Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
-- Paul
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
-- Paul
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Vista is just a little too new to me, and I need to get more "feet wet" time.
I worked on a system at home for my nephew, but that dhcp is served by dnsmasq software.
Scott Silva wrote:
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets lost?
To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings. Any additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc.
Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server, like lease renewing etc.
on 7-30-2008 11:20 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets lost?
To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings. Any additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc.
Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server, like lease renewing etc.
I think I am going to have to spend some more time on this. Maybe with a sniffer and some patience. The laptop just had Vista Ultimate because that is the version we acquired for testing, and our standard McAfee virus scanner. I will have to toss together a VM machine and try different combos of stuff. As a matter of fact I have a VM loaded on my laptop that I was playing with at home as it runs fine there. That way the only difference will be the change in location. It is just dog slow, but for this test it doesn't matter that much.
I'll have to look at the troubled machine and see if I can detect problems in the routing tables and such. I just have to figure out if the same commands do what I want between Vista and XP, or if I need to do some reading.
At 12:52 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
on 7-30-2008 11:20 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets lost? To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings. Any additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc. Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server, like lease renewing etc.
I think I am going to have to spend some more time on this. Maybe with a sniffer and some patience. The laptop just had Vista Ultimate because that is the version we acquired for testing, and our standard McAfee virus scanner. I will have to toss together a VM machine and try different combos of stuff. As a matter of fact I have a VM loaded on my laptop that I was playing with at home as it runs fine there. That way the only difference will be the change in location. It is just dog slow, but for this test it doesn't matter that much.
I'll have to look at the troubled machine and see if I can detect problems in the routing tables and such. I just have to figure out if the same commands do what I want between Vista and XP, or if I need to do some reading.
My recent reading has lead me to believe that Windows Vista comes with IPV6 enabled by default and can really generate some traffic if you do not turn it off and possibly cause problems if your network infrastructure does not support it. Is that possibly a problem?
Cheers, Glenn
on 7-31-2008 10:06 AM Glenn spake the following:
At 12:52 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
on 7-30-2008 11:20 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets lost? To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings. Any additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc. Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server, like lease renewing etc.
I think I am going to have to spend some more time on this. Maybe with a sniffer and some patience. The laptop just had Vista Ultimate because that is the version we acquired for testing, and our standard McAfee virus scanner. I will have to toss together a VM machine and try different combos of stuff. As a matter of fact I have a VM loaded on my laptop that I was playing with at home as it runs fine there. That way the only difference will be the change in location. It is just dog slow, but for this test it doesn't matter that much.
I'll have to look at the troubled machine and see if I can detect problems in the routing tables and such. I just have to figure out if the same commands do what I want between Vista and XP, or if I need to do some reading.
My recent reading has lead me to believe that Windows Vista comes with IPV6 enabled by default and can really generate some traffic if you do not turn it off and possibly cause problems if your network infrastructure does not support it. Is that possibly a problem?
Cheers, Glenn
I turned off IPv6 on that machine, but since it is in our other office, I won't get back to it until tomorrow to poke it some more.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Scott Silva Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:20 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] Re: ISC dhcpd and Vista clients
on 7-31-2008 10:06 AM Glenn spake the following:
At 12:52 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
on 7-30-2008 11:20 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets.
My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets lost? To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings. Any additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc. Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server, like lease renewing etc.
I think I am going to have to spend some more time on this. Maybe with a sniffer and some patience. The laptop just had Vista Ultimate because that is the version we acquired for testing, and our standard McAfee virus scanner. I will have to toss together a VM machine and try different combos of stuff. As a matter of fact I have a VM loaded on my laptop that I was playing with at home as it runs fine there. That way the only difference will be the change in location. It is just dog slow, but for this test it doesn't matter that much.
I'll have to look at the troubled machine and see if I can detect problems in the routing tables and such. I just have to figure out if the same commands do what I want between Vista and XP, or if I need to do some reading.
My recent reading has lead me to believe that Windows Vista comes with IPV6 enabled by default and can really generate some traffic if you do not turn it off and possibly cause problems if your network infrastructure does not support it. Is that possibly a problem?
Cheers, Glenn I turned off IPv6 on that machine, but since it is in our other office, I won't get back to it until tomorrow to poke it some more.
I'm not sure if this is related. I am running a Linksys WRVS4400N router (which has Linux based firmware) for my DHCP. I am noticing that my one vista machine is having a difficult time with the DHCP. I haven't solved it yet but what I have seen is that the problem appears to be with the lease times and renewal. When my IP addressing fails on the Vista machine and I check the lease table on the router I note that the machine appears on the list but has a MUCH shorter lease time remaining than the XP machines. As I take this machine in and out of the house a good bit I run across this problem every few days. Rebooting the router has been my only recourse until recently.
I moved to a new firmware and also maxed out the lease time on the DHCP service. You might want to increase the lease time on your CentOS DHCP server and see if it effects the situation.
Wish I could be of more help, but I'm just starting to troubleshoot the problem. The one thing I know for sure is that it seems isolated to only Vista clients. I do not know if the Linksys firmware is using the same version of ISC DHCPD that CentOS.
Regards, James
on 7-31-2008 10:37 AM James N. Smith spake the following:
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Scott Silva Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 1:20 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: [CentOS] Re: ISC dhcpd and Vista clients
on 7-31-2008 10:06 AM Glenn spake the following:
At 12:52 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
on 7-30-2008 11:20 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote:
on 7-30-2008 2:53 PM Paul Bijnens spake the following:
Scott Silva wrote: > Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients > that work reliably? > > I have a test system and I can't seem to find out how to properly > get dhcpd to always respond with broadcast instead of unicast > since Vista won't honor unicast dhcp packets. My Vista (my wife's actually) has no problems with unicast dhcp packets.
Stock dhcpd server in CentOS 5, and Vista Home. Worked without any special config.
Are you sure that is the problem?
Not sure, but it is one of the suggested problems I see in many google searches. There are registry edits that help, but I don't want to have to do a bunch of edits when we get stuck with a hundred Vista machines. I have plenty of time, for now, to experiment. There are posts that say the subnet needs to be authoritative, but mine is. What happens is that the Vista system will not route outside the local subnet for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
Do you mean that you do get an IP-number and default gateway from the dhcp server, but after 5 to 10 minutes, the default route setting gets lost? To me that would mean that the dhcp is working fine, but something else kicks in after that time that messes up the dhcp settings. Any additional firewall software on the laptop, like Norton etc. Or can you relate the loss of routing to an action on the dhcp server, like lease renewing etc.
I think I am going to have to spend some more time on this. Maybe with a sniffer and some patience. The laptop just had Vista Ultimate because that is the version we acquired for testing, and our standard McAfee virus scanner. I will have to toss together a VM machine and try different combos of stuff. As a matter of fact I have a VM loaded on my laptop that I was playing with at home as it runs fine there. That way the only difference will be the change in location. It is just dog slow, but for this test it doesn't matter that much.
I'll have to look at the troubled machine and see if I can detect problems in the routing tables and such. I just have to figure out if the same commands do what I want between Vista and XP, or if I need to do some reading.
My recent reading has lead me to believe that Windows Vista comes with IPV6 enabled by default and can really generate some traffic if you do not turn it off and possibly cause problems if your network infrastructure does not support it. Is that possibly a problem?
Cheers, Glenn I turned off IPv6 on that machine, but since it is in our other office, I won't get back to it until tomorrow to poke it some more.
I'm not sure if this is related. I am running a Linksys WRVS4400N router (which has Linux based firmware) for my DHCP. I am noticing that my one vista machine is having a difficult time with the DHCP. I haven't solved it yet but what I have seen is that the problem appears to be with the lease times and renewal. When my IP addressing fails on the Vista machine and I check the lease table on the router I note that the machine appears on the list but has a MUCH shorter lease time remaining than the XP machines. As I take this machine in and out of the house a good bit I run across this problem every few days. Rebooting the router has been my only recourse until recently.
I moved to a new firmware and also maxed out the lease time on the DHCP service. You might want to increase the lease time on your CentOS DHCP server and see if it effects the situation.
Wish I could be of more help, but I'm just starting to troubleshoot the problem. The one thing I know for sure is that it seems isolated to only Vista clients. I do not know if the Linksys firmware is using the same version of ISC DHCPD that CentOS.
Regards, James
Many of the articles point to the fact that Vista, by the will of the Microsoft demons, changed how it deals with the broadcast flag in dhcp packets.
Quote:
CAUSE This issue occurs because of a difference in design between Windows Vista and Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). Specifically, in Windows XP SP2, the BROADCAST flag in DHCP discovery packets is set to 0 (disabled). In Windows Vista, the BROADCAST flag in DHCP discovery packets is not disabled. Therefore, some routers and some non-Microsoft DHCP servers cannot process the DHCP discovery packets.
Microsofts answer is that Vista is right and the rest of the world is wrong (typical), but if you want it to work you have to regedit every affected machine and change something.
That is unacceptable in a business environment, IMHO.
The other answer is to get ISC dhcpd to honor the broadcast flag, and broadcast all packets instead of unicasting the answer packets. That I can't find a setting for.
On 07/31/08 12:02, Scott Silva wrote:
The other answer is to get ISC dhcpd to honor the broadcast flag, and broadcast all packets instead of unicasting the answer packets. That I can't find a setting for.
I have no Vista clients to test with, but have you tried "always-broadcast on;" ?
From "man dhcpd.conf" on CentOS 5.2:
always-broadcast flag;
The DHCP and BOOTP protocols both require DHCP and BOOTP clients to set the broadcast bit in the flags field of the BOOTP message header. Unfortunately, some DHCP and BOOTP clients do not do this, and therefore may not receive responses from the DHCP server. The DHCP server can be made to always broadcast its responses to clients by setting this flag to 'on' for the relevant scope; relevant scopes would be inside a conditional statement, as a parameter for a class, or as a parameter for a host declaration. To avoid creating excess broadcast traffic on your network, we recommend that you restrict the use of this option to as few clients as possible. For example, the Microsoft DHCP client is known not to have this problem, as are the OpenTransport and ISC DHCP clients.
on 7-31-2008 12:24 PM Tim Utschig spake the following:
On 07/31/08 12:02, Scott Silva wrote:
The other answer is to get ISC dhcpd to honor the broadcast flag, and broadcast all packets instead of unicasting the answer packets. That I can't find a setting for.
I have no Vista clients to test with, but have you tried "always-broadcast on;" ?
From "man dhcpd.conf" on CentOS 5.2:
always-broadcast flag; The DHCP and BOOTP protocols both require DHCP and BOOTP clients to set the broadcast bit in the flags field of the BOOTP message header. Unfortunately, some DHCP and BOOTP clients do not do this, and therefore may not receive responses from the DHCP server. The DHCP server can be made to always broadcast its responses to clients by setting this flag to 'on' for the relevant scope; relevant scopes would be inside a conditional statement, as a parameter for a class, or as a parameter for a host declaration. To avoid creating excess broadcast traffic on your network, we recommend that you restrict the use of this option to as few clients as possible. For example, the Microsoft DHCP client is known not to have this problem, as are the OpenTransport and ISC DHCP clients.
SO... I have to flood my network with broadcast traffic or pay the microsoft extortion... Bill strikes again!
Thanks for that. I had been reading the dhcp man page (I should say book! What a long one.) I guess I missed that. I'll have to set any Vista clients to named hosts so I can limit the traffic.
According to that man page, ISC implies that Vista is broken, and Microsoft implies that ISC is broken. Were playing the blame game again!
How fun! ;-P
And I thought it was going to get boring...
At 03:41 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
on 7-31-2008 12:24 PM Tim Utschig spake the following:
On 07/31/08 12:02, Scott Silva wrote:
The other answer is to get ISC dhcpd to honor the broadcast flag, and broadcast all packets instead of unicasting the answer packets. That I can't find a setting for.
I have no Vista clients to test with, but have you tried "always-broadcast on;" ? From "man dhcpd.conf" on CentOS 5.2: always-broadcast flag; The DHCP and BOOTP protocols both require DHCP and BOOTP clients to set the broadcast bit in the flags field of the BOOTP message header. Unfortunately, some DHCP and BOOTP clients do not do this, and therefore may not receive responses from the DHCP server. The DHCP server can be made to always broadcast its responses to clients by setting this flag to 'on' for the relevant scope; relevant scopes would be inside a conditional statement, as a parameter for a class, or as a parameter for a host declaration. To avoid creating excess broadcast traffic on your network, we recommend that you restrict the use of this option to as few clients as possible. For example, the Microsoft DHCP client is known not to have this problem, as are the OpenTransport and ISC DHCP clients.
SO... I have to flood my network with broadcast traffic or pay the microsoft extortion... Bill strikes again!
Thanks for that. I had been reading the dhcp man page (I should say book! What a long one.) I guess I missed that. I'll have to set any Vista clients to named hosts so I can limit the traffic.
According to that man page, ISC implies that Vista is broken, and Microsoft implies that ISC is broken. Were playing the blame game again!
How fun! ;-P
And I thought it was going to get boring...
Nice. Microsoft is regressing to its good old formula of flooding the LAN with lots of 'me too' and 'I am here' packets. Way to improve efficiency!
Yep. Think I'll stick with XP SP2 where and when I can, until I am forced to move on.
Cheers!
on 7-31-2008 1:30 PM Glenn spake the following:
At 03:41 PM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
on 7-31-2008 12:24 PM Tim Utschig spake the following:
On 07/31/08 12:02, Scott Silva wrote:
The other answer is to get ISC dhcpd to honor the broadcast flag, and broadcast all packets instead of unicasting the answer packets. That I can't find a setting for.
I have no Vista clients to test with, but have you tried "always-broadcast on;" ? From "man dhcpd.conf" on CentOS 5.2: always-broadcast flag; The DHCP and BOOTP protocols both require DHCP and BOOTP clients to set the broadcast bit in the flags field of the BOOTP message header. Unfortunately, some DHCP and BOOTP clients do not do this, and therefore may not receive responses from the DHCP server. The DHCP server can be made to always broadcast its responses to clients by setting this flag to 'on' for the relevant scope; relevant scopes would be inside a conditional statement, as a parameter for a class, or as a parameter for a host declaration. To avoid creating excess broadcast traffic on your network, we recommend that you restrict the use of this option to as few clients as possible. For example, the Microsoft DHCP client is known not to have this problem, as are the OpenTransport and ISC DHCP clients.
SO... I have to flood my network with broadcast traffic or pay the microsoft extortion... Bill strikes again!
Thanks for that. I had been reading the dhcp man page (I should say book! What a long one.) I guess I missed that. I'll have to set any Vista clients to named hosts so I can limit the traffic.
According to that man page, ISC implies that Vista is broken, and Microsoft implies that ISC is broken. Were playing the blame game again!
How fun! ;-P
And I thought it was going to get boring...
Nice. Microsoft is regressing to its good old formula of flooding the LAN with lots of 'me too' and 'I am here' packets. Way to improve efficiency!
Yep. Think I'll stick with XP SP2 where and when I can, until I am forced to move on.
Cheers!
I found a tool on the net to at least make it easier to change the Vista behavior. Will have to test it tom. and post a link if anyone wants it.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Microsofts answer is that Vista is right and the rest of the world is wrong (typical), but if you want it to work you have to regedit every affected machine and change something.
That is unacceptable in a business environment, IMHO.
The solution is obvious: either don't get Vista in the first place, or upgrade to XP SP2 (NOT SP3).
;^)
mhr
on 7-31-2008 12:42 PM MHR spake the following:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Scott Silva ssilva-m4n3GYAQT2lWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Microsofts answer is that Vista is right and the rest of the world is wrong (typical), but if you want it to work you have to regedit every affected machine and change something.
That is unacceptable in a business environment, IMHO.
The solution is obvious: either don't get Vista in the first place, or upgrade to XP SP2 (NOT SP3).
;^)
mhr
I'm just testing because we have acquired laptops with Vista. Not my choice, but I have to support it or stop collecting paychecks. I guess I'll have to choose support it.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
on 7-31-2008 12:42 PM MHR spake the following:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Scott Silva ssilva-m4n3GYAQT2lWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Microsofts answer is that Vista is right and the rest of the world is wrong (typical), but if you want it to work you have to regedit every affected machine and change something.
That is unacceptable in a business environment, IMHO.
The solution is obvious: either don't get Vista in the first place, or upgrade to XP SP2 (NOT SP3).
;^)
mhr
I'm just testing because we have acquired laptops with Vista. Not my choice, but I have to support it or stop collecting paychecks. I guess I'll have to choose support it
Stop collecting paychecks is not among the valid options here. My understanding (from a thread here a few weeks ago?) is that it is 100% legal, under the Microsoft licensing of Windows Vista, for a system that comes with Vista to be changed, to use MS Windows XP. Also, I read that Microsoft extended the EOL of Windows XP. We have 3 Windows XP SP2 boxes and I suspect with Vista on them, they would be *very* slow. Would your company consider wiping the drives on those laptops and installing XP SP2 on them? (I think SP3 is buggy?).
Networking began with Unix and now Microsoft is rewriting the rules?
on 7-31-2008 1:43 PM Lanny Marcus spake the following:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Scott Silva ssilva-m4n3GYAQT2lWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org wrote:
on 7-31-2008 12:42 PM MHR spake the following:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Scott Silva ssilva@sgvwater.com wrote:
Microsofts answer is that Vista is right and the rest of the world is wrong (typical), but if you want it to work you have to regedit every affected machine and change something.
That is unacceptable in a business environment, IMHO.
The solution is obvious: either don't get Vista in the first place, or upgrade to XP SP2 (NOT SP3).
;^)
mhr
I'm just testing because we have acquired laptops with Vista. Not my choice, but I have to support it or stop collecting paychecks. I guess I'll have to choose support it
Stop collecting paychecks is not among the valid options here.
Here either...
My understanding
(from a thread here a few weeks ago?) is that it is 100% legal, under the Microsoft licensing of Windows Vista, for a system that comes with Vista to be changed, to use MS Windows XP.
Only with certain versions of Vista(Business and Ultimate I think), and you have to already have OEM preactivated, retail, or Corporate XP licenses available. I have plenty of bulk licenses for XP, but a lot of new hardware is swinging to Vista drivers only.
Also, I read that Microsoft extended the EOL of Windows XP. We
have 3 Windows XP SP2 boxes and I suspect with Vista on them, they would be *very* slow. Would your company consider wiping the drives on those laptops and installing XP SP2 on them? (I think SP3 is buggy?).
Networking began with Unix and now Microsoft is rewriting the rules?
I could not find XP drivers for it, but I need to find a way to fix the problem, since Vista is inevitable unless I can drag my feet until the next wonderful raping from Microsoft. The laptop only comes into the office occasionally, but it belongs to the assistant GM, so I'll chug through it for now. Maybe Microsoft will release a hotfix that actually fixes this. I see many complaints.
Scott Silva wrote:
Has anyone had good luck serving dhcp addresses to Vista clients that work reliably?
my home network is running an ANCIENT dhcpd, 2.0-5, I think from RH Linux 6.x, and I've had no problems with our various XP SP3 or Vista laptops acquiring and holding leases.
/me shrugs.
-
Glenn -
James N. Smith -
John R Pierce -
Lanny Marcus -
MHR -
Paul Bijnens -
Scott Silva -
Tim Utschig