[buletov]

i've read somwhere that specifing my own allowed sites for ie pop-up blocker produces an error in unattended installation.

so would this in 'winnt.sif' produce an error?

[IEPopupBlocker]	
AllowedSites=www.msfn.org;v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com;www.google.com
BlockPopups=Yes
FilterLevel=Medium

thank you in advance.

[RyanVM]

Why not just test it out in VirtualPC rather than posting here and waiting for an answer?

That being said, ref.chm from the Windows XP SP2 Deployment Tools says that those are the proper settings.

[a06lp]

Quote

Why not just test it out in VirtualPC rather than posting here and waiting for an answer?

Unless there's some way to "test it out" that I don't know, it's really annoying & time-consuming to re-install Windows just to test something small like that.

People here actually have tried stuff before, so advice could be more useful in this case...

[RyanVM]

a06lp, on Sep 15 2004, 02:01 PM, said:

Quote

Why not just test it out in VirtualPC rather than posting here and waiting for an answer?

Unless there's some way to "test it out" that I don't know, it's really annoying & time-consuming to re-install Windows just to test something small like that.

People here actually have tried stuff before, so advice could be more useful in this case...

http://www.microsoft...pc/default.mspx
Free 45 day trial. Takes 1-2 hours running in the background to test if a CD is working or not.

[XtremeMaC]

I agree with a06lp over here
why install an os to test this simple thing.

if ref chm says so then it should be correct. even if its not correct its not like u're going to die
do the rest of the things u will do on your unattended then test them all together..

[a06lp]

@ RyanVM:

After reading your reply, and re-reading my post, I see I wasn't clear.

I know about VMWare, etc. I meant to go through the entire install process (even on a VM) takes a lot of time for a small thing such as this.

That's why it can be helpful to simply ask people who have already done it, sometimes.

But, in any case, I see your point.

[SiMoNsAyS]

i only can give you an example; this is mine an works like charm

[IEPopupBlocker]
AllowedSites=www.msfn.org;www.microsoft.com;http://v5.windowsupdate.microsoft.com
BlockPopups=Yes
FilterLevel=Medium
ShowInformationBar=Yes

[buletov]

thank you, i'll use the settings SiMoNsAyS uses.

as i said, i heard there were problems with specifing allowed sites, so that's why i've posted this topic.

[RyanVM]

Glad to see everything worked out in the end

And yes, I know all too well about how annoying it can be to do a whole install to test one minor change. I do it all the time when I'm tweaking my install batches and registry tweaks . Not to mention testing all of the switchless installers I've made recently .

[SiMoNsAyS]

RyanVM, on Sep 15 2004, 10:45 PM, said:

Glad to see everything worked out in the end

And yes, I know all too well about how annoying it can be to do a whole install to test one minor change. I do it all the time when I'm tweaking my install batches and registry tweaks .  Not to mention testing all of the switchless installers I've made recently .

you can just avoid it by building the iso and manually import the runonceex.cmd file. at least that's what i use when i add a new app

[RyanVM]

eh? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[a06lp]

lol, i was just thinking the same thing!

but im a lot more n00b than you...

[SiMoNsAyS]

if it's not clear what i wanted to mean: runonceex it's just a process that starts until logon so to test the apps installation you can just import your runonceex to the current OS, and on next reboot apps will reinstall. that's what i use to test switches for new app and so on.
ps: sorry know i see i'm getting offtopic

[RyanVM]

I don't understand why people seem to be using that method so much lately rather than just executing a cmd file from GuiRunOnce in winnt.sif. Is there some advantage to starting them from the registry that I'm missing?

[SiMoNsAyS]

RyanVM, on Sep 16 2004, 01:40 AM, said:

I don't understand why people seem to be using that method so much lately rather than just executing a cmd file from GuiRunOnce in winnt.sif. Is there some advantage to starting them from the registry that I'm missing?

at the time of installation it's probably the same, from unattended guide:

Quote

First of all, remove the [GuiRunOnce]entries in winnt.sif, as RunOnceEx can be used to replace [GuiRunOnce] completely. Although you can use both if needed for some reason, but they will both run at the same time, so use caution.

at the time of testing, you can't use guirunonce but you can use runonceex

[RyanVM]

SiMoNsAyS, on Sep 15 2004, 07:46 PM, said:

RyanVM, on Sep 16 2004, 01:40 AM, said:

I don't understand why people seem to be using that method so much lately rather than just executing a cmd file from GuiRunOnce in winnt.sif. Is there some advantage to starting them from the registry that I'm missing?

at the time of installation it's probably the same, from unattended guide:

Quote

First of all, remove the [GuiRunOnce]entries in winnt.sif, as RunOnceEx can be used to replace [GuiRunOnce] completely. Although you can use both if needed for some reason, but they will both run at the same time, so use caution.

at the time of testing, you can't use guirunonce but you can use runonceex

Oh, so you're adding the registry entries in for RunOnceEx to test it then? I guess that makes sense.