SyncToy automated installation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Setting up SyncToy for hundreds of users in the organization network is next
to impossible due to the decision to use a binary file for saved settings.

Solution?

Either implement a way to create a folder pair (and excluding folders) via
command line parameters, or save the settings in the registry or a plain text
file (XML) so the settings can be customized for each user with automation
tools.
 
Hi Jussi,

Your point is well taken. Our primary target user for SyncToy is and was an
individual user. So, we used a binary format to reduce the chance of
inadvertent changes to values in an XML file.

That said, I think you're right. We'll take a look at this if/when we do
another release of SyncToy.

In the meantime, I can't think of a great alternative to having people
create their own directory pairs. Hopefully, we've made that part fairly
easy, though not nearly as easy as allowing network administrators to do it
remotely.

One alternative that works well in SOME smaller setups is to have a single
PC run SyncToy for all users by using UNCs to pair user folders with network
folders.

I hope this helps.

george
 
George,

Thank you for the response.

I know SyncToy as a photo synchronization tool was not designed for
implementing to large masses (understandably), but it's an excellent tool to
keep users home directories synchronized (local laptop home directory <->
server home directory). It has way more potential than it was originally
meant to have. Currently the only drawback is the lack of a mass installation
method, for which I would like to see an improvement on.

/Jussi
 
Your point is well taken. Our primary target user for SyncToy is and was
an
individual user. So, we used a binary format to reduce the chance of
inadvertent changes to values in an XML file. [...]
In the meantime, I can't think of a great alternative to having people
create their own directory pairs.
Click to expand...

How about documenting the binary format? If someone's *really* stuck, they
could at least write their own little thing to create the file and keep
using SyncToy instead of just hoping Microsoft will address this with
nothing they can do in the meantime--especially when this is, after all, an
unsupported tool, and you will look at this "**if/when** we do another
release of SyncToy" (emphasis mine).

Hell, open source the damned thing, surely it doesn't contain any corporate
secrets or patented algorithms?
 
You're welcome Jussi. We'll do our best.

george

Jussi Pakkanen said:
George,

Thank you for the response.

I know SyncToy as a photo synchronization tool was not designed for
implementing to large masses (understandably), but it's an excellent tool to
keep users home directories synchronized (local laptop home directory <->
server home directory). It has way more potential than it was originally
meant to have. Currently the only drawback is the lack of a mass installation
method, for which I would like to see an improvement on.

/Jussi
Click to expand...
 
Hi HJS,

Publishing the source code is one of the things we're talking about for a
potential next release. As for publishing the binary format, honestly, if we
had time to spec it, test modifications to it, and review it for release,
we'd have plenty of time to just solve the problem and reship. I'm afraid the
best I can do for you is tell you that solving the mass install problem is on
the list.

george

Homer J. Simpson said:
Your point is well taken. Our primary target user for SyncToy is and was
an
individual user. So, we used a binary format to reduce the chance of
inadvertent changes to values in an XML file. [...]
In the meantime, I can't think of a great alternative to having people
create their own directory pairs.
Click to expand...

How about documenting the binary format? If someone's *really* stuck, they
could at least write their own little thing to create the file and keep
using SyncToy instead of just hoping Microsoft will address this with
nothing they can do in the meantime--especially when this is, after all, an
unsupported tool, and you will look at this "**if/when** we do another
release of SyncToy" (emphasis mine).

Hell, open source the damned thing, surely it doesn't contain any corporate
secrets or patented algorithms?
Click to expand...
 
Publishing the source code is one of the things we're talking about for a
potential next release. As for publishing the binary format, honestly, if
we
had time to spec it, test modifications to it, and review it for release,
we'd have plenty of time to just solve the problem and reship. I'm afraid
the
best I can do for you is tell you that solving the mass install problem is
on
the list.
Click to expand...

:-D

Personally I'm usually not a big advocate of open source, but for little
utilities like SyncToy that would encourage a "no restriction, free for all,
go nuts" type of license, I'd be all in favor.

With the way I use SyncToy (raw copies of predefined folders from one PC to
another), I could probably write something similar within an afternoon (I
don't need a lot of the bells and whistles), if not for the "skip unchanged
files" part--which is the only reason I prefer SyncToy to a set of simple
file-copying batch files.

Sadly, even a simple task such as this manages to trip SyncToy all over the
place.
 
Back
Top