the shares and connected to Internet Connection Sharing with one simple wizard. I think XP is very good at networking with other XP machines but it's notoriously bad for administration on big networks with NT/2000/2003 running on them.
This may be because the NetBEUI protocol is NOT installed by default in Windows XP. Based on my experience, Windows XP defaults to sharing folders over TCP/IP. In fact, those shares are advertised over the internet as well! In order to get Windows XP to communicate with my older Windows boxes, I had to install NetBEUI from the XP disc by following the below tutorial: http://www.homenethelp.com/web/howto/HomeNet-Win2kXP.asp -- Ashley T. Howes Ph.D.
** Ashley <lists@ashleyhowes.com> [2003-06-01 10:04]:
From the other Windows 2000 boxes the machine shows up in Network Neighbourhood, but when I try to see what is shared I get an error saying the machine is not accessible.
Conclusion - Windows XP does not integrate easily into an existing Windows network!
I installed Windows XP on the same day as you and everything worked first time and it connected to my (XP) network, saw all the shares and connected to Internet Connection Sharing with one simple wizard. I think XP is very good at networking with other XP machines but it's notoriously bad for administration on big networks with NT/2000/2003 running on them.
This may be because the NetBEUI protocol is NOT installed by default in Windows XP. Based on my experience, Windows XP defaults to sharing folders over TCP/IP. In fact, those shares are advertised over the internet as well!
In order to get Windows XP to communicate with my older Windows boxes, I had to install NetBEUI from the XP disc by following the below tutorial: http://www.homenethelp.com/web/howto/HomeNet-Win2kXP.asp ** end quote [Ashley]
That would depend significantly on your existing setup. I don't use NetBEUI at all on my home network and never have. In fact when I hook up the odd Win31 machine I tent to replace NetBEUI on that with TCP/IP as well - although it's a separate download to get hold of it. I rarely if ever do that now, although I did hook my parents old 386 up to their new machine a few months back. Yes, the services that Windows leaves open is a nightmare. I hooked up a Windows 2000 machine to the Internet via NTL a week or so back and within a couple of minutes of doing it I had a popup message on the screen from somewhere. I very quickly disabled the Messenger service! -- Paul Tansom: - contact paul@aptanet.com for more information Internet and Intranet Solutions -- http://www.aptanet.com/
** Ben Francis <ben@franci5.fsnet.co.uk> [2003-06-01 00:28]:
Next comes the networking side of things:
IE - fine, can browse the Internet and is pretty fast, can also browse my local Intranet Explorer - cannot see any other machines on the network, when it should be able to see two other Windows 2000 boxes
From the other Windows 2000 boxes the machine shows up in Network Neighbourhood, but when I try to see what is shared I get an error saying the machine is not accessible.
Conclusion - Windows XP does not integrate easily into an existing Windows network!
I installed Windows XP on the same day as you and everything worked first time and it connected to my (XP) network, saw all the shares and connected to Internet Connection Sharing with one simple wizard. I think XP is very good at networking with other XP machines but it's notoriously bad for administration on big networks with NT/2000/2003 running on them.
I think I've cracked that one now, although it's pretty poor that it is not straightforward to integrate into an existing Windows based network. The daft thing is that it integrated fine with my Linux boxes because they don't use any of the Windows proprietary stuff - i.e. it's quite happy with the standards based networking! I spent an hour or so playing first time around (not constant as I was basically trying to transfer files onto my ZIP drive for someone (my father-in-law who was doing some work in the garden so I was in and out). Anyway, after an hour it hadn't discovered any other machines in Network Neighbourhood, and other machines that could see it couldn't connect to it. When I came back to it a few hours later I spotted some configuration that sets a secure challenge and response for connecting to other Windows machines - once this was disabled things burst into life. I'm still not happy with the installation though - particularly the drive lettering! I also don't have any icons on the desktop apart from a trash can - it doesn't affect my usage, but is a little concerning since I'm sure there should be some!
I found a hard disk installation of Knoppix almost as easy to connect to a Windows network, and considering it ISN'T windows, I think that's pretty darned impressive! There are even graphic interfaces available to make samba even easier I believe!
Not tried a HD install of that, I'm a solid raw Debian user myself, although Gentoo is intriguing me so I may give that a go.
I'm not sure why Windows has to reboot after every little change, although XP seems a little better in this respect.
Windows 2000 was the first step at improving that issue theoretically, but I still had to do two reboots to install a USB modem on my first install of that - which seemed very odd for a supposedly plug and play bus/device on an OS that was aiming to reduce the need for reboots!
As for being off topic, don't think people are too fussy. There have now been about 30 posts on what the correct way to reply to a mailing list is...
Oh dear, that was my fault too! ** end quote [Ben Francis] -- Paul Tansom: - contact paul@aptanet.com for more information Internet and Intranet Solutions -- http://www.aptanet.com/
On Sunday 01 June 2003 09:04, Paul Tansom wrote:
I also don't have any icons on the desktop apart from a trash can - it doesn't affect my usage, but is a little concerning since I'm sure there should be some!
Just the Trash can is perfectly normal for XP. There was a paragim shift in the user interface with XP whereby MS want you to launch everything from the start menu. You can put icons on the desktop (actually right clicking on the properties of some things in the start menu will give you the option of "Show on Desktop") But often XP will prompt to ask you if it can clean up the desktop and delete unused icons. Actually this is the way I work on most of my machines. There is nothing I hate more than a desktop cluttered with icons. As to Windows users who use the Desktop as a home directory.....ahhhhhhgggghhhhh.
** Wayne Stallwood <wayne.stallwood@btinternet.com> [2003-06-02 09:17]:
On Sunday 01 June 2003 09:04, Paul Tansom wrote:
I also don't have any icons on the desktop apart from a trash can - it doesn't affect my usage, but is a little concerning since I'm sure there should be some!
Just the Trash can is perfectly normal for XP. There was a paragim shift in the user interface with XP whereby MS want you to launch everything from the start menu. You can put icons on the desktop (actually right clicking on the properties of some things in the start menu will give you the option of "Show on Desktop") But often XP will prompt to ask you if it can clean up the desktop and delete unused icons.
Interesting, every XP machine I've worked on so far (ooh, all of two, so not a significant number!) has had the standard icons on the desktop so I'd not twigged that there had been a change.
Actually this is the way I work on most of my machines. There is nothing I hate more than a desktop cluttered with icons.
Ditto, although on my Windows boxes I do leave the odd one - not worked out why yet as I rarely use them because they're always behind a window of some sort. On Linux I use Enlightenment and there's nothing on the desktop bar the pagers and a small button bar (for starting mail and a shell). When I'm in Windows I really miss the ease of just clicking the desktop and choosing my application - and now XP added another level to go through on the Start menu to get to the one I want!
As to Windows users who use the Desktop as a home directory.....ahhhhhhgggghhhhh.
Don't get me started on that one! So with my install I've cracked the networking with a post install reconfigure. The desktop issue isn't an install failure, which is good. So that leaves the drives to sort out - I suspect they'll come down to a single issue somewhere, but getting a removable drive as C and the install as M is intriguing given the fact that Windows has always had to put at least something on the C drive (which doesn't have a disk in!). ** end quote [Wayne Stallwood] -- Paul Tansom: - contact paul@aptanet.com for more information Internet and Intranet Solutions -- http://www.aptanet.com/
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:44:12PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
OK, not a good title for a Linux list, but I couldn't resist commenting on my first attempt at installing Windows XP (Professional) given that people often say Linux is hard to install.
Blah. Everything is difficult to install ;)
First off, there seemed very few questions to answer - Windows assumed it knew best for just about everything, and boy was it wrong?! The end result goes something like this:
A: - my 3.5" floppy B: - my 5.25" floppy C: - my ZIP drive D: - my DVD ROM E: - my CD RW F: - same CD RW as above G: - same CD RW as above H: - same CD RW as above I: - same CD RW as above J: - same CD RW as above K: - same CD RW as above L: - same CD RW as above M: - my hard disk with Windows XP installed on it
Sounds like a screwed up settings. Never ever had this problem.
Next comes the networking side of things:
IE - fine, can browse the Internet and is pretty fast, can also browse my local Intranet Explorer - cannot see any other machines on the network, when it should be able to see two other Windows 2000 boxes
Of course, IE browse the internet real quick. Though opera wins miles ahead. I read a paper about how IE was being able to render sites quickly... very interesting. Though, IE is considered 'old' nowadays...
From the other Windows 2000 boxes the machine shows up in Network Neighbourhood, but when I try to see what is shared I get an error saying the machine is not accessible.
Conclusion - Windows XP does not integrate easily into an existing Windows network!
Typical of Windows to do that. I remember telling Windows 95/98 to pick up the local network neighbourhood at our monthly LAN nights. Normally the problems are located right down to the LAN card, wrong IP set up etc. Oh the hassles..... One thing, microsoft really did good at.. office, money and er... that's it ;) -- (o_ - Craig Butcher //\ - IT Technician / Unix Support MTH/ENV @ UEA V_/_ - http://www.wizball.co.uk
** Craig <c@wizball.co.uk> [2003-06-01 10:59]:
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:44:12PM +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
OK, not a good title for a Linux list, but I couldn't resist commenting on my first attempt at installing Windows XP (Professional) given that people often say Linux is hard to install.
Blah. Everything is difficult to install ;)
Agreed, Windows has the advantage in perception terms because so few people actually have to install it! <snip>
Next comes the networking side of things:
IE - fine, can browse the Internet and is pretty fast, can also browse my local Intranet Explorer - cannot see any other machines on the network, when it should be able to see two other Windows 2000 boxes
Of course, IE browse the Internet real quick. Though opera wins miles ahead. I read a paper about how IE was being able to render sites quickly... very interesting.
Though, IE is considered 'old' nowadays...
Well I was actually comparing to IE on my Windows 2000 boxes - only two and one is a dual boot laptop, it's not something I like to make too much of a habit of ;-) Opera is fast by virtue of some heavy caching - often too much IMHO, but I still make major use of it. Not looked at anything on how IE does it so quickly - got any links?
From the other Windows 2000 boxes the machine shows up in Network Neighbourhood, but when I try to see what is shared I get an error saying the machine is not accessible.
Conclusion - Windows XP does not integrate easily into an existing Windows network!
Typical of Windows to do that. I remember telling Windows 95/98 to pick up the local network neighbourhood at our monthly LAN nights. Normally the problems are located right down to the LAN card, wrong IP set up etc. Oh the hassles.....
IP is not an issue here as I'm using DHCP. The one I do find a pain is the nightmare of the browse-master elections every time a new machine joins or leaves the network - nasty.
One thing, Microsoft really did good at.. office, money and er... that's it ;)
I have to disagree here, I really detest Office as I spend too much time fighting it to get things laid out the way I want them. Wordperfect always used to be my favourite, and I used to make a lot of use of Amipro/Wordpro as that was the default package at work for about 10 years, although I did start to make inroads on getting StarOffice as the replacement just before I left - mainly because Smartsuite 3.1 for Windows 3.1 was pretty ancient by 2000 and Office was too expensive, but nobody wanted to invest in the new Smartsuite package, so the free nature of StarOffice (at the time) won the day, coupled with implementing the Calendar server (looking forward to the OpenOffice replacement for that BTW). ** end quote [Craig] -- Paul Tansom: - contact paul@aptanet.com for more information Internet and Intranet Solutions -- http://www.aptanet.com/
** wbh <W.B.Hill@uea.ac.uk> [2003-06-01 12:25]:
On Sat, 31 May 2003, Paul Tansom wrote:
E: - my CD RW F: - same CD RW as above G: - same CD RW as above H: - same CD RW as above I: - same CD RW as above J: - same CD RW as above K: - same CD RW as above L: - same CD RW as above
A SCSI CD RW set to answer on every LUN?
** end quote [wbh] It is SCSI, and old Yamaha 4416 on an Adaptec AHA-2940 with auto-termination set. Not sure about the LUN settings, but they're fine AFIAK since Windows ME (yeuch), Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Debian have all been fine on the machine. The only real changes are the case and a new HD (as I've nicked the old ones for another machine). I'll check though because I did wonder about the SCSI setup with termination etc.. -- Paul Tansom: - contact paul@aptanet.com for more information Internet and Intranet Solutions -- http://www.aptanet.com/
participants (7)
-
Ashley -
Ben Francis -
BenE -
Craig -
Paul Tansom -
Wayne Stallwood -
wbh