Dear Sirs,

I am going to install Vista Business in a folder other than C:\WINDOWS
(say, C:\OS). How can I accomplish that? I suspect I have to use the
Windows System Image Manager to create an answer file Unattend.xml,
but I cannot find any property that would be responsible for the
folder's name.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance,
Marlin

> I am going to install Vista Business in a folder other than C:\WINDOWS

> (say, C:\OS). How can I accomplish that? I suspect I have to use the
> Windows System Image Manager to create an answer file Unattend.xml,
> but I cannot find any property that would be responsible for the
> folder's name.

Just to explain: this is NOT a dual boot configuration, it is a clean
installation on an empty disk.

Thank you in advance!

Best regards,
Marlin

Why on earth would you want to do that? Why make life more complex than it
already is?

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




<marlin03@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ca059f42-f763-4432-9419-da7529b804a6@xxxxxx

> Dear Sirs,
>
> I am going to install Vista Business in a folder other than C:\WINDOWS
> (say, C:\OS). How can I accomplish that? I suspect I have to use the
> Windows System Image Manager to create an answer file Unattend.xml,
> but I cannot find any property that would be responsible for the
> folder's name.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thank you in advance,
> Marlin

On Dec 5, 2:18 pm, "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikeh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Why on earth would you want to do that? Why make life more complex than it
> already is?
>
> --

Good question! Would it be enough to answer "just because!"...? ;-)
After all, it was possible for Windows XP, and I would like to have
exactly the same configuration for Vista.

Best regards,
Marlin

> > Why on earth would you want to do that? Why make life more complex than it

> > already is?

>
> Good question! Would it be enough to answer "just because!"...? ;-)
> After all, it was possible for Windows XP, and I would like to have
> exactly the same configuration for Vista.
>
> Best regards,
> Marlin

An authoritative answer "It cannot be done" would also help (if that
is the case) :-)
Best regards,
Marlin

Vista does not install like earlier versions of Windows, as far as I am
aware. It lays down an image and then installs all required drivers. I would
say that one can't do what you want..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




<marlin03@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:347620e6-f3e7-4c4a-bb59-4aba3132fbf0@xxxxxx

>> > Why on earth would you want to do that? Why make life more complex than
>> > it
>> > already is?

>>
>> Good question! Would it be enough to answer "just because!"...? ;-)
>> After all, it was possible for Windows XP, and I would like to have
>> exactly the same configuration for Vista.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Marlin

>
> An authoritative answer "It cannot be done" would also help (if that
> is the case) :-)
> Best regards,
> Marlin

On Dec 5, 8:10 pm, "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikeh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Vista does not install like earlier versions of Windows, as far as I am
> aware. It lays down an image and then installs all required drivers. I would
> say that one can't do what you want..
>

Dear Mike,

Thank you for your answer! Do you know where I could find an
authoritative answer - perhaps some white paper, manual or so?
And I must say it is a pity that Microsoft made a step back - after
all it is just a folder's name and whatever installation model they've
implemented it should be possible to choose the OS location.

Best regards,
Marlin

You said it yourself. It is just a folder name, so why change it? What
possible difference could it make changing the name of the folder, other
than to satisfy some arcane desire to be different?

The Vista install is a preset image with a driver install routine. It allows
for a fast and reliable install, just 25 mins or so depending upon the
performance of the hardware. This is no step backwards, and as long as the
hardware is compliant, leads to a far more reliable working system.

There probably is something somewhere which explains it all, but I do not
have access to it. I can only tell you what I have been told.

Just for the record, why have you elected to change the folder name in the
past?

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




<marlin03@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:97a9f7cf-c8ae-4f4c-8a2b-6715c4953836@xxxxxx

> On Dec 5, 8:10 pm, "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikeh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

>> Vista does not install like earlier versions of Windows, as far as I am
>> aware. It lays down an image and then installs all required drivers. I
>> would
>> say that one can't do what you want..
>>

>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Thank you for your answer! Do you know where I could find an
> authoritative answer - perhaps some white paper, manual or so?
> And I must say it is a pity that Microsoft made a step back - after
> all it is just a folder's name and whatever installation model they've
> implemented it should be possible to choose the OS location.
>
> Best regards,
> Marlin

On Dec 6, 1:50 pm, "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikeh...@xxxxxx> wrote:

> You said it yourself. It is just a folder name, so why change it? What
> possible difference could it make changing the name of the folder, other
> than to satisfy some arcane desire to be different?
>
> The Vista install is a preset image with a driver install routine. It allows
> for a fast and reliable install, just 25 mins or so depending upon the
> performance of the hardware. This is no step backwards, and as long as the
> hardware is compliant, leads to a far more reliable working system.
>
> There probably is something somewhere which explains it all, but I do not
> have access to it. I can only tell you what I have been told.
>
> Just for the record, why have you elected to change the folder name in the
> past?
>
> --
> Mike Hall - MVPhttp://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

It was a recommendation from a consulting company - back in the old
days of NT 4.0. As far as I remember the reason behind it was that for
some viruses it is more difficult to attack the system when the system
does not reside in C:\WINDOWS (not every virus was smart enough to
check for the %SYSTEMROOT% setting). Since then we've created many
scripts that are run from outside the Windwows machine (so it is not
so easy for them to check for %Systemroot%) and have hardcoded our new
Systemroot name (e.g. C:\OS).

By the way, do you know what would happen if I would upgrade in-place
my XP installation that had SYSTEMROOT different from C:\WINDOWS?
Would Vista retain the old name? If so, perhaps that is the possible
workaround (first to install a fresh copy of XP with modified system
name, and then upgrade it in-place)?

Of course, the other option is to modify the scripts and all the
environment, but I am just curious if I can make Vista sit where I
want ;-)

Best regards,
Marlin

As far as I am aware, during the upgrade process, Vista essentially clean
installs by laying down the image as already stated, installs drivers, and
goes to great lengths integrating whatever programs and settings which are
already present, finally creating a folder called windows.old where one will
find all kinds of stuff from the original installation. At the end of it,
you would still have C:/windows. :-)

The upgrade, as you can imagine, takes way longer to complete than a real
clean install and, as with any upgrade, is fraught with danger. I always
prefer a clean install. It is invariably faster, and gets over the problem
of everything falling over due to some small incompatibility that wasn't
noticed and/or recognized

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

>
> It was a recommendation from a consulting company - back in the old
> days of NT 4.0. As far as I remember the reason behind it was that for
> some viruses it is more difficult to attack the system when the system
> does not reside in C:\WINDOWS (not every virus was smart enough to
> check for the %SYSTEMROOT% setting). Since then we've created many
> scripts that are run from outside the Windwows machine (so it is not
> so easy for them to check for %Systemroot%) and have hardcoded our new
> Systemroot name (e.g. C:\OS).
>
> By the way, do you know what would happen if I would upgrade in-place
> my XP installation that had SYSTEMROOT different from C:\WINDOWS?
> Would Vista retain the old name? If so, perhaps that is the possible
> workaround (first to install a fresh copy of XP with modified system
> name, and then upgrade it in-place)?
>
> Of course, the other option is to modify the scripts and all the
> environment, but I am just curious if I can make Vista sit where I
> want ;-)
>
> Best regards,
> Marlin