On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:47:41 -0400, "Chad Harris"
But for all the propaganda and hundreds of millions spent promoting
Vista with Wagner Edstrom and McCann Ericson Worldwide ad
agencies on media buys on TV and full page adds in major newspapers,
a fraction of this money could have gone to insure that every end user
customer got a Vista DVD and became "empowered" to fix Vista.
Time for a backgrounder...
When you or I install an OS, we generally do so interactively - i.e.
we boot off something (DOS mode diskette with CD drivers, or the OS
disk itself) and we step through the dialogs, making choices as we go.
But high-volume operations don't do this. Instead, they develop a
"reference machine" and then they copy that image to the PCs they make
and/or deploy. They may not use the "normal" OS disk at all.
There are two types of "high-volume" deployers:
- large OEMs mass-producing systems
- large organizations using multiple PCs in-house
In both cases, economies of scale may it more worthwhile to spend days
of expert time setting up the perfect "reference system" and working
out how to image this, than an extra hour per PC that is to be set up.
Typical dumb-imaging locks you into the same hardware, due to the
embedded drivers and/or due to fixed partition image sizes. This is
why it is so difficult to break the "modelism" that pervades large
brands (e.g. "I'd like model A, but with the larger HD from model B")
or why your corporate office may still be acquiring "new" PCs with
dated specs after better stuff has come out.
In the XP era, Microsoft's disk imaging tools were restricted to large
OEMs only; WinPE wasn't available even to MSDN subscribers, let alone
small system builders or end-users. Large enterprises (e.g. Ford
Motor Company) had access, too.
This is why WinPE is so poor as a maintenance OS, even though the core
feature set would suggest it's the best tool for such purposes. The
only folks who had access, were exactly the folks who never do
non-destructive system maintenance anyway. Those that may have
pirated WinPE to use it for such purposes, would hardly be in a
position to feed back ideas and developments to MS.
So WinPE languished as an under-developed backwater, while Bart PE
leaped ahead with strong user forum support, and even better support
from tools developers (e.g. Avast for Bart, Spybot Bart support, etc.)
I got access to WinPE 2.0 at the dawn of Vista, because MSFT made it
available to anyone as part of the free Business Desktop Deployment
2007 suite. At this point, MS has developed imaging technology to
beat the "dumb image blues"; your installation images can now be
completely hardware-agnostic, so you can use them on any size hard
drive on any system hardware. Brand-name "modelism" (e.g. "you have
to pay the full price for model B if you want the bigger hard drive")
may contune, but there's no longer a technical reason for it to do so.
Large-volume computing aims to spend a minimum amount of time per
system - with "no touch" build being the ideal. This desire to avoid
"adding value" to each sale condinues into support; they'd rather
answer all calls with "insert disk, boot, say Yes to wipe the hard
drive and recover the system".
With a generic, custom-installable OS disk in the hands of the user,
OEM support would actually have to "think" about things like; how did
the user set up the PC? What file systems and volume sizes? If I
want to say "insert the disk and...", is it D: or something else?
Hence what I refer to as "punitive support":
- "please insert disk and click Yes to do a factory restore"
- ' won't that wipe my data? '
- "yep"
- ' I don't want to do that! '
- "well, we can't help you then... <click>"
Those who aren't savvy enough to balk at "just" wiping the system will
be so traumatized that they'll never call OEM support again - which
suits the OEM just fine. It's the old bait-and-switch; attrach users
based on "brand" and expectations of support, then switch to punitive
support that slashes your support overheads.
MSFT has left their customers high and dry, up a creek
I think you will find it is the OEMs who push MS for cheaper
licensing, reduced-value products, and simlified support calls.
When big OEMs don't get what they want, they can cry to the lawyers
that MS won't let them exercise their right to screw the customer.
What you take as the "voice of the consumer" is usually nothing but
the bellowing of competing large corporations who aren't MSFT.
The problem is that it's nearly impossible to find out which OEMs ship
custom-installable OS disks and which do not - the resellers always
play dumb and tell you "yes, it's Genuine Windows" (which means
nothing except MS gets paid).
Market forces can't apply Darwinian pressures because crucial details
are hidden from the user - and this is an OEM/MS cartel thing, with
collusion from advertising-driven "objective" magazine reviewers etc.
In the XP era, you'd have been right - even the most generic OEM or
overpriced retail "full pack" OS packages came with NO non-HD-bootable
OS whatsoever. Recovery Console was a closed few-tricks pony, the
functional equivalent of MS-DOS 4's DOS Shell as a file manager.
But in the Vista era, you're wrong - as long as you avoid the clutches
of large OEMs, you'd have a Vista DVD that boots into a command-line
maintenance OS. Whether this is a subset of WinPE and/or WinRE, or
the full extent of these things, I couldn't say. However, much of
WinRE's functionality seems built into the Vista DVD even before you
branch from "Repair" section into the command line mOS.
MSFT refuses to discuss their denial of Vista DVDs or XP DVDs to their
customers the last several years.
Yep. Privately it's been conceded that the sphincteric licensing of
WinPE has been a mistake. It's crippled community development and
adoption of that product, which now emerges blinkng into the light
like a fully-grown 21-year-old who hasn't learbed to speak yet.
WinPE is well-developed as a mOS, but the design breaks several mOS
rules, particularly as embedded in the Vista DVD
- don't boot the HD (you can't assume it's safe)
- don't write to the HD (you can't assume it's safe)
- don't even read the HD (you can't assume it's safe or possible)
- branch off for RAM diagnostics early, with a minimum of code
- accumulate RAM testing errors on screen
When the Vista DVD boots, it pauses for a while before chaining into
booting the HD - irrespective of whether the HD is set as a boot
device in CMOS. If you wanted to avoid booting the HD (bad hardware,
corrupted file system, known malware payload about to be triggered,
failing HD) then too bad - any glitch that resets the PC when you
aren't looking, will boot the HD.
Even though glitches that reset the PC when you are not looking are a
specific contra-indication to booting the HD.
Vista DVD starts by sniffing the HD to see if there's a Vista
installation there, If there isn't, you can't do anything. Too bad
if you wanted to RAM check beforee adding a HD, or do a physical HD
test on a known-wiped HD.
If you do a RAM test, then this is set up to run on the next HD boot
(thus writing to the HD's file system through RAM that you suspect is
defective... do I have to explain why that is a Bad Idea?).
Microsoft's RAM test may show results on screen for the current pass
only. Leave it running overnight so that it does 100 iterations, and
what you see on the screen may be only the last iteration. That just
doesn't make sense. Or worse, you're told to "just" boot Vista and
look for the results in Event Viewer.
Let me get this straight; to find out whether I have bad RAM that
invalidates any assumptions about code behavior, I have to boot a
complex mass of code that automatically writes to the file system all
the time, and dig around in an embedded log I can't access from
outside the afflicted installation?
That's like an aircraft with landing gear that only extends after the
plane is landed. It's a crazt design.
So yes; as yes, MS don't "get" system maintenance and how a
maintenance OS should operate. Why would they? As soon as it's "bad
hardware", it's not their support problem anymore, so their "vendor
vision" extends only so far as keeping large squeaky wheels (big
corporate clients, large OEMs) happy and making sure that Windows will
boot and run. What happens tou your data is your problem.
The typical one-size-fits-all OEM "support" approach is...
- wipe HD and do a factory restore; did thatr work?
- Yes = we're done, 'bye
- No = hmm, maybe bad hardware, we'll issue an RMA
In contrast, a user-orientated tech would do something like this:
http://cquirke.mvps.org/pccrisis.htm
The two approaches are as incompatible as sodium and water. It's been
a battle to get MSFT thinking on maintenance at all; they're new to
the party, and welcome, but it will take a while before they "get" it.
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.