Live Windows Bootable CDs for Sysadmins

WhoDaresWins writes "Ever wonder how to make a Knoppix-like live Windows bootable CD (or DVD)? Well its now possible using Bart's Preinstalled Environment (BartPE) bootable live windows CD/DVD. It's basically an expansion of the Microsoft's own Windows PE (Preinstallation Environment) idea which is a minimal Windows (XP/2K3) based bootable live CD with a command prompt and the ability to run some basic Windows GUI. Bart's PE allows anyone to make a bootable CD using their own Windows XP/2K3 media with Bart's PE Builder. What's more many people have contributed quite a few plugins that allow you to use the BartPE discs as quite a nifty system administration tool and with some work an almost usable quick system."

Comments

Why didn't we have this sooner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read subject.
Like, 8 years ago?

Re:Why didn't we have this sooner?

[KReilly]

I am not sure I would use this that often. I mean, the great thing about live linux cds is they are packed with utilities that can help with diagnostics. This is just a stripped down version of windows. Can anyone think of alot of uses for this that would beat out knoppix? Cause I can't.

Re:Why didn't we have this sooner?

[chengmi]

People tend to go with things that are familiar to them.

A lot of people are familiar with the Windows GUI, so a Windows live-cd would be popular among this majority of people.

Personally, I think the live-cd concept is great but impractical. I like the fact that changing an OS is as simple as changing a CD, but the sound of my very loud cd drive spinning all the time is unbearable.

What really needs to happen is for us to find a way to make an operating system (with a sufficient number of features) fit on a USB drive. Either that or make large USB drives cheaper. =P

Re:Why didn't we have this sooner?

[Trejkaz]

You could always use the Captive NTFS driver instead of the one which is risky to use for writing.

Re:Why didn't we have this sooner?

[Avihson]

"or else there isn't a licenced copy to put on it."

So where does the license for the bootable cd come from? Am I going to be busted by the BSA for carrying a rogue copy of windows around and using it on PCs when the original license is running on another?
In Enterprise size installs this is no problem, but what about the freelance MCSE out there busting his tail working on small/medium lans and stand-alone installs?

Right now, a friend in that line of work carries copies of all his utilities and worries about uninstalling them after he is done using them. I felt the same way when I used PartitionMagic to configure for dualbooting before I found the latest GParted.

With a bootable Linux, either Knoppix or ones built on other distributions, there is never a licensing issue. The writing to NTFS is an issue at this moment, but in time that too will be a thing of the past.

Useful!

[johannesg]

With the increasing use of Linux on the desktop, this could be really useful for people who want to double boot into Windows, but do not want the hassle of having to repartition their drives.

Needless to say, this is good news for Microsoft as it may increase the acceptance of Windows as an alternative to Linux on the desktop ;-)

Re:Cannot be used for general purpose like knoppix

[bheer]

Way to go MS - stifle creativity, advancement, technology.

I'm choosing to reply instead of moderate, because this is a *huge* pet peeve of mine. I've always thought NT-the-kernel was pretty elegant (especially compared to some *cough* Unix clones).

Actually, the actual Nt_ interfaces *are* documented, but (afaik) incompletely, and without source it's really of very limited utility.

In their quest for One True API (Win32 and now WinFX) they do seem to have killed off all innovation on top of one of their most technically impressive assets.

I had hoped the MSDN academic alliance and shared source licensing would encourage some work, but as long as MS adopts a more liberal download-from-website model for source licenses, innovation on top of the NT kernel is likely to remain a pipe-dream. (When the competition (Linux) is available nicely cross-referenced, you'd have to be crazy to fill out the paperwork for an NT source license.)

Re:Knoppix without the good stuff?

[I confirm I'm not a]

Lessee...

1. It's Windows. Forget "open".
   Only programmers care about that shit, and at least 99% of computer users are not programmers.
   I've had managers who wouldn't touch closed-source apps because they didn't trust them and/or couldn't extend them. I've had non-developer colleagues who wouldn't touch closed-source apps because they cost money whilst open-source was a free-download away (and "why pay for something you'll only use once?", and "if it's closed source will people develop plug-ins for it?")
2. It's Windows. Forget "stable".
   Ah, the joys of being able to choose your own hardward. I told my boss I wanted a beowulf-cluster of SPARC-stations. She laughed at me. Seriously, back in the real-world, some of us don't get any choice about the hardware we use. Seriosuly, back in the real-world most of us don't get any choice about the hardware we use. If open-source software can be stable on the same hardware as a closed-source BSOD-generator, which should I choose?
3. It's Windows. Forget "drivers" without a dozen driver install disks...
   I run XP at home on the GF's laptop. I've got numerous driver install CDs. Strangely, I never received the one magic CD you hint at, the one with all the drivers for the hardware I've not bought yet. OK, XP comes with a lot of generic drivers, but every new piece of hardware I buy comes with a driver CD for Windows. Strangely, Linux typically "just works".
4. It's Windows. Forget "Source code".
   A. I assume you're joking. Firstly, MS didn't license (eg. with the GPL) their leaked source code, so no one legit will touch it lest they "contaminate" themselves or open themselves up to prosecution. Secondly, it's only a fraction of the complete source.
   B.See statements regarding #1.
5. It's Windows... most apps won't run without registry editing and all kinds of other crap.
   I've installed very few apps on XP that didn't edit the registry. Sure, I didn't do it by hand - the installer did it, and I pray that the uninstaller will also do it (I live in hope...) Fixinf Registry foul-ups after botched uninstallers run amok terrifies me because like many Windows users I don't feel comfortable editting the Registry. Firing up vim (or Emacs, I suppose... ;) and hacking a config file, however...different story. Easy to backup, easy to restore, easy to understand, etc.

Yup, a pretty weak troll attempt. Try harder.