Re: Is it possible or am I dreaming ?

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

On Feb 22, 4:43 am, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:09:56 -0800, JAM <ja_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that you recognize the motivation behind  
your IT department's hesitance in having .NET as part of the installation  
on their computers, and yet see no problem with effectively running an  
instance of .NET on those exact same computers, that you've brought with  
you on your USB thumb drive (or whatever).

Unfortunately because of the policy I can't run it at all because .NET
happen to be missing from the workstation. But in more general sense
why it should be some moral problem ? The policy is to not allow users
to install software. I' m not attempting to install any software here
onto particular workstation. In fact I can't do that with my
privileges. I'm running an application that I wrote myself from the
memory stick (which by the way on this workstation is read only). How
it is different from running Excel VB program or Windows batch
program ? Policy does not prohibit any of those activities. I would
rather see more of an issue the risk that some workers would be
running commercial software without owning the license. That is
probably much bigger problem for big company because of the potential
liability.

Is it just an issue of "don't ask, don't tell"?  If not, why is the  
untested combination of the software on their computers along with the  
.NET and your custom utility you're running from a thumb drive any less  
problematic than any other untested combination of software they may worry  
about?

It is not the issue of "don't ask, don't tell". They have tested
number of expensive large CAD and CAE software within given Windows
environment and they simply do not change that environment for anybody
without heavily testing for compatibility. Those workstation main
reason of existence is to run big industrial CAD or CAE. The software
packages are married to particular set of hardware and OS environment.
Any changes to hardware or software (including Windows security
updates) are tested for compatibility before being pushed onto the
community. Windows are stripped from most of the components such as
games etc. User has extremely limited access to anything outside his
own Documents folder and network home drive. The only way to run
programs is to either use Office VB (which is installed), write some
Windows script (which runs OK as long as it doesn't try to access
prohibited areas) or use standalone application that does not requires
installation such as GIMP for example.

The logic here is (I guess) that running something from the stick is
completely temporary and does not install anything (in fact I can't
even write to Windows directory anyway) into the operating system
folders. By locking that capability they prevent users from installing
applications that might create compatibility problems for company
major applications. If something goes wrong, the theory is, all you
have to do is to reboot in the worst case. Second reason is of course
support. When the system develops problems then it is easy to rebuild
it to standard image.

I tend to agree with Michael's point that a Windows computer these days  
without .NET installed is really behind the times.  But then, many  
corporate installations are really behind the times.  I suppose that's a  
fact of life.

As I said. I understand why they are reluctant to install every update
at once. Any untested incompatibility would mean several thousands of
engineers to stop working that day till their machines are restored to
the previous, working state. Also they have no incentive to install
anything that is not required by the software package that is run on
this computer. Why would you risk incompatibility ? It is similar to
BIOS upgrade. If your motherboard has no issues whatsoever, the advice
is often to avoid BIOS upgrades. Something might go wrong and one
risks damaging the hardware.

I don't know the specifics, but it's possible you could run a VM from a  
USB thumb drive.  If so, then you could carry a whole second copy of  
Windows, along with the VM software and your own utility, and run your  
utility in a virtualized instance of Windows.  The VM software I've used  
supports copy/paste between host and guest OS.  :)

Hmm. This is interesting idea. Can you run VM if the stick is "read
only" ?

All that said, if you've got tools other than .NET that do work as you'd  
like, I'd say use those.  I always think it's a shame when .NET doesn't  
work for someone, but the fact is...sometimes it doesn't.  Practicality is  
usually a high priority, and in that case it seems that your  
Delphi/C++Builder approach would be best (I haven't used it myself, but  
I've heard very good things about Delphi).  I'd mention Java, in case your  
IT department allows Java on the computers, but if you're already familiar  
with Delphi or C++Builder, you might as well go with those.

In the meantime, see if you can in fact convince your IT department to at  
least upgrade to .NET 2.0 (which probably has enough features for your  
purposes).  That way, they'll only be five years behind the times instead  
of a decade.  :)

Company I work for employs thousands of engineers. Chances to convince
anybody are slim :-). In fact if I mention that I run something all by
myself they might get the idea, that it is risky and prohibit that :-)
In this case it is somewhat "don't ask, don;t tell". Corporations are
sometimes conservative and overly cautious.


Pete

JAM
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Error 0x0000000d in network printer
    ... connection to a shared printer. ... Windows Printing Team ... Error message when you try to install a network printer on a Windows ... We have the following problem in 10 windows Vista Computers recently ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.print_fax_scan)
  • Re: Problem with Accessing One Computer on a 4-Computer Home Netwo
    ... As it was a recent O/S install -- and very little user ... installation of Windows XP Pro. ... I'm working on a customer's wireless home network that has 4 computers ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.network_web)
  • Re: 0x80070005 error on multiple computers
    ... In a previous reply, I asked, "When was the last time these machines were fully patched at Windows Update?" ... Have you only recently become responsible for these computers, ... Error message when you use Windows Update or Microsoft Update Web sites to install updates on Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003: ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Local admin rights?
    ... A small handful of users needs to be able to install ... Windows Domain here, and by default all users are made ... >Add the user's domain account to the local ... >individual workstation. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
  • Re: 0x80070005 error on multiple computers
    ... Booted into safe mode and ran Windows Update. ... Ran Windows update again and was allowed to install the package installer ... Have you only recently become responsible for these computers, ... do clean install of WinXP... ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)