Blocking or non-blocking, shouldn’t matter. I believe, for now the method is a blocking mechanism, but in Carsten’s particular case, the OUI file cannot be downloaded, hence the issue he’s running into.

In svn I’ve changed how this field is viewed. While still not resizable it’s done more like how search/list hosts can be added to groups.

Right,

This is a known limitation of any Operating system or BIOS.

Right now, we’re obligated to “legacy” network boot. If UEFI is enabled, “legacy” methods can’t exit back to UEFI models. So what ends up happening is the hdd, when trying to boot to hdd, is actually searching for MBR information which is non-existent on UEFI/GPT disks.

Please see the attached file for full details, but answers are also below.

Yes, it’s using an unattended file for sysprep. And yes it skips the create PC name / User No, hostname is not defined*

That sounds about right. Really weird.
I’m going to start making a sysprep machine for Win7 with some slight changes, most should look like the Win81 sysprep though. This is merely to see if the same server acts weird there or if it’s a Win81 problem.

[url=“/_imported_xf_attachments/1/1370_unattended3-fog.xml.txt?:”]unattended3-fog.xml.txt[/url]

As I said before, I hear you, as in I understand what you’re saying, you won’t add this feature.

With a reference to the “the big picture” I’m refering to the subject/problem (it should probably have written “my big…” instead of “the…”) If it was understood differently or negatively I appologize that was not the intention, reading through the thread again it could look like it, but as I said, it wasn’t the intention.

Making core changes to an application is not something I’m willing to do any longer.
I’ve tried that, lost the documentation and can’t upgrade without having to restart the whole hack.

And I know what you’re going through, coding/support/documentation etc. to the OSS commnunity, it’s not a stranger to me.

just fyi:
[quote]
I can see others creating a tasking and not understanding why that one system isn’t being imaged with the rest when the expected action is of that type
[/quote]
A big red (pink?) warning appears on the screen when a client fails.

No, UAC is not disabled, the user doesn’t have administrative permissions either.
But it should not be the case when a service with credentials executes the scripts.

But even a simple “copy these files to desktop” batch file doesn’t run.

For now things are done manually, as it seems the great devs, are in the progress, of making a new service client.

i have always had the forum edit issue as well, but only with firefox. the problem does not show up in chrome