You may be interested to know that Senator Biden said on national TV that Osama bin Laden's complaints about U.S. support of violence and repressive regimes was justified. (NOTE: This does NOT say that violence is justified.) A carefully accurate transcript of Senator Biden's remarks is available under the heading Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support. (The article takes a long time to load.)
I don't think I expressed the question very well. Those files do not pose the same problem as the registry in Windows. The registry connects the configuration of the OS with the configuration of all of the software that is installed.
In the registry, if you get corruption and don't realize it, and do other installations and changes that write to the registry, it can become impossible to go back to an earlier backup without losing all of the work of upgrading.
What is most interesting about your comment is that you are using this situation as a way of acting out your anger.
I stand by what I said about making functional backups. Most people don't try to do restores, so they don't realize how many times backups aren't really backups.
It is interesting how difficult it is for people to deal with an abuser. Instead of efficiently moving to limit the destructiveness of the abuser, the the abused people often begin to attack each other, as you have done.
When I first tried to change the time server in Windows XP, I got error messages. The system I was testing would not let me make the change. I got error messages when I tried to use any but Microsoft's time server. Now, it works. Thanks for the info. I changed my article to reflect this new information.
I don't say that I know everything about Windows XP. You undoubtedly know things that I don't know. I think it is very likely I know things you don't know. It is interesting that you have the presumption that, if you know something I don't know, that gives you a license to make an angry attack. It is also interesting that you have the presumption that, if I say one thing that is mistaken, you can ignore everything else I said.
I suggest you deal with your anger problem, and not bring it to Slashdot.
Your comments do not apply to the situation mentioned. You apparently haven't read my comment carefully.
Users have always had the option of making backups of the registry. Making useful backups is often difficult or impossible. Backing up the registry in Windows XP is even more difficult, because the registry in now not all in one file, but is partly spread to several files, and the OS prevents you from making copies with xcopy.exe or the copy command. So, you cannot create your own backup tools, as you could in Windows 98.
That is a good question. If you buy a Microsoft mouse, you don't get the full functionality until you let the mouse software(!) connect to the internet. So, that gives you an idea of what Microsoft would do. The question is, what does Microsoft do now? First, they make it quite difficult to upgrade your computer to fix bugs. Sometimes the downloadable updates lag behind those available with Windows Update.
Also, it is the direction that Microsoft is going that is even more alarming. Windows Media Player already reports your music choices to Microsoft. The EULA for a security bug fix to Windows Media Player gives Microsoft complete control over your computer: They own it, not you. That shows that Microsoft can and will be sneaky. (The EULA says that it is limited to Digital Rights Management, but Microsoft is trying, with Palladium, to extend Digital Rights Management to everything you do on your computer.)
There's some misunderstanding here. First, it is not a registry backup that
you want, it is a backup that you can restore. I don't know any way of
replacing an entire registry with an exported text file. If there is a way,
would someone tell me?
More details about registry problems: The problem with the registry is
this. Suppose the registry becomes corrupted, but the software that the
corruption affects is not used for a considerable time. After the corruption occurs, the computer is
upgraded, perhaps with new application software, perhaps with new drivers.
Then maybe new system preferences are applied. Suppose the company has saved
backups of all previous versions of the registry on CD (an unlikely event).
See the problem? Since all the software is connected to all the other software
by the registry, corruption that goes unnoticed for a while can create an
impossible situation. If the company goes back to the original, known good
registry, they must give up all the time they spent upgrading the computer.
This may be substantial, especially since they may not have complete
records about what upgrading was done.
In actuality the situations caused by the registry are far, far more
complicated than this. For example, you may think that some failure you are
having is caused by registry corruption. However, it may take far too much
time to prove whether that is the case. If you think of all the combinations
of difficult circumstances, you will see that having most configuration
settings in one file is sometimes devastating for the user.
Consider that the person who is using the computer probably has an
important job in the company, and wants to use the computer, since only some
functions don't work, but others do. Consider that a repair person must be
supervised 100% of the time at some companies, because of security needs.
Please educate me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing like this in Linux or
BSD. First, there is no single file in which corruption can make an entire
installation worthless. Second, there is far better error checking, so
corruption of any kind is less likely to occur. With Windows XP, sometimes a
faulty program can cause the entire OS to become unstable. (I have personally
seen this at least 50 times.) My experience with Linux is that the OS just
throws the faulty application out of memory and comes back and says, okay, what else
do you want to do?
With Linux, a software upgrade that you much later discover was bad causes you
to re-install a known good version. With Microsoft Windows XP, because of the
connection between all programs by the registry, you may have to start over
with a re-formatted hard drive. This usually takes many hours,
especially in situations in which a company employee uses a system with
special adjustments or programs, which is often the case.
I was not able to get the time service to use any but Microsoft's computers. Please explain how to do this. Microsoft certainly does not make it easy to use NIST servers.
Sysprep does not allow fully functional backups, as Microsoft says. Sysprep is used to prepare new systems.
Without going into a long story, there is a problem in making backups of
Windows XP that actually can be used to make a copy that restores full
functioning. The Microsoft
article says,
"Microsoft does not provide support for computers on which Windows XP is
installed by duplication of fully installed copies of Windows XP. Microsoft
does support computers on which Windows XP is installed by use of
disk-duplication software and the System Preparation tool (Sysprep.exe)."
There is only one kind of backup that is a true backup: A fully installed
copy, or some method of creating a fully installed copy. Microsoft is saying
that that is "not supported". That language hides the fact that Microsoft made
it difficult.
You said, "You most certainly can (and I have) use disk imaging software to
back up and restore your system, complete with registry."
I've done it too. But, as Microsoft says, Microsoft does not support this.
Think about that for a moment. Suppose Linus Torvalds said, "I don't want
Linux to support fully functional backups". That would be preposterous. Why,
then, do people accept the same statement from Microsoft? Maybe that is because they
have been habituated to being abused.
Please take Microsoft's statement seriously. Consider a real life situation. If you have had a hardware failure,
when you do the restore it may not be to a computer that is identical to the
one on which Win XP was first installed. (If several years have passed since
the computer was made, it may not be possible to buy identical components, for
example.)
There can be serious problems with using a restored copy since, with Windows
XP, most of the configuration is thrown into one pot, the registry. Yes, you
may be successful hand-editing the registry, but maybe you won't. Even if you
are successful, you could not call a backup that needs considerable adjustment
a "fully functional backup". In a real life situation, the cost of doing a
restore to alternate equipment may be more than the cost of completely
re-installing the software.
The problem is not in changing the SID. SysInternals provides a free utility, NewSID, to change
the SID. The problem is that Microsoft has deliberately made it difficult to
make functional backups, apparently as a method of copy protection. Remember,
we are NOT talking about manufacturers making copies that work on identical
equipment. We are talking about a backup that can actually be used immediately
after a hardware failure to do a repair in which the new system is not
identical.
It is not impossible that someone could move a backup to new hardware. But, in
practice, it may be impossible or too expensive under some circumstances.
I use disk cloning software when the hard drives are not identical, and a
mirroring controller like the Promise FastTrak when the drives are identical.
Remember, I am making copies that are fully legal because I have purchased
licenses for them. I am only trying to save time; re-installing all the
software might cost far more than the cost of Windows XP. The issue is not with
rollout of new machines. The issue is whether your backup can actually be used
to make a fully functional copy.
Most people who use Windows XP don't know of the existence of hard disk
cloning software or hardware. One effect of Microsoft's policy is that
Microsoft does not tell them. Even if they did have such software, and they
new how to use it, most users might still have the difficulties mentioned here.
I wrote the story at the second link. But I wrote the present story AFTER the link was posted. The story needed to be updated. So I hastily updated it, FTP'd it to the server, and decided to post most of it directly to the story.
The story was modded up because it addresses a very, very serious issue. We are seeing a sickness among large companies. Consider Enron and WorldComm and Microsoft as part of a larger social illness. They all lost their way and began to be adversarial toward the world and towards themselves.
Here is a (probably incomplete) list of ways Windows XP connects to
Microsoft's servers. To generate this list yourself, disable Microsoft's firewall, and use the ZoneAlarm firewall, which is free for personal use. When Windows XP tries to connect to Microsoft, ZoneAlarm will bring up a dialog box asking whether that is okay. If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (like networking).
Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
Fax Service
File Signature Verification
Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
Microsoft Application Error Reporting
Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
Microsoft Help and Support Center
Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
Microsoft Management Console
Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
Microsoft Network Availability Test
Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
MS DTC Console program
Run DLL as an app
Services and Controller app
Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.
So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's
bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because
Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example,
as of July 26, 2002, there are 20
unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that
has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted
to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose
that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S.
government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's
law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on
the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only
way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the
operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very
vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since
most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents
control by the user. There are many areas like this where what Microsoft's design conflicts with the needs of the users.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows
XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work
with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs
use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you
cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other
software companies that try to fix this, but the fixes don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the
applications are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard
drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft
policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover
unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a
Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of
Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it,
the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back
in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction
of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently
about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft.
They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely
fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade
your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way
to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have
computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows
when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask,
and information about what they are doing with their
computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much
Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user
less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently
intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his
or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a
contract that gives Microsoft
administrator privileges over the user's computer. The contract says that if a user wants to patch
his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she
must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights
Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence.
"These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and
[my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates
may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related
updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence
effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants.
That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint
about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States
government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft
operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to
apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop
being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the
majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel
embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are
against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
In some areas, Microsoft Windows XP has reduced functionality. For example, the command line interface does less
in some ways than the CLI in Windows 98 SE (Second Edition). The CLI is a big embarrassment
because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then
it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees,
the differences between them are not fully documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that
Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line.
Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no
plan to fix this.
The DOS QuickEdit mode sometimes flashes wildly when trying to edit from a DOS box.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours,
the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate
the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control
to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one
of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the commandline interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
There are many other insufficiencies in Windows XP. Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Another indication of the direction Microsoft is taking Windows XP is that menus are sometimes 7 levels deep.
Anyone know of a Windows editor that uses Borland/Wordstar/Control-Key
editing commands?
That shortcut key layout saves about 15% in editing time, because you do not
need to remove your hands from the home row of keys.
That shortcut system is intuitive, also, because it uses a "cursor diamond".
Control-E is line up (top of the diamond). Control-X is line down (bottom of
the diamond), Control-S is character forward, and so on. (The arrow keys also
work.)
Programs that use the control key in this way are meant to be used with a
utility that makes the caps lock key a control key. Sysinternals provides Ctrl2cap, for
example. The utility is run once only.
The Borland/Wordstar editing commands allow almost all operations without
removing your hands from the home row. Many commands are two keystrokes.
Control-Q Control-R goes to the top of the document, for example.
SetEdit is an example of
a DOS editor with these commands. I would like to find a Windows editor.
More than 90% of the desktop computers in the world run Windows. And... Windows ESPECIALLY needs filtering. Now Internet Explorer has a kind of serial number that it transmits to every site you visit.
With Proxomitron, your browser can identify itself as "Space Bison", one of the built-in options, or anything you choose. I choose to take out the serial number.
It gets old, Slashdot people saying they don't run Windows. I posted a link to an article on my web site, and lots of Slashdot people visited. Most were running IE and Windows. Other people have mentioned this also.
There will be a day when almost everyone runs Linux, but that day is not here yet. I can't yet sell Linux to my customers because it is a little too technical yet.
In spite of what the OSDN Terms of Service says at section "4.
CONTENT", paragraph 6, I own this comment, exclusively.
I agree. It is amazing how badly managed Symantec is.
There are many stories to tell, so I'll tell only one. Once I was having a problem with a Symantec product and I called Symantec technical support and told them how much time I had lost over it. This time they actually had an answer: The problem was caused by another Symantec product.
Microsoft wannabes.
Symantec is not as badly managed as Microsoft, but they are putting in an impressive effort.
It is OTHER governments to which this comment applies. If you are an official
of the French government, what must you think about the virtual certainty that
the U.S. government is spying on the French government using unpatched security holes in
Microsoft Internet Explorer or, possibly, back doors put into Windows on
order of the U.S. government.
Would the U.S. government use any means to spy on other countries? Well, the
U.S. has killed more than 3,000,000 people in the last 33 years partly by
bombing 14 countries. Does anyone believe that people who think killing is
acceptable suddenly become moral when they think about spying using computers?
Absolutely, cross-platform is worth a lot.
on
wxWindows vs. MFC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Absolutely, cross-platform is worth a lot.
If you use MFC, you tie yourself to whatever Microsoft decides about its money-making schemes.
wxWindows is here to stay. The GUI is native on any platform. Yes, there may be slow-downs in development, but the need will not go away.
Within two years, after governments evaluate the security risk of using U.S. software, they will pass laws that government workers must use Linux or BSD. That will cause the movement away from Windows to accelerate.
There will come a time when Linux is the dominant OS. It would be unfortunate if you could not run your program on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be interested to know that Senator Biden said on national TV that Osama bin Laden's complaints about U.S. support of violence and repressive regimes was justified. (NOTE: This does NOT say that violence is justified.) A carefully accurate transcript of Senator Biden's remarks is available under the heading Senator Biden says the Saudi government cannot continue in power without U.S. government support . (The article takes a long time to load.)
I don't think I expressed the question very well. Those files do not pose the same problem as the registry in Windows. The registry connects the configuration of the OS with the configuration of all of the software that is installed.
In the registry, if you get corruption and don't realize it, and do other installations and changes that write to the registry, it can become impossible to go back to an earlier backup without losing all of the work of upgrading.
There is nothing like this in Linux or BSD, apparently. See the section "More Details about Registry Problems" in the article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
What is most interesting about your comment is that you are using this situation as a way of acting out your anger.
I stand by what I said about making functional backups. Most people don't try to do restores, so they don't realize how many times backups aren't really backups.
It is interesting how difficult it is for people to deal with an abuser. Instead of efficiently moving to limit the destructiveness of the abuser, the the abused people often begin to attack each other, as you have done.
When I first tried to change the time server in Windows XP, I got error messages. The system I was testing would not let me make the change. I got error messages when I tried to use any but Microsoft's time server. Now, it works. Thanks for the info. I changed my article to reflect this new information.
I don't say that I know everything about Windows XP. You undoubtedly know things that I don't know. I think it is very likely I know things you don't know. It is interesting that you have the presumption that, if you know something I don't know, that gives you a license to make an angry attack. It is also interesting that you have the presumption that, if I say one thing that is mistaken, you can ignore everything else I said.
I suggest you deal with your anger problem, and not bring it to Slashdot.
Your comments do not apply to the situation mentioned. You apparently haven't read my comment carefully.
Users have always had the option of making backups of the registry. Making useful backups is often difficult or impossible. Backing up the registry in Windows XP is even more difficult, because the registry in now not all in one file, but is partly spread to several files, and the OS prevents you from making copies with xcopy.exe or the copy command. So, you cannot create your own backup tools, as you could in Windows 98.
"Ghost" is a term created by a company that was later bought by Symantec.
Symantec's product is expensive. Most users of Windows XP don't know it exists. In the situation mentioned, it doesn't always work as a backup.
I stand by my comments.
That is a good question. If you buy a Microsoft mouse, you don't get the full functionality until you let the mouse software(!) connect to the internet. So, that gives you an idea of what Microsoft would do. The question is, what does Microsoft do now? First, they make it quite difficult to upgrade your computer to fix bugs. Sometimes the downloadable updates lag behind those available with Windows Update.
Also, it is the direction that Microsoft is going that is even more alarming. Windows Media Player already reports your music choices to Microsoft. The EULA for a security bug fix to Windows Media Player gives Microsoft complete control over your computer: They own it, not you. That shows that Microsoft can and will be sneaky. (The EULA says that it is limited to Digital Rights Management, but Microsoft is trying, with Palladium, to extend Digital Rights Management to everything you do on your computer.)
There's some misunderstanding here. First, it is not a registry backup that you want, it is a backup that you can restore. I don't know any way of replacing an entire registry with an exported text file. If there is a way, would someone tell me?
More details about registry problems: The problem with the registry is this. Suppose the registry becomes corrupted, but the software that the corruption affects is not used for a considerable time. After the corruption occurs, the computer is upgraded, perhaps with new application software, perhaps with new drivers. Then maybe new system preferences are applied. Suppose the company has saved backups of all previous versions of the registry on CD (an unlikely event).
See the problem? Since all the software is connected to all the other software by the registry, corruption that goes unnoticed for a while can create an impossible situation. If the company goes back to the original, known good registry, they must give up all the time they spent upgrading the computer. This may be substantial, especially since they may not have complete records about what upgrading was done.
In actuality the situations caused by the registry are far, far more complicated than this. For example, you may think that some failure you are having is caused by registry corruption. However, it may take far too much time to prove whether that is the case. If you think of all the combinations of difficult circumstances, you will see that having most configuration settings in one file is sometimes devastating for the user.
Consider that the person who is using the computer probably has an important job in the company, and wants to use the computer, since only some functions don't work, but others do. Consider that a repair person must be supervised 100% of the time at some companies, because of security needs.
Please educate me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing like this in Linux or BSD. First, there is no single file in which corruption can make an entire installation worthless. Second, there is far better error checking, so corruption of any kind is less likely to occur. With Windows XP, sometimes a faulty program can cause the entire OS to become unstable. (I have personally seen this at least 50 times.) My experience with Linux is that the OS just throws the faulty application out of memory and comes back and says, okay, what else do you want to do?
With Linux, a software upgrade that you much later discover was bad causes you to re-install a known good version. With Microsoft Windows XP, because of the connection between all programs by the registry, you may have to start over with a re-formatted hard drive. This usually takes many hours, especially in situations in which a company employee uses a system with special adjustments or programs, which is often the case.
I was not able to get the time service to use any but Microsoft's computers. Please explain how to do this. Microsoft certainly does not make it easy to use NIST servers.
Sysprep does not allow fully functional backups, as Microsoft says. Sysprep is used to prepare new systems.
Without going into a long story, there is a problem in making backups of Windows XP that actually can be used to make a copy that restores full functioning. The Microsoft article says,
"Microsoft does not provide support for computers on which Windows XP is installed by duplication of fully installed copies of Windows XP. Microsoft does support computers on which Windows XP is installed by use of disk-duplication software and the System Preparation tool (Sysprep.exe)."
There is only one kind of backup that is a true backup: A fully installed copy, or some method of creating a fully installed copy. Microsoft is saying that that is "not supported". That language hides the fact that Microsoft made it difficult.
You said, "You most certainly can (and I have) use disk imaging software to back up and restore your system, complete with registry."
I've done it too. But, as Microsoft says, Microsoft does not support this. Think about that for a moment. Suppose Linus Torvalds said, "I don't want Linux to support fully functional backups". That would be preposterous. Why, then, do people accept the same statement from Microsoft? Maybe that is because they have been habituated to being abused.
Please take Microsoft's statement seriously. Consider a real life situation. If you have had a hardware failure, when you do the restore it may not be to a computer that is identical to the one on which Win XP was first installed. (If several years have passed since the computer was made, it may not be possible to buy identical components, for example.)
There can be serious problems with using a restored copy since, with Windows XP, most of the configuration is thrown into one pot, the registry. Yes, you may be successful hand-editing the registry, but maybe you won't. Even if you are successful, you could not call a backup that needs considerable adjustment a "fully functional backup". In a real life situation, the cost of doing a restore to alternate equipment may be more than the cost of completely re-installing the software.
The problem is not in changing the SID. SysInternals provides a free utility, NewSID, to change the SID. The problem is that Microsoft has deliberately made it difficult to make functional backups, apparently as a method of copy protection. Remember, we are NOT talking about manufacturers making copies that work on identical equipment. We are talking about a backup that can actually be used immediately after a hardware failure to do a repair in which the new system is not identical.
It is not impossible that someone could move a backup to new hardware. But, in practice, it may be impossible or too expensive under some circumstances.
I use disk cloning software when the hard drives are not identical, and a mirroring controller like the Promise FastTrak when the drives are identical. Remember, I am making copies that are fully legal because I have purchased licenses for them. I am only trying to save time; re-installing all the software might cost far more than the cost of Windows XP. The issue is not with rollout of new machines. The issue is whether your backup can actually be used to make a fully functional copy.
Most people who use Windows XP don't know of the existence of hard disk cloning software or hardware. One effect of Microsoft's policy is that Microsoft does not tell them. Even if they did have such software, and they new how to use it, most users might still have the difficulties mentioned here.
"It's a direct
I wrote the story at the second link. But I wrote the present story AFTER the link was posted. The story needed to be updated. So I hastily updated it, FTP'd it to the server, and decided to post most of it directly to the story.
The story was modded up because it addresses a very, very serious issue. We are seeing a sickness among large companies. Consider Enron and WorldComm and Microsoft as part of a larger social illness. They all lost their way and began to be adversarial toward the world and towards themselves.
Here is a (probably incomplete) list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers. To generate this list yourself, disable Microsoft's firewall, and use the ZoneAlarm firewall, which is free for personal use. When Windows XP tries to connect to Microsoft, ZoneAlarm will bring up a dialog box asking whether that is okay. If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (like networking).
- Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
- Fax Service
- File Signature Verification
- Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
- Microsoft Application Error Reporting
- Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
- Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
- Microsoft Help and Support Center
- Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
- Microsoft Management Console
- Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
- Microsoft Network Availability Test
- Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
- MS DTC Console program
- Run DLL as an app
- Services and Controller app
- Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
- Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
- Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 26, 2002, there are 20 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user. There are many areas like this where what Microsoft's design conflicts with the needs of the users.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but the fixes don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the applications are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer. The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS.
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
In some areas, Microsoft Windows XP has reduced functionality. For example, the command line interface does less in some ways than the CLI in Windows 98 SE (Second Edition). The CLI is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not fully documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
The DOS QuickEdit mode sometimes flashes wildly when trying to edit from a DOS box.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the commandline interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
There are many other insufficiencies in Windows XP. Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Another indication of the direction Microsoft is taking Windows XP is that menus are sometimes 7 levels deep.
The most recent version of this article is available at http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm.
PDP-11/20s??? That's one of them new-fangled transistorized computers.
We had vacuum tubes and punch cards. With enough punch cards, you don't NEED memory.
Yes, thanks, but Cygwin is maybe 300 Megabytes. Yes, I need it anyway, but my customers don't, and I'm wondering if there are Windows native editors.
I don't understand this. There is always a Control key on the right side. Also, the Borland key shortcuts do not use shift.
The Borland method is definitely faster, and certainly doesn't have any drawbacks.
Anyone know of a Windows editor that uses Borland/Wordstar/Control-Key editing commands?
That shortcut key layout saves about 15% in editing time, because you do not need to remove your hands from the home row of keys.
That shortcut system is intuitive, also, because it uses a "cursor diamond". Control-E is line up (top of the diamond). Control-X is line down (bottom of the diamond), Control-S is character forward, and so on. (The arrow keys also work.)
Programs that use the control key in this way are meant to be used with a utility that makes the caps lock key a control key. Sysinternals provides Ctrl2cap, for example. The utility is run once only.
The Borland/Wordstar editing commands allow almost all operations without removing your hands from the home row. Many commands are two keystrokes. Control-Q Control-R goes to the top of the document, for example.
SetEdit is an example of a DOS editor with these commands. I would like to find a Windows editor.
JOE does not have a Windows version. Anyone know of a Windows editor that uses Borland/Wordstar/Control-Key editing commands?
Freeware SSH and SCP for Windows 9x, NT, ME, 2000 and XP By John Fitzgibbon
Using Mozilla on Win XP to post this. It's as fast as Opera or IE and has some features they don't.
Linus got stock from Redhat which was later worth $20,000,000. He doesn't need money.
It is a pathetic fact, but it is due to mismanagement at Redmond, not carefree lifestyle.
More than 90% of the desktop computers in the world run Windows. And... Windows ESPECIALLY needs filtering. Now Internet Explorer has a kind of serial number that it transmits to every site you visit.
With Proxomitron, your browser can identify itself as "Space Bison", one of the built-in options, or anything you choose. I choose to take out the serial number.
It gets old, Slashdot people saying they don't run Windows. I posted a link to an article on my web site, and lots of Slashdot people visited. Most were running IE and Windows. Other people have mentioned this also.
There will be a day when almost everyone runs Linux, but that day is not here yet. I can't yet sell Linux to my customers because it is a little too technical yet.
In spite of what the OSDN Terms of Service says at section "4. CONTENT", paragraph 6, I own this comment, exclusively.
I agree. It is amazing how badly managed Symantec is.
There are many stories to tell, so I'll tell only one. Once I was having a problem with a Symantec product and I called Symantec technical support and told them how much time I had lost over it. This time they actually had an answer: The problem was caused by another Symantec product.
Microsoft wannabes.
Symantec is not as badly managed as Microsoft, but they are putting in an impressive effort.
Proxomitron sees all, filters all. Regexp your Internet connections.
It is OTHER governments to which this comment applies. If you are an official of the French government, what must you think about the virtual certainty that the U.S. government is spying on the French government using unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer or, possibly, back doors put into Windows on order of the U.S. government.
Would the U.S. government use any means to spy on other countries? Well, the U.S. has killed more than 3,000,000 people in the last 33 years partly by bombing 14 countries. Does anyone believe that people who think killing is acceptable suddenly become moral when they think about spying using computers?
For documentation of U.S. government activities from some of the world's most respected news agencies, see What Should be the Response to Violence?
Absolutely, cross-platform is worth a lot.
If you use MFC, you tie yourself to whatever Microsoft decides about its money-making schemes.
wxWindows is here to stay. The GUI is native on any platform. Yes, there may be slow-downs in development, but the need will not go away.
Within two years, after governments evaluate the security risk of using U.S. software, they will pass laws that government workers must use Linux or BSD. That will cause the movement away from Windows to accelerate.
There will come a time when Linux is the dominant OS. It would be unfortunate if you could not run your program on Linux.