Help building and installing XP with a answer file?

[Acleacius]

Hope this is the right forum.

Done some searching because I would like to try installing XP with a Answer File and /UNATTEND switch to allow the fragmenting folders "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" to be installed on D:\ instead of the standard C:

I have installed XP many times but never with using a Answer File after searching I found this on MS's site and found this can be dine.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q236621/

Could someone tell me, since it isn't clear do I make a Answer File and put it in a command line path on a floppy and boot from the floppy directly to the bootable XP Cd?

If so since this is my first time could someone show me the correct command line and paramiters, please?

While I know the Floppy adress would be A:\, not sure how to determine the drive letter for the Cd Crive, it is currently set to Slave on the Second IDE channel, also I would have 4 Partitions on this drive, so maybe the Cd would be G:\ even in the BIOS?
I would like to do a standard XP install to C:\ with the exception of "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" being installed to the D:\.

Thanks for any tips or help.

Also, I guess using a Unattend switch means I can't sit through the install as normal controling the rest of the install?
Edited spelling and grammar.

 

[Severian]

I use the unattended installation in WinXP every time. Basically you need to make a winnt.sif file, which is your answer file, and put it on a blank floppy. When you boot from the WinXP cd, you basically can walk away. Alternately you can burn a copy of your WinXP CD, making sure you make a bootable CD, and put the winnt.sif file in the /I386 folder on the disc. You won't need a floppy after that, but you can't use the CD for anything but the customized installation you just created.

See this page for more in depth information: http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/

Getting the proper format can be tricky, but once you know what you're doing, it's a real timesaver.

good luck

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Acleacius
to allow the fragmenting folders "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" to be installed on D:\ instead of the standard C:

...

I would like to do a standard XP install to C:\ with the exception of "Documents and Settings" and "Program Files" being installed to the D:\.

Why...why...why?!?

Don't do this.

That said, if you absolutely must (and you'll have some odd problems, and this isn't suggested, and there are SO many other ways to fix the not-really-problems I think you're trying to solve, but...)

This is well documented. Read the deploytools stuff in your DOCS folder on your XP CD. There are some CHMs in there with lots of good info.

 

[Acleacius]

Severian
Thanks for the link, I look forward to checking it out.

dclive
Humm, ok I will check out the doc on XP, but I did mention the reason, due to the poor design of XP which inherently installs programs on the drive/partition of the OS, causing massive amounts of fragmentation.

Honestly, I do appreciate you reply but don't have a clue what you mean or what I should be looking for in the doc, cause you don't mention anything specific.

Constant fragmentation on your OS drive/partition is a bad thing, to say the least.

 

[dclive]

Fragmentation isn't an issue with modern hard drives. If you feel that strongly about it, schedule the built-in defrag program to run once a month and see if you see a difference; it's most likely you won't.

Read ref.chm and deploy.chm, and do searches for words like "floppy" and "unattend.txt".

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: dclive
Fragmentation isn't an issue with modern hard drives. If you feel that strongly about it, schedule the built-in defrag program to run once a month and see if you see a difference; it's most likely you won't.

Just because drives have gotten faster and bigger has nothing whatsoever to do with how fragmentation is caused. I suppose one could argue that because drives are larger now programs needn't be deleted as often to free up space for other programs, but that still has nothing to do with the cause.

Novell Netware file servers have had very little problem with fragmentation for many years, and it didn't matter whether the drives were IDE or SCSI, 30Meg or 30Gig; the OS was designed to handle files such that fragmentation didn't occur very often, if at all.

 

[dclive]

Nevertheless, the point remains. Scheduling a defrag every so often so the drive is defragmented likely won't make a significant difference in day to day usage. It just isn't worth worrying about when there are so many other more common performance pitfalls.

 

[Acleacius]

No delete key?

 

[Acleacius]

I am not aware of any info suggesting Fragmentation is less due to Physical Hard drive Technoligy, but I am always willing to read up on it, if there is some at least possibley crediable info.

Though just setting an occasional auto Defrag, is only a fix for more casual to moderate Program Installation and Deletion, certainly not a fix for Users whom Install and Delete multipule programs a week.
It's clearly a bad OS design and actually very benifical to move those folders for all Users it brings more Stablity and Security.

 

[EQTitan]

Don't kill yourself with that stupid MDSN unattended crap download nlite and follow the steps so simple so easy. You can customize EVERYTHING, when your done it makes a bootable ISO.

http://www.nliteos.com/

 

[dclive]

If you scheduled Windows XP's defrag utility to run at night when not using the PC, and you set things up so you had one partition, would that give you everything you want?

Agreed on nlite - it's very handy for automated builds - put in the CD, and it formats and installs everything, with all required drivers that you give it, plus all the integrated Microsoft updates you want.

 

[EQTitan]

Yeah, I love it takes maybe 15min tops to install WinXP SP2 with all drivers and removing all of the bloat. My install is only 298mb...

 

[Acleacius]

Thanks for the NLite, I downloaded and read the "What is info", as long as it is not one of those Sharewares that has a great concept but when you half way through all of a sudden it says your out of uses and you need to send money.
I don't mind donating but I don't want to be stuck, does it have limited uses, which could run out during installation or does it have unlimited uses (at least enough to get through an install)?

Nah, Defrag is not enough it's bad OS design and one Partition is even more dangerous, at least with my limited knowedge about the way Viruses, Trojan and such work.
A major reason for security is to keep your important data off your OS drive, at least imo.

Thanks.

Btw is't is just a setting in my User Panel or are all Emotes disabled?

 

[dclive]

nLite is free to use.

I don't understand what you're saying about "bad OS design" and "dangerous". Are you kidding? Tools are built into the OS to handle defragmentation. Tools are built into the OS to handle defrag on the fly and file arrangement to put it in the most efficient order. NTFS is pretty good about fragmentation as a whole. There is no "danger" in any part of _any_ of this. What are you talking about?

Trojans, viruses, and such won't be helped or hurt a bit by multiple partitions - the way to fix that is to run as a limited user and to avoid going to 'bad' sites, and to run serious antivirus software and anti-spyware software (I like SAV v10 Corporate and MS's Antispyware software). People that don't download software from illegal/porn sources (including MSIE add-ins) have a tiny, tiny rate of attack and failure compared to those that do download illegal software. Put a router between your home network and the Internet, and keep XP fully updated, follow the above 'don't download bad stuff' bits, and you have nothing to worry about.

Partitions won't help a bit with this. Where data is located makes absolutely no difference as long as you have read/write access to it.

Don't confuse multiple partitions with what it isn't. It's a way to arbitrarily divide your disks, and when (not if) you run out of room on one of them and have to rearrange things, it gets annoying, fast. There's no benefit to this (at least, I haven't seen one yet).

 

[Acleacius]

It's bad OS design because constantly fragmenting files are installed on the same drive partition as the OS, that is the reason you NEED to constantly defrag in the first place.
You wouldn't need to constantly defrag you OS because it's not running optimumly for say the newest game that brings most PCs to their knees.
It's one of the first things you hear besides "Make sure you have the latest Video Drivers", sure defragging is great but Prevention is the key to a better consistantcy and less forced defrags.

What you seem to be saying, cause we got a defrag program, fragmentation doesn't matter whether it's based on bad design or frequent file installations and uninstalltions.
I could just misunderstand but this seems backwards to me.

Now I haven't gotten around to trying Vista yet and proabably won't for a while, but didn't I read somewhere (can't recall, atm) that MS changed Vista becasue of something like this, i.e the file mamagment chaged?
Wouldn't this be some form a proof it's a bad design?

I don't think I am confusing it, but it is certianly possible.
As I mentioned from the little I know, say the popular Viruses or Trojans which target Emails would seek out specific files, the more you have files divided in differnet partitions the less chance of catastrophic damge, imo.
I.e. My OS is on C:\, my User files are on D:\ and my Swap file is E:\, if I have them divided depending on what type of an attack I get, you can minimize the damage and recovery, espeically if say you use a Ghost program for each.

Now do I mean this as a 100% cure, nope.

I don't think what I am refering to has anything to do with what sites you vist or download from, nor is this arbitrarily dividing my disks and I am certinaly not trying to convince
anyone else to do it. :simle:

Oh btw, thanks for the info on the DLite usage.

 

[dclive]

I think you´re making a mountain of this molehill. One doesn't need to defrag, and millions and millions of PCs never or almost never do so. Somehow, they are able to keep working and using their PC.

This is starting to sound more and more like Black Viper's "recommendations".

Files constantly change on all OSs. That´s not to say they need to be defragmented, though, because the core files you´ll constantly access typically won´t change that much, and even when they do, it´s not the speed drain I think you allude to.

I don´t understand the second phrase "You wouldn't need to constantly..."

I don't think there is a defrag problem.

What does file management have to do with "proof of bad design"?

"The more you have divided in different partitions" - that's not going to help you. A virus would attack %windir%, not just c:\windows. Moving files around doesn't help. Also, a virus typically will attack any file you touch or have access to, so whether it's on your fileserver or C: or D: doesn't matter. That's the entire concept behind Microsoft's Limited User functionality.

 

[Acleacius]

Well Fragmentation is a concern of mine, you ask me why and I explained it, no big deal, don't see how that?s making a mountain.

Hum, not sure what you mean about this sounding like Black Viper's recommendations, so I can't comment.

Sure files change but that in itself doesn't cause Fragmentation, so is not really a concern of mine, though if it is for you or someone else, that?s fine, too.

You suggested as a fix to set an auto defrag every night as a solution, which I just pointed out from my view is backwards I want to prevent it.

Well I know you can't be talking about my system needs because I see a fragmentation problem, though I am glad you are not experiencing a fragmentation problem.

Well I mentioned poor OS design, in reference to fragmentation and you asked how and I sited an example of poor file management.

I have had different experiences and separating files is a solution for me and will help security, stability and performance
Separating files to different partitions, will be more effective at preventing fragmentation, since I see up to 90% of the fragmentation of the C:\ is due to the files/folders I am moving and means quicker more efficient defrags.

I never had a virus infect every file I have had access too, they have seemed to go after specific functions/application like email or IE vulnerabilities as an example, so my solutions to those examples are using different safer email and browser programs.

 

[dclive]

Can you describe the fragmentation problem you see?

Can you describe how security is better with multiple partitions?

The virus infected files you had access to - else they'd not be able to do so, naturally. Among other things, the answer to that is limited user functionality (or run a nonstandard browser, or a nonstandard OS, or....) What of that would change with more partitions?