Damn! I sense I touched a little nerve there wrt Microsoft

Thanks for all the great help. Getting BartPE working, saving the
files off onto a USB Memory Stick, reinstalling windows...PC was back
up (and booting faster than ever) in less than a day.

Mark

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:22:18 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:54:15 GMT, markxyz59@cox.net (Mark) wrote:
>
>>Great link! I was able to DL it, build the image and make a bootable
>>CD, and then use it to get files off my wife's PC and onto my 1 GB USB
>>memory stick.
>
>Yep. Bart PE absolutely rocks.
>
>>Why the heck can't Microsoft make a utility like this?
>
>Heh ... never ask a geek a rhetorical question ;-)
>
>>>"Mark" <markxyz59@cox.net> wrote in message
>
>>>> I tried all of those, except BartPE. I avoided Bart because he wants
>>>> you to pay for CD boot image (not that I blame him!).
>
>He doesn't - Bart PE is free. He may have other products that are not
>(something has to cross-subsidize Bart PE development?) such as
>pro-grade CD boot management software or something.
>
>>>> That Norwegian/Russian software is pretty awesome:
>>>> http://home.eunet.no/~pnordahl/ntpasswd/bootdisk.html
>
>I bounced off that URL - i.e. the web browser found it just fine, but
>I can't fit the text into my brain at the moment. Laaaater...
>
>>>> I'm assuming it's like BartPE, in that it completely unlocks the C
>>>> drive (unlike the stupid Recovery Console). The problem is that it's
>>>> Registry Editor is only for Win95, and it cannot do mixed FAT32/NTFS
>>>> systems (which I have).
>
>A Win9x interactive registry editor would be a good thing to have.
>
>On RC, Bart and other mOS candidates, see the rather dated...
>
>http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm
>
>...which I wrote before I *really* got into Bart PE :-)
>
>Registry settings, applied ahead of time, can make RC slightly less
>useless, but it is not an OS (can't run arb apps), thus is not a mOS
>(maintenance Operating System). Think of it as being like ye olde
>Norton DiskTool.exe for DOS; a canned set of useful tools.
>
>Now then, are we sitting comfortably? Then let's chew on this...
>
>>Why the heck can't Microsoft make a utility like this?
>
>How can MS so fail to understand stand-alone and unmanaged PC users?
>Or do they know our needs, but ignore them anyway?
>
>1) Lack of vision
>
>There are several reasons why MS might not really understand how we
>work and what we need, based on their assumption base.
>
>Windows is either licensed on a retail basis, in which case MS garners
>experience via PSS, or on an OEM basis, in which case support is by
>the OEM or reseller thereof, and MS is out of the experience loop.
>
>The relationship between MS and OEMs is dominated by the largest OEMs,
>who have the power to demand concessions from MS by virtue of product
>volume. These OEMs also do quite a bit of development when it comes
>to pre-installing the OS; this is the market for which MS's closest
>approach to a mOS - Windows PE - was developed.
>
>Unfortunately, MS takes the abysmal service standards of large OEMs as
>the norm. The typical large-OEM "service" approach is:
> - wipe the HD and rebuild the installation via "restore" CD
> - if that fails, issue an RMA to manage suspected hardware defects
> - if that "wotrks", close the case as having been "fixed"
>
>MS also evaluates users according to certain typical profiles, such as
>the power user, the newbie home user, and so on. But they assume
>these users exist in a vacuum, with no support resources other than
>PSS (for the rare consumer that buys Windows as an upgrade) or OEMs,
>where large-OEM "support" is the yardstick.
>
>Here, most PCs are built by small custom builder/resellers or general
>component distributors who assemble thier own generic PCs. Many of
>these are too small to create their own automated installation
>procedures, doing the same interactive install that end-users do.
>
>These small OEMs are referred to as the DSP (Delivery Service Partner)
>market, and speaking as a DSP in South Africa, I can tell you the
>relationship between MS and DSPs is virtually non-existant, other than
>promotional blurb. Specifically, there is no flow of tech support
>information in either direction, nor are resources such as Service
>Packs and other large downloads on CD, etc. provided.
>
>In practice, the user's biggest concern is data loss, file system
>corruption, and malware infection. None of these are the
>responsibility of MS or OEM in warranty terms, but they are the bread
>and butter for techs working for the user, as opposed to techs who
>merely discharge a vendor's obligations as quickly as possible.
>
>So you can see why MS may not "get" the need for a mOS from which data
>can be recovered, file systems can be interactively repaired, and
>malware can be formally detected and managed. Every fast-arrival at
>just wipe and re-install" is further evidence of this lack of clue.
>
>2) Conflicting agendas
>
>Win9x was designed as a stand-alone OS for consumers, whereas NT was
>designed as a network client for professionally-managed business
>environments. With XP, this network client design has simply been
>dropped into consumerland as-is, with a few dummy-down concessions to
>the percieved needs of this market, and certain pro-grade
>functionalities ripped out to stop bizworld catching a cheap lunch.
>
>MS takes the consumer market for granted; there's hardly any
>competitive pressure there. MS's competitive need was to demonstrate
>they could scale up to enterprise level, and thus take on Linux
>servers and UNIX/proprietary "big" systems.
>
>So most of the focus has been on professional network management based
>on corporate needs. PCs are beholden to The Server, from which the
>Network Administrator's wishes are imposed, locking down what the user
>can do. Users have limited roles, and so it makes sense to define
>access rights in terms of what user or user role is in effect. All
>data is on The Server, so the PCs that users actually use are
>disposable; just wipe and rebuild, who cares what user preferences are
>lost? No user at the keyboard should ever trump the Network Admin.
>
>This is the complete opposite of what we want for our stand-alone PCs,
>where NO "remote admin" is to ever attain any position of power over
>the system. We generally physically secure our PCs, so it's usually
>keyboard-uber-alles; user roles vary, and we generally fret less about
>user A seeing user B's data than losing access to data altogether -
>which is a real risk, given that these PCs generally do not have
>backup devices or even the nominal MS Backup installed.
>
>It all boils down to this: Who wins, a notional "administrator" that
>seeks to assert control via automation or network, or the user at the
>keyboard? Pro is for the first, Home is supposed to be the second,
>and never will these divergent needs be met in the same product.
>
>We need a mOS to recover data irrespective of the state of the system,
>and assert our management objectives irrespective of how the system
>may be set to block these. But what is a mOS to us, is a fearsome
>hacking tool to the pro-admin'd network environment - and guess who
>wins, when those agendas collide?
>
>So you are sentenced to lose your data and have to surrender your
>installation to any halfway-difficult malware, so that pro-managed
>networks can be protected against anyone with physical access who
>would be able to override administrative controls.
>
>A large part of today's malware pain is a direct result of using a
>network client OS as an unmanaged stand-alone OS. Home users are
>expected to model their PC use on a notional corporate organogram,
>with the same user pretending to be a limited employee one moment, and
>then pretending to be the network administrator the next. Pathetic.
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -