I agree this clearly isn't a tool for network deployment, but that doesn't get past the fact that it might be downloaded on one machine for use on another. The sample KB he used was for fixing a fairly mundane problem, but there may well be other problems this tool would be used for that are more severe, severe enough that the use of a different machine to retrieve the tool may be required. Not to mention the possibility of the affected machine simply not having an active internet connection.
As for KB articles, to my knowledge they only changed things once, when they moved to the KB naming scheme from the Q naming scheme, and that was a long time ago. They may have changed DNS addresses or something, but even when they moved to the KB system, the actual article number didn't change, just the prefix.
And why does Windows let random applications install whatever they want, wherever they want, instead of enforcing or at least publishing some standards?
For the same reason that when you install a program on a Unix system, let's say using sudo rpm/apt-get/emerge/whatever, there isn't anything stopping said program from dumping everything in/bin, or/lib, when things should really be put under various directories in/usr/local. The thing is, this doesn't happen, because Unix systems have had a well defined directory hierarchy for a long time that explains where different types of data should go, the programmers generally respect it, and follow it. A good example is the FreeBSD hier(7) manpage. It beautifully lays out where everything should go.
You mention publishing some standards and this is _exactly_ what Microsoft should have done early on. Several MS developers have said they screwed up with this. I think where most things are meant to go is fairly obvious personally, but you can't make assumptions that people will just "figure it out themselves", history has shown that time and time again, especially in computing. A well defined set of "rules" (I don't believe they should be strictly enforced in software, for the same reasons Unix doesn't, or any other OS to my knowledge) that points out where various types of data are meant to be placed in both the filesystem and the registry would go a long way to cleaning up the mess.
The only time I can think of when Unix puts stuff in system directories is when I tell it to.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'd describe a system directory as a directory that requires Administrator/super-user privileges to modify. In this case, whenever something is installed anywhere outside of/home (which does happen) and/var,/tmp (I hope not), then something has been put in a system directory. Frankly, the overwhelming majority of things installed do go in system directories, whether non-privileged users can actually use the programs, is of course, a separate issue. As above, when you type in that magic command to install a package, you take it on faith that it will put its files in the right place, and most of the time it will. Windows needs to do the same.
How is any NT-based desktop a multi-user system? Because someone else can log in once I log out? By that metric, my bicycle is a multi-passenger vehicle.
At this point I'm worried I'm getting trolled. But assuming I'm not, what's even worse is that someone feels they are in a position to criticise an OS they quite clearly so poorly understand. From wikipedia article: Multi-user
Multi-user is a term that defines an operating system or application software that allows concurrent access by multiple users of a computer.
Windows NT quite clearly meets this definition. Have you heard of Terminal Services? One example of many. You clearly need to do some serious research into Windows to better understand what you are criticising.
Random dlls, configs, assets and exes in WINDOWS dir.
Do a fresh installation of Windows, don't install anything on it, take a look at the Windows directory. I recommend you sort by file type. You'll notice it's actually quite organised; the "system32" directory for instance, notorious for being a huge mess, is something like 90% just "exe" and "dll" files, and very little else. It's all surprisingly organised. As soon as you start installing programs however, many will just decide to dump stuff in the Windows directory (and subdirs) for literally no good reason. The crap Creative drivers decide to drop is unbelievable, I found out first hand. There is VERY little that _needs_ to be in the Windows directory, application devs need to realise this.
dlls, data, configs and exes in Program Files.
Yes, good thing Unix systems only install programs in users home directories, and not in system-wide accessible directories.
Some data and configs in Documents and Settings.
You might notice each user has a sub directory in "Documents and Settings" (now "Users" in Vista and later), which contains all their personal documents and user-specific configuration files for the OS and applications. Definitely very single user.
Registry.
I'm guessing the distinction between HKLM (Local Machine) and HKCU (Current User) is lost on you? Current User, by the way, is a registry hive specific to the logged on user that is unique to their user profile.
Once again, this all stems from the OS supporting a feature, and the feature not being utilised. Windows NT didn't become a multi-user OS with Windows 2000, or NT 4.0, it was a multi-user OS from the very beginning, the first release being NT 3.1. In fact, that's in part why NT was developed, Microsoft realised that 9x was completely stuffed from a security perspective, and had no hope of ever becoming a serious multi-user OS, so, they started NT (along with various other objectives).
The mass migration of 9x applications designed for a single user environment to the multi-user NT of course resulted in many of these programs having very poor support for multi-user configurations, and were never really updated to support it. Then, there's just simple developer laziness, not caring to develop their application with a multi-user design in mind. Or theirs ignorance, resulting in poor implementation (this is one of the key reasons why so many programs "require" administrator priveleges. Not because they need them, but they use API's that are administrator only to achieve their goals, when there are other API's that can do what they want that have no administrator requirement.)
My point is, it's not Windows that's broken, it's several applications that run on it. It's important to lay the blame correctly, and when the OS has been a multi-user system since its original release in 1993, it's fairly clear to me that Microsoft hasn't been slow to adopt such a design principle.
No, the derivative works from the original BSD-licensed code are "less free". The original BSD licensed code the work was based off is more free.
This is the distinction, GPL places greater emphasis on ensuring that derivative works from the original codebase remain free, BSD doesn't.
The end result is GPL is ideologically less free, but perhaps, more free practically due to the fairly solid guarantee provided that the code and future changes to it will remain free.
Your argument is in all likeliness true, but not entirely fair in my view. If you were to break down your tuition fees so that you knew where every dollar was being spent, I suggest a large portion of it would go into all kinds of things that you never use.
It may go to sporting infrastructure (you're a slashdot poster, so I assume you don't use it;), it may go to infrastructure improvements to faculties that you don't belong, it may go to university services you never use (social services, medical, etc...).
In fact, the same argument not only holds true to your example, but right up to the state/national level. I know my taxes are in part going to building roads, but I don't own a car, it's going to emergency services, but as of yet I've never had to use an emergency service, etc...
My point is, it's simply not feasible nor arguably even fair to take the view that the only things you should ever have to spend money on are things that you directly use. I can fully understand why you or many, many others would never want to use Windows or any other Microsoft product, but for many, it's not only an indispensible product/service but their personal choice.
However, hopefully universities recognise this and provide support/infrastructure for the use of OSS operating systems. The thing is, even though the OS is free, there may still be costs associated with it: IT staff who know how to use it, IT infrastructure that supports it, potentially support contracts with Linux vendors, etc...
While you may be capable of doing everything on your own, many aren't, and you have to look out for these people as well, so bottom line, it all costs money, and someone has to foot it. Generally, it's the student body as a whole.
Addressing the clearly biased and stupid summary, there's no need to guess; a Google search for "Windows Vista Editions" has a link to Windows Vista: Compare editions as the first result.
This outlines what the major differences are between the four main editions. I can only assume the poster isn't familiar with search engines. Yes, there are others, but they aren't for everyday consumers, so you don't need to know about them except for certain specific circumstances. If you meet those, look up the additional details on Technet.
That being said, I do agree that the number of editions is excessive, and should be reduced, not because I find it confusing, but because it's just unnecessary. I'd suggest reducing down from six to four, with only two of those as "mainstream" versions.
Windows 7 Home Premium (equiv. to XP Home, remove the Premium suffix) and Windows 7 Ultimate (equiv. to XP Professional). They can have their Business/Enterprise edition for corporate customers, and finally, a Starter edition for emerging markets. As such, the everyday consumer only chooses between two, business has their own one tailored for business networks, and the asian/middle-east markets have their thoroughly crippled edition that no one will buy.
For the record, XP is even worse than Vista, here's a list of XP editions:
Windows XP Embedded (not the same as below)
Windows XP for Embedded Systems
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP for Legacy PCs
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
Windows XP Professional Edition
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005
Windows XP Starter Edition
It's possible I've missed some, and of course, this doesn't include region specific releases, such as the European mandated "N" editions.
This trend of having an enormous number of different editions didn't start with Vista, it started with XP, and isn't anything new as some would like to think.
1. The difference between China and India, is they don't pretend they are some global guardian or "world police". Nor do they insist on vocally spreading their ideology to all corners of the globe. I don't exempt any nation from moral judgement, but there is an obvious distinction between a country that does something immoral but keeps mostly to itself, and a country that does something immoral, yet loudly touts doing the opposite at the same time.
2. I wasn't referring to all Americans, I was referring to the republican in question, and to a limited extent the rest of the republican party. If you think I was making a blanket statement that all Americans are pure free-market capitalists, then you are grossly mistaken, and completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I can only comment on what this particular republican stated, and what past governments have stated. You have a new government now, which I'm very thankful for, and it's clear to me that their economic ideology differs from your prior government, and so, what I said clearly doesn't apply to them, nor is it likely to apply to the bulk of voters who elected your new government.
3. Many would argue that Federal Governments _DO_ have an obligation to be "fair" and decent to other countries. This is in some cases a legal obligation, but more often a moral obligation. More to the point, you're "guarantee" that I do not expect or want my government to be fair to outsiders is complete and utter bullshit, to put it bluntly, and merely demonstrates the difference in ideology between yourself and me. I'm a humanist, and simply put, I'd rather our government made sacrifices for the greater good of the world in general, than purely advance our own nation with disregard to the greater plight of humanity. If you think that wishing for a government that demonstrates greater compassion and moral responsibility for the world at large makes me an "idiot" so be it, but let me point out, that if that's the case, I pity you.
For me this lawsuit is just absurd, it's a battle of semantics, and one which the conclusion should be obvious from the outset: a complete waste of time.
When someone tells me that my system is "capable" of running something, my assumption isn't: "Oh, well, clearly I can run this product and use every feature available at maximum throughput." Rather, I think: "I can run this, but the performance is unlikely to be optimal and I probably can't run everything it offers."
"Capable" for me is just MS corporate speak for something roughly analoguous to "Minimum System Requirements". Whereas, the "Premium" label is roughly equivalent to "Recommended System Requirements". This isn't some massive distortion of the english language, it's patently obvious to anyone who understands what the word capable means. My system is capable of running Crysis, that doesn't imply I can run it at 1920x1200 with 16xAA and all detail settings maxed.
And, when you look at the lawsuit, the things they are complaining don't work are in my view no way integral to the functioning of the OS: Aero?....Flip3D?! For gods sake, it's eye-candy; in the broader picture, it's insignificant, and in no way fundamentally important to the operation of the OS. Some lawyers are asking the question is Vista Home Basic really even Vista "proper". Well, yes, it is. It shares the same new kernel, improved security architecture, code rewrites, etc... as the other (higher priced) editions of Vista.
I think it's unfortunate that MS lowered the requirements for what is required to gain the Vista Capable certification, but I don't believe that they have misled people as a result. What they have done is damaged their image, but the way they have done so is in my view not due to any illegal activity (in this case).
You think so? These people are I would wager in many if not most cases working for American companies, making money for American companies, and ultimately, boosting the American economy.
In the case of this article, we are talking Microsoft, a wholly American company, so the H-1B's working there are directly helping the American economy.
Frankly, I don't think they owe "Uncle Sam" anything. And, if you won't take them, there's a good chance they'll just go elsewhere, and be a benefit to another nations economy.
Your last sentence puzzles me and I can't figure out how it is in any way relevant whatsoever.
A governments job is to do what is best for its citizens, that's the very point of government; a body of people to serve the interests of the greater people (in theory). The problem for me is when a government preaches one thing and then does something different, as above.
An extreme example would be the whole human rights abuses that have taken place during the "War on Terror(ism)". Allied governments have repeatedly stated their dedication to uphold human rights and to spread such values to other countries, then blatantly violate their own much touted ideals because it is convenient or tempting to do so. It's incredibly hypocritical, as you're saying one thing while taking the moral highground, while doing something in complete contempt of what you are publicly stating.
This is in my view similar. I'm not complaining because they are trying to protect their citizens, I'm complaining because they are doing something that in my view violates the philosophy they espouse, and will continue to espouse, even if the subject matter the article discusses is pursued.
I always twitch when I read these stories, because I always see it as hypocrisy and double-standards.
You constantly hear about free market economics, capitalism, the global economy, etc... from America, but what it really boils down to as always is supporting the above ideals when it's good for America, and then moving them to the side when things get tough. It's the age old "America does what is best for America" mantra.
Microsoft is going to hire and fire the best worker for the job, according to their qualifications; nationality and citizenship should be entirely irrelevant. Not only does this make sense ethically, it makes sense economically (from a corporate perspective). Why hire an inferior worker who holds citizenship when I can hire 'x' H-1B worker who is superior (and, make more money as a result)? Making money is what drives companies.
When you're willing to advocate preferential treatment for an American citizen not because they are better equipped to do the job but purely because they are an American, you're throwing away your ideals of free-markets and global economics. Coming from a republican I find this especially amusing, as it tends to be the republicans that are the strongest advocates of pure-free market economics.
This is potentially a great move from a PR perspective. Most Americans aren't going to call someone out for taking a position that strengthens their ability to gain employment, but from an ideological perspective, it's flimsy at best.
Disclaimer: America isn't the only country that does this kind of stuff, but as arguably the most vocal advocate of the above economic philosophies, it's probably the most hypocritical for doing so.
For me your post illustrates the over usage of the word "evil", or maybe I just have a different idea of what really qualifies for evil.
If someone was to ask me to provide an example of someone who is just plain evil, I'd reply with someone like Robert Mugabe. Completely and utterly corrupt, inhumane, starves his people, an absolute disgrace with no redeeming features.
For someone like the subject of this article, I prefer "unethical". What he did was undoubtedly wrong, but he also did things that immediately illustrate that he DOES have a conscience, examples:
a) Provided an uninstaller
b) Removed viruses (and to a far lesser extent, competing adware)
c) Didn't take it to the next level (capturing credit cards and personal data)
You call him greedy. Well, yes, he was to the extent that his motivation was money. But (do correct me if I'm wrong), I don't get the impression he got rich off what he did. He made some money, but not lots.
You call him ethically bankrupt, but if he truly was bankrupt in the ethics department, why did he do the above?
Why would you provide people a means to remove your software, take the time to remove viruses, and not steal their personal data?
If he has no ethical boundaries, fuck it, just do it. But he didn't, even though by his own admission, he easily could have. For me, this indicates that he's definitely not ethically bankrupt, he has ethical limits, and by extension, he's certainly not evil. Society at times can be far too quick to condemn someone as "evil", "scumbag", whatever. Rarely is it that clear cut, and in this case, it's far more grey.
This is dependent to an extent on what version of Windows you are using, for instance, Vista as I mentioned above has a more stringent security model than XP, which may be beneficial.
While running as a standard user won't prevent malware infection, the difference is, the infection should be localised to the specific user account. The reason being, the only writeable locations should be user specific; e.g. the users profile, the users registry hive, and various temporary storage locations.
Nuking the user profile should in turn nuke the malware. However, I'd have more faith with Vista than XP, in part, because limited user accounts are by default, so the default permissions for various system locations are far more sane. Past Windows versions, as mentioned in my previous post have a great security _architecture_, but are not properly utilised. For example, a powerful ACL system, but with incorrect or foolish ACL's being applied to "x" locations. Vista is better in this regard.
In your case, I'd probably just automatically nuke the user profile after each user is finished, and have it recreated (automatically) when your next client logs in (based off of a common custom template). This way, not only is all malware removed, but any custom settings the user has applied are also removed.
Disclaimer: The above is all well and good, but it won't protect against various exploits and the like, proper patching is of course required to close this hole. That, and Ubuntu is an excellent choice for your needs, frankly, probably better than Windows. I'm just illustrating that the problem you described above can be rectified if properly configured.
The thing you clearly haven't taken into account is user permissions. I would suggest close to every machine that was infected by this software was done through a user with Administrator privileges. Keeping in mind all this was going on before Vista was even released, we're talking pure XP era, where for non-corporate machines, it's almost a guarantee that the logged on user has complete and unrestricted access to the computer by default.
So, of the methods he used, how many would continue to work as a standard user without any administrative permissions? At times he's talking about installing kernel level code through drivers and other fun. I'm not a programmer, and I can't be bothered looking up all the API docs on MSDN, but I suspect a large number of API calls he was using to accomplish his goals would not be available to regular users. Even less so on Vista, where the security model was improved and user rights for regular users are more restrictive.
Keep in mind that everything he did to his Windows victims could just as easily be done to a Unix based box if you were running as root. Luckily, competent Unix users don't ever run as root by default, and distributions don't assign users root accounts by default either.
My point is, this is less a problem of Windows simply not having a good security architecture in place and/or said architecture being fundamentally broke, but as so often happens, it being ignored or incorrectly used.
I think you're being a little harsh, not to mention very black and white.
Firstly, he's not a serial killer, he hasn't killed anyone; he's just irritated a LOT of people by installing infuriating software that's a pain to remove; in my view, this isn't quite of the same calibre as murdering people.
And if you read the interview, you'd see he's not really evil, like many/most/all serial killers, but a very intelligent young person.
His actions were motivated out of being extremely poor, he needed the money, and so he got involved in dodgy software programming. This isn't a justification for what he did, but it's nevertheless important to note. Further, he removed a lot of viruses and adware through his own adware, I'm not sure if this qualifies as grey hat behaviour, but once again, it blurs the line. Most importantly, he's reformed, and persuing an honest living, as well as providing insight into his past actions. I found his explanation of the measures he took to ensure his software remained on the infected computer fascinating from a technical perspective, there were some very clever approaches there.
I don't agree with what he did, but I'm not going to relegate him to "scumbag" status, and I wouldn't be surprised if over the coming years and decades, he makes many valuable contributions to IT and the Ruby community in particular.
It seems you're correct and I fucked up, I'm confusing driver signing requirements with WHQL and associated programs.
The official line seems to be that signing of drivers ensures that the publisher of the driver is legitimate (and the driver hasn't been tampered) with, but this doesn't seem to be worthwhile considering the signing expenditure.
The problem here is no matter what you do, someone loses.
If you allow unrestricted access to unsigned drivers, you are going to allow substandard drivers to be installed onto the system, which will cause instability and ultimately complete system crashes; these aren't pleasant. The customer will then ultimately blame Microsoft, because, after all, Windows crashed. Slashdot picks up on it, abuses MS for having an unstable OS, despite the fact "x" tiny upstart Taiwan tech company was the cause of the crash with a poorly coded driver that was installed right into the kernel.
If you disallow unsigned drivers, overall driver quality should improve somewhat with the additional checks on drivers (how much and whether it's worthwhile is up for debate). Of course, you create additional overhead for driver devs and additional costs. Slashdot will pick up on it, abuse MS for going after small-time and open-source driver devs who can no longer afford to publish their drivers for x64 as they aren't signed. Microsoft is evil and intentionally destroying driver developers who aren't in the employ of corporations with fat wallets.
I lean towards the enforcement of driver signing, as Windows does have a history of instability, and a very significant portion (I suspect a majority) of that is due to buggy drivers. If Microsoft wants to clean up their image, and create a more stable OS, I'm not going to go berserk against them.
I think the points about unsigned drivers that are made by small entities is valid, but, these drivers are probably only of interest to geeks in the first place. Ideally, I think MS should continue doing what they are doing, but remove the intrusive "Test Mode" desktop watermark. Those who are willing to set this bootflag should know what they are doing.
Then again, there will be an argument that this is a security concern. Malware might intentionally set this bootflag to enable it to load dodgy code into the kernel, and this watermark can clue users in that something is abnormal, especially if it appears out of nowhere. So, it's a convoluted issue.
but I would almost assume that drives are accessible without directly accessing the corresponding letter within Vista/7 it's just not fully implimented yet...
I'm not positive if this is what you mean, but Windows NT has supported volume mount points on existing file systems for a very long time.
So, if you wish to mount a drive to x:\my-drive, you can. This functionality dates back to Windows 2000. The only major limitation is the file system you are putting a mount point on must be NTFS (FAT32 and alike don't support anything like this).
I really don't see the problem with drive letters, I don't find them unintuitive, and if you wish to use a more traditional Unix-like model of grafting everything onto a root filesystem, there's nothing to stop you. The only difference is you obviously must have at least one HD assigned to a drive letter, C:, which you can effectively think of as your Windows equivalent to '/'.
It's not a matter of can't, it's simply that they decided it was time to drop support. 16-bit applications were effectively superceded in 1993 with the release of the 386, and that was over 15 years ago.
People consistently abuse Microsoft for being far too committed to backwards compatibility, and here they finally made the decision it was time to drop support. I'm not criticising you by the way, your post serves as a useful illustration that even today people still have a need (or want) to run 16-bit apps. However, the migration from one instruction set to another seems to me to be a great opportunity to drop support for the architecture preceding the one being migrated from.
For the record, you still can run 16-bit applications under 64-bit Windows, just not out-of-the-box. I suggest you investigate something like virtualisation or DOSBox. This will allow you to run your 16-bit applications just as well as with the 16-bit layer, and in the case of virtualisation, probably better.
I read your post thoroughly, and replied thoroughly. I shall do it again.
There are likely only two potential types of XP installations you will be using: OEM and Retail. As such, you should need to burn a maximum of two CD's to cover the vast majority if not all of client licensing requirements. You are within your legal rights to do the above, as you are still using legal product keys that the client has legally purchased. The source of the installation media is irrelevant, it is the license entitlement that matters. Thus, your total baggage is......two CD's.
I assume you are also carrying a USB Key or Portable HDD unless you are redownloading SP3 and potentially other applications at every client PC, which is a waste of bandwidth and certainly not efficient. Oh wait, you are! The time spent downloading could be removed if you simply carry the binary with you. USB Keys are not large, the airline will not charge you additional for carrying one.
Finally, if you are reinstalling the machines using the original installation media from the OEM, as I am guessing (incorrectly?) most of your client machines are just pre-made Dell/HP/IBM/whatever boxes, then you shouldn't even need to install drivers. These are usually integrated into the OEM XP Installation CD, for the express purpose of removing the necessity to install drivers, both for the convenience of the OEM during initial installation and for the client for subsequent (re)-installations.
So, not only would all of the above save time, it would require little preparation to do, would be entirely legal, and the new media should serve you till the end of XP's lifecycle; MS will _NOT_ be releasing another Service Pack for XP, I can guarantee that with 99% probability. So the CD's should not need to be remastered for a future update.
As for bringing my IT crap with me, you're correct, I don't. Two reasons:
1. I very rarely ever need to reinstall the OS on clients machines, it's a last resort, and I find it unusual that I can't find a better solution.
2. Nearly all machines I service have an OEM recovery partition for complete reinstallation of the OS without media, restoring it to the condition it was in when it left the factory, so media isn't required.
Actually, I do carry some equipment. A USB Key with common and very useful applications: XP SP3/Vista SP1/Sysinternals Suite/Avast/Ad-Aware/Spybot/other bits and pieces. I find they can be invaluable in patching machines up and diagnosing problems.
a) If you're installing SP3 every time (as you should be), why are you doing it separately? You should be slipstreaming the SP3 installation into the original installation media, so no separate installation is required, it's integrated as part of the main install. This will save a significant amount of time (by your estimation, an hour), and many would argue, is cleaner as well. It'll probably even save space, as old files from the RTM/SP1/SP2 installation won't be backed up.
b) Assuming these are just everyday desktop boxes, most of the hardware should be found on Windows Update in the hardware section, this isn't a guarantee, but I've had great success with it. It of course won't be the latest available much of the time, but it will likely have been tested by Microsoft and certified, so stability is likely very high. What isn't found, manually install.
c) When copying the saved data back, the permission specific metadata will usually (I add the qualifier for specific cases that no doubt exist) automatically change to match the logged on user doing the copying. If they don't, change them? You say you should be able to change the UID, by UID, I assume you mean either the owner or the permissions. You can change the owner and permissions of all files and folders in a directory recursively through the permissions GUI in Explorer, or do it by the command line: takeown.exe for fiddling with ownership, cacls.exe for ACL's (icacls.exe is preferred in Vista). You have _BOTH_ a GUI and CLI frontend to make the changes you desire, so what's the problem?
Finally, some of your estimations seem a little "padded", I've done a ridiculous amount of XP installations, and THREE HOURS?! What are you installing it on? You'd be hard pushed to find 2001 era hardware from the original XP release that took anywhere near that long. In my experience, 1.5hrs is usually the upper bound, with 30minutes the lower bound.
Bluntly, this comes down to competence; a competent technician knows the tricks to accomplish his objective efficiently and save time, just like a efficient Linux/Unix admin will save time with his tricks of the trade. The above three recommendations, _especially_ the first of slipstreaming the service pack is ridiculously basic. If you aren't doing this, I wonder what else you are doing wrong that isn't in your account.
I'm not even going into the whole registry, security, out of control dev's of your last paragraph. It'd take forever, and is just a random selection/rant of Windows issues that are frequently not issues and just poorly understood and managed.
Even if Microsoft determines that your copy of Windows is pirated (false-positive issues aside), you're still able to receive security and critical updates. However, I believe only through the automatic updates mechanism, going to the Windows/Microsoft update web-site will fail during scanning due to a piracy check failure.
Of course, the above doesn't apply to Vista and newer which dumps the dependency on updating through a website in favour of a Windows Update control panel applet.
So, apart from the annoying nags, the only updates you won't receive with a pirated copy are "feature" updates, various bugfixes, etc...; in short, things that aren't security related.
I loathe Conroy, and everything national internet filtering involves, but in this case, it's more than just a technicality.
Whereas all the other major contenders submitted official proposals in the tender process, Telstra instead submitted an "informal" proposal that lacked significant details that the other official proposals had, not to mention vague estimations on things as minor as "network coverage". Further, many of these estimations fell far short of the government requirements in the first place. Add in the fact that Telstra wanted their flawed and half-baked proposal to be considered with the same standing as the detailed official tenders their rivals had submitted, and you being to realise that Telstra is just a joke.
Today it emerged that they didn't submit details on how they intended to liase with and include small business in the construction and development process; which is oh-so-fitting keeping in mind this is a giant telecom monopoly.
These articles better explain how absurd Telstra's position and conduct regarding the tender process has been to date. I challenge you to read them and not agree that they should have been kicked out of the evaluation process. Frankly, I'd have kicked them out some time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree this clearly isn't a tool for network deployment, but that doesn't get past the fact that it might be downloaded on one machine for use on another. The sample KB he used was for fixing a fairly mundane problem, but there may well be other problems this tool would be used for that are more severe, severe enough that the use of a different machine to retrieve the tool may be required. Not to mention the possibility of the affected machine simply not having an active internet connection.
As for KB articles, to my knowledge they only changed things once, when they moved to the KB naming scheme from the Q naming scheme, and that was a long time ago. They may have changed DNS addresses or something, but even when they moved to the KB system, the actual article number didn't change, just the prefix.
Windows Vista introduced Mandatory Integrity Control which is a form of Mandatory Access Control.
And why does Windows let random applications install whatever they want, wherever they want, instead of enforcing or at least publishing some standards?
For the same reason that when you install a program on a Unix system, let's say using sudo rpm/apt-get/emerge/whatever, there isn't anything stopping said program from dumping everything in /bin, or /lib, when things should really be put under various directories in /usr/local. The thing is, this doesn't happen, because Unix systems have had a well defined directory hierarchy for a long time that explains where different types of data should go, the programmers generally respect it, and follow it. A good example is the FreeBSD hier(7) manpage. It beautifully lays out where everything should go.
You mention publishing some standards and this is _exactly_ what Microsoft should have done early on. Several MS developers have said they screwed up with this. I think where most things are meant to go is fairly obvious personally, but you can't make assumptions that people will just "figure it out themselves", history has shown that time and time again, especially in computing. A well defined set of "rules" (I don't believe they should be strictly enforced in software, for the same reasons Unix doesn't, or any other OS to my knowledge) that points out where various types of data are meant to be placed in both the filesystem and the registry would go a long way to cleaning up the mess.
The only time I can think of when Unix puts stuff in system directories is when I tell it to.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'd describe a system directory as a directory that requires Administrator/super-user privileges to modify. In this case, whenever something is installed anywhere outside of /home (which does happen) and /var, /tmp (I hope not), then something has been put in a system directory. Frankly, the overwhelming majority of things installed do go in system directories, whether non-privileged users can actually use the programs, is of course, a separate issue. As above, when you type in that magic command to install a package, you take it on faith that it will put its files in the right place, and most of the time it will. Windows needs to do the same.
How is any NT-based desktop a multi-user system? Because someone else can log in once I log out? By that metric, my bicycle is a multi-passenger vehicle.
At this point I'm worried I'm getting trolled. But assuming I'm not, what's even worse is that someone feels they are in a position to criticise an OS they quite clearly so poorly understand. From wikipedia article: Multi-user
Multi-user is a term that defines an operating system or application software that allows concurrent access by multiple users of a computer.
Windows NT quite clearly meets this definition. Have you heard of Terminal Services? One example of many. You clearly need to do some serious research into Windows to better understand what you are criticising.
Random dlls, configs, assets and exes in WINDOWS dir.
Do a fresh installation of Windows, don't install anything on it, take a look at the Windows directory. I recommend you sort by file type. You'll notice it's actually quite organised; the "system32" directory for instance, notorious for being a huge mess, is something like 90% just "exe" and "dll" files, and very little else. It's all surprisingly organised. As soon as you start installing programs however, many will just decide to dump stuff in the Windows directory (and subdirs) for literally no good reason. The crap Creative drivers decide to drop is unbelievable, I found out first hand. There is VERY little that _needs_ to be in the Windows directory, application devs need to realise this.
dlls, data, configs and exes in Program Files.
Yes, good thing Unix systems only install programs in users home directories, and not in system-wide accessible directories.
Some data and configs in Documents and Settings.
You might notice each user has a sub directory in "Documents and Settings" (now "Users" in Vista and later), which contains all their personal documents and user-specific configuration files for the OS and applications. Definitely very single user.
Registry.
I'm guessing the distinction between HKLM (Local Machine) and HKCU (Current User) is lost on you? Current User, by the way, is a registry hive specific to the logged on user that is unique to their user profile.
Once again, this all stems from the OS supporting a feature, and the feature not being utilised. Windows NT didn't become a multi-user OS with Windows 2000, or NT 4.0, it was a multi-user OS from the very beginning, the first release being NT 3.1. In fact, that's in part why NT was developed, Microsoft realised that 9x was completely stuffed from a security perspective, and had no hope of ever becoming a serious multi-user OS, so, they started NT (along with various other objectives).
The mass migration of 9x applications designed for a single user environment to the multi-user NT of course resulted in many of these programs having very poor support for multi-user configurations, and were never really updated to support it. Then, there's just simple developer laziness, not caring to develop their application with a multi-user design in mind. Or theirs ignorance, resulting in poor implementation (this is one of the key reasons why so many programs "require" administrator priveleges. Not because they need them, but they use API's that are administrator only to achieve their goals, when there are other API's that can do what they want that have no administrator requirement.)
My point is, it's not Windows that's broken, it's several applications that run on it. It's important to lay the blame correctly, and when the OS has been a multi-user system since its original release in 1993, it's fairly clear to me that Microsoft hasn't been slow to adopt such a design principle.
No, the derivative works from the original BSD-licensed code are "less free". The original BSD licensed code the work was based off is more free.
This is the distinction, GPL places greater emphasis on ensuring that derivative works from the original codebase remain free, BSD doesn't.
The end result is GPL is ideologically less free, but perhaps, more free practically due to the fairly solid guarantee provided that the code and future changes to it will remain free.
Your argument is in all likeliness true, but not entirely fair in my view. If you were to break down your tuition fees so that you knew where every dollar was being spent, I suggest a large portion of it would go into all kinds of things that you never use.
;), it may go to infrastructure improvements to faculties that you don't belong, it may go to university services you never use (social services, medical, etc...).
It may go to sporting infrastructure (you're a slashdot poster, so I assume you don't use it
In fact, the same argument not only holds true to your example, but right up to the state/national level. I know my taxes are in part going to building roads, but I don't own a car, it's going to emergency services, but as of yet I've never had to use an emergency service, etc...
My point is, it's simply not feasible nor arguably even fair to take the view that the only things you should ever have to spend money on are things that you directly use. I can fully understand why you or many, many others would never want to use Windows or any other Microsoft product, but for many, it's not only an indispensible product/service but their personal choice.
However, hopefully universities recognise this and provide support/infrastructure for the use of OSS operating systems. The thing is, even though the OS is free, there may still be costs associated with it: IT staff who know how to use it, IT infrastructure that supports it, potentially support contracts with Linux vendors, etc...
While you may be capable of doing everything on your own, many aren't, and you have to look out for these people as well, so bottom line, it all costs money, and someone has to foot it. Generally, it's the student body as a whole.
Haha, good point.
And, technically, there were two of those:
Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Itanium systems, Version 2002
Windows XP 64-bit Edition, Version 2003
So, we're up to 14 distinct editions of Windows XP. My point being, this makes all the whinging about Vista's six look a little ridiculous.
Addressing the clearly biased and stupid summary, there's no need to guess; a Google search for "Windows Vista Editions" has a link to Windows Vista: Compare editions as the first result.
This outlines what the major differences are between the four main editions. I can only assume the poster isn't familiar with search engines. Yes, there are others, but they aren't for everyday consumers, so you don't need to know about them except for certain specific circumstances. If you meet those, look up the additional details on Technet.
That being said, I do agree that the number of editions is excessive, and should be reduced, not because I find it confusing, but because it's just unnecessary. I'd suggest reducing down from six to four, with only two of those as "mainstream" versions.
Windows 7 Home Premium (equiv. to XP Home, remove the Premium suffix) and Windows 7 Ultimate (equiv. to XP Professional). They can have their Business/Enterprise edition for corporate customers, and finally, a Starter edition for emerging markets. As such, the everyday consumer only chooses between two, business has their own one tailored for business networks, and the asian/middle-east markets have their thoroughly crippled edition that no one will buy.
For the record, XP is even worse than Vista, here's a list of XP editions:
Windows XP Embedded (not the same as below)
Windows XP for Embedded Systems
Windows XP Home Edition
Windows XP for Legacy PCs
Windows XP Media Center Edition
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005
Windows XP Professional Edition
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005
Windows XP Starter Edition
It's possible I've missed some, and of course, this doesn't include region specific releases, such as the European mandated "N" editions.
This trend of having an enormous number of different editions didn't start with Vista, it started with XP, and isn't anything new as some would like to think.
I think you need to calm down.
1. The difference between China and India, is they don't pretend they are some global guardian or "world police". Nor do they insist on vocally spreading their ideology to all corners of the globe. I don't exempt any nation from moral judgement, but there is an obvious distinction between a country that does something immoral but keeps mostly to itself, and a country that does something immoral, yet loudly touts doing the opposite at the same time.
2. I wasn't referring to all Americans, I was referring to the republican in question, and to a limited extent the rest of the republican party. If you think I was making a blanket statement that all Americans are pure free-market capitalists, then you are grossly mistaken, and completely misinterpreted what I wrote. I can only comment on what this particular republican stated, and what past governments have stated. You have a new government now, which I'm very thankful for, and it's clear to me that their economic ideology differs from your prior government, and so, what I said clearly doesn't apply to them, nor is it likely to apply to the bulk of voters who elected your new government.
3. Many would argue that Federal Governments _DO_ have an obligation to be "fair" and decent to other countries. This is in some cases a legal obligation, but more often a moral obligation. More to the point, you're "guarantee" that I do not expect or want my government to be fair to outsiders is complete and utter bullshit, to put it bluntly, and merely demonstrates the difference in ideology between yourself and me. I'm a humanist, and simply put, I'd rather our government made sacrifices for the greater good of the world in general, than purely advance our own nation with disregard to the greater plight of humanity. If you think that wishing for a government that demonstrates greater compassion and moral responsibility for the world at large makes me an "idiot" so be it, but let me point out, that if that's the case, I pity you.
For the record, I don't watch Fox News.
For me this lawsuit is just absurd, it's a battle of semantics, and one which the conclusion should be obvious from the outset: a complete waste of time.
....Flip3D?! For gods sake, it's eye-candy; in the broader picture, it's insignificant, and in no way fundamentally important to the operation of the OS. Some lawyers are asking the question is Vista Home Basic really even Vista "proper". Well, yes, it is. It shares the same new kernel, improved security architecture, code rewrites, etc... as the other (higher priced) editions of Vista.
When someone tells me that my system is "capable" of running something, my assumption isn't: "Oh, well, clearly I can run this product and use every feature available at maximum throughput." Rather, I think: "I can run this, but the performance is unlikely to be optimal and I probably can't run everything it offers."
"Capable" for me is just MS corporate speak for something roughly analoguous to "Minimum System Requirements". Whereas, the "Premium" label is roughly equivalent to "Recommended System Requirements". This isn't some massive distortion of the english language, it's patently obvious to anyone who understands what the word capable means. My system is capable of running Crysis, that doesn't imply I can run it at 1920x1200 with 16xAA and all detail settings maxed.
And, when you look at the lawsuit, the things they are complaining don't work are in my view no way integral to the functioning of the OS: Aero?
I think it's unfortunate that MS lowered the requirements for what is required to gain the Vista Capable certification, but I don't believe that they have misled people as a result. What they have done is damaged their image, but the way they have done so is in my view not due to any illegal activity (in this case).
owe Uncle Sam something
You think so? These people are I would wager in many if not most cases working for American companies, making money for American companies, and ultimately, boosting the American economy.
In the case of this article, we are talking Microsoft, a wholly American company, so the H-1B's working there are directly helping the American economy.
Frankly, I don't think they owe "Uncle Sam" anything. And, if you won't take them, there's a good chance they'll just go elsewhere, and be a benefit to another nations economy.
Your last sentence puzzles me and I can't figure out how it is in any way relevant whatsoever.
Clearly you didn't read my disclaimer.
A governments job is to do what is best for its citizens, that's the very point of government; a body of people to serve the interests of the greater people (in theory). The problem for me is when a government preaches one thing and then does something different, as above.
An extreme example would be the whole human rights abuses that have taken place during the "War on Terror(ism)". Allied governments have repeatedly stated their dedication to uphold human rights and to spread such values to other countries, then blatantly violate their own much touted ideals because it is convenient or tempting to do so. It's incredibly hypocritical, as you're saying one thing while taking the moral highground, while doing something in complete contempt of what you are publicly stating.
This is in my view similar. I'm not complaining because they are trying to protect their citizens, I'm complaining because they are doing something that in my view violates the philosophy they espouse, and will continue to espouse, even if the subject matter the article discusses is pursued.
I always twitch when I read these stories, because I always see it as hypocrisy and double-standards.
You constantly hear about free market economics, capitalism, the global economy, etc... from America, but what it really boils down to as always is supporting the above ideals when it's good for America, and then moving them to the side when things get tough. It's the age old "America does what is best for America" mantra.
Microsoft is going to hire and fire the best worker for the job, according to their qualifications; nationality and citizenship should be entirely irrelevant. Not only does this make sense ethically, it makes sense economically (from a corporate perspective). Why hire an inferior worker who holds citizenship when I can hire 'x' H-1B worker who is superior (and, make more money as a result)? Making money is what drives companies.
When you're willing to advocate preferential treatment for an American citizen not because they are better equipped to do the job but purely because they are an American, you're throwing away your ideals of free-markets and global economics. Coming from a republican I find this especially amusing, as it tends to be the republicans that are the strongest advocates of pure-free market economics.
This is potentially a great move from a PR perspective. Most Americans aren't going to call someone out for taking a position that strengthens their ability to gain employment, but from an ideological perspective, it's flimsy at best.
Disclaimer: America isn't the only country that does this kind of stuff, but as arguably the most vocal advocate of the above economic philosophies, it's probably the most hypocritical for doing so.
For me your post illustrates the over usage of the word "evil", or maybe I just have a different idea of what really qualifies for evil.
If someone was to ask me to provide an example of someone who is just plain evil, I'd reply with someone like Robert Mugabe. Completely and utterly corrupt, inhumane, starves his people, an absolute disgrace with no redeeming features.
For someone like the subject of this article, I prefer "unethical". What he did was undoubtedly wrong, but he also did things that immediately illustrate that he DOES have a conscience, examples:
a) Provided an uninstaller
b) Removed viruses (and to a far lesser extent, competing adware)
c) Didn't take it to the next level (capturing credit cards and personal data)
You call him greedy. Well, yes, he was to the extent that his motivation was money. But (do correct me if I'm wrong), I don't get the impression he got rich off what he did. He made some money, but not lots.
You call him ethically bankrupt, but if he truly was bankrupt in the ethics department, why did he do the above?
Why would you provide people a means to remove your software, take the time to remove viruses, and not steal their personal data?
If he has no ethical boundaries, fuck it, just do it. But he didn't, even though by his own admission, he easily could have. For me, this indicates that he's definitely not ethically bankrupt, he has ethical limits, and by extension, he's certainly not evil. Society at times can be far too quick to condemn someone as "evil", "scumbag", whatever. Rarely is it that clear cut, and in this case, it's far more grey.
This is dependent to an extent on what version of Windows you are using, for instance, Vista as I mentioned above has a more stringent security model than XP, which may be beneficial.
While running as a standard user won't prevent malware infection, the difference is, the infection should be localised to the specific user account. The reason being, the only writeable locations should be user specific; e.g. the users profile, the users registry hive, and various temporary storage locations.
Nuking the user profile should in turn nuke the malware. However, I'd have more faith with Vista than XP, in part, because limited user accounts are by default, so the default permissions for various system locations are far more sane. Past Windows versions, as mentioned in my previous post have a great security _architecture_, but are not properly utilised. For example, a powerful ACL system, but with incorrect or foolish ACL's being applied to "x" locations. Vista is better in this regard.
In your case, I'd probably just automatically nuke the user profile after each user is finished, and have it recreated (automatically) when your next client logs in (based off of a common custom template). This way, not only is all malware removed, but any custom settings the user has applied are also removed.
Disclaimer: The above is all well and good, but it won't protect against various exploits and the like, proper patching is of course required to close this hole. That, and Ubuntu is an excellent choice for your needs, frankly, probably better than Windows. I'm just illustrating that the problem you described above can be rectified if properly configured.
The thing you clearly haven't taken into account is user permissions. I would suggest close to every machine that was infected by this software was done through a user with Administrator privileges. Keeping in mind all this was going on before Vista was even released, we're talking pure XP era, where for non-corporate machines, it's almost a guarantee that the logged on user has complete and unrestricted access to the computer by default.
So, of the methods he used, how many would continue to work as a standard user without any administrative permissions? At times he's talking about installing kernel level code through drivers and other fun. I'm not a programmer, and I can't be bothered looking up all the API docs on MSDN, but I suspect a large number of API calls he was using to accomplish his goals would not be available to regular users. Even less so on Vista, where the security model was improved and user rights for regular users are more restrictive.
Keep in mind that everything he did to his Windows victims could just as easily be done to a Unix based box if you were running as root. Luckily, competent Unix users don't ever run as root by default, and distributions don't assign users root accounts by default either.
My point is, this is less a problem of Windows simply not having a good security architecture in place and/or said architecture being fundamentally broke, but as so often happens, it being ignored or incorrectly used.
I think you're being a little harsh, not to mention very black and white.
Firstly, he's not a serial killer, he hasn't killed anyone; he's just irritated a LOT of people by installing infuriating software that's a pain to remove; in my view, this isn't quite of the same calibre as murdering people.
And if you read the interview, you'd see he's not really evil, like many/most/all serial killers, but a very intelligent young person.
His actions were motivated out of being extremely poor, he needed the money, and so he got involved in dodgy software programming. This isn't a justification for what he did, but it's nevertheless important to note. Further, he removed a lot of viruses and adware through his own adware, I'm not sure if this qualifies as grey hat behaviour, but once again, it blurs the line. Most importantly, he's reformed, and persuing an honest living, as well as providing insight into his past actions. I found his explanation of the measures he took to ensure his software remained on the infected computer fascinating from a technical perspective, there were some very clever approaches there.
I don't agree with what he did, but I'm not going to relegate him to "scumbag" status, and I wouldn't be surprised if over the coming years and decades, he makes many valuable contributions to IT and the Ruby community in particular.
It seems you're correct and I fucked up, I'm confusing driver signing requirements with WHQL and associated programs.
:)
The official line seems to be that signing of drivers ensures that the publisher of the driver is legitimate (and the driver hasn't been tampered) with, but this doesn't seem to be worthwhile considering the signing expenditure.
Thanks for enlightening me.
The problem here is no matter what you do, someone loses.
If you allow unrestricted access to unsigned drivers, you are going to allow substandard drivers to be installed onto the system, which will cause instability and ultimately complete system crashes; these aren't pleasant. The customer will then ultimately blame Microsoft, because, after all, Windows crashed. Slashdot picks up on it, abuses MS for having an unstable OS, despite the fact "x" tiny upstart Taiwan tech company was the cause of the crash with a poorly coded driver that was installed right into the kernel.
If you disallow unsigned drivers, overall driver quality should improve somewhat with the additional checks on drivers (how much and whether it's worthwhile is up for debate). Of course, you create additional overhead for driver devs and additional costs. Slashdot will pick up on it, abuse MS for going after small-time and open-source driver devs who can no longer afford to publish their drivers for x64 as they aren't signed. Microsoft is evil and intentionally destroying driver developers who aren't in the employ of corporations with fat wallets.
I lean towards the enforcement of driver signing, as Windows does have a history of instability, and a very significant portion (I suspect a majority) of that is due to buggy drivers. If Microsoft wants to clean up their image, and create a more stable OS, I'm not going to go berserk against them.
I think the points about unsigned drivers that are made by small entities is valid, but, these drivers are probably only of interest to geeks in the first place. Ideally, I think MS should continue doing what they are doing, but remove the intrusive "Test Mode" desktop watermark. Those who are willing to set this bootflag should know what they are doing.
Then again, there will be an argument that this is a security concern. Malware might intentionally set this bootflag to enable it to load dodgy code into the kernel, and this watermark can clue users in that something is abnormal, especially if it appears out of nowhere. So, it's a convoluted issue.
For those annoyed by the Test Mode watermark: http://forums.mydigitallife.info/showthread.php?t=1808
but I would almost assume that drives are accessible without directly accessing the corresponding letter within Vista/7 it's just not fully implimented yet...
I'm not positive if this is what you mean, but Windows NT has supported volume mount points on existing file systems for a very long time.
So, if you wish to mount a drive to x:\my-drive, you can. This functionality dates back to Windows 2000. The only major limitation is the file system you are putting a mount point on must be NTFS (FAT32 and alike don't support anything like this).
I really don't see the problem with drive letters, I don't find them unintuitive, and if you wish to use a more traditional Unix-like model of grafting everything onto a root filesystem, there's nothing to stop you. The only difference is you obviously must have at least one HD assigned to a drive letter, C:, which you can effectively think of as your Windows equivalent to '/'.
It's not a matter of can't, it's simply that they decided it was time to drop support. 16-bit applications were effectively superceded in 1993 with the release of the 386, and that was over 15 years ago.
People consistently abuse Microsoft for being far too committed to backwards compatibility, and here they finally made the decision it was time to drop support. I'm not criticising you by the way, your post serves as a useful illustration that even today people still have a need (or want) to run 16-bit apps. However, the migration from one instruction set to another seems to me to be a great opportunity to drop support for the architecture preceding the one being migrated from.
For the record, you still can run 16-bit applications under 64-bit Windows, just not out-of-the-box. I suggest you investigate something like virtualisation or DOSBox. This will allow you to run your 16-bit applications just as well as with the 16-bit layer, and in the case of virtualisation, probably better.
I read your post thoroughly, and replied thoroughly. I shall do it again.
There are likely only two potential types of XP installations you will be using: OEM and Retail. As such, you should need to burn a maximum of two CD's to cover the vast majority if not all of client licensing requirements. You are within your legal rights to do the above, as you are still using legal product keys that the client has legally purchased. The source of the installation media is irrelevant, it is the license entitlement that matters. Thus, your total baggage is......two CD's.
I assume you are also carrying a USB Key or Portable HDD unless you are redownloading SP3 and potentially other applications at every client PC, which is a waste of bandwidth and certainly not efficient. Oh wait, you are! The time spent downloading could be removed if you simply carry the binary with you. USB Keys are not large, the airline will not charge you additional for carrying one.
Finally, if you are reinstalling the machines using the original installation media from the OEM, as I am guessing (incorrectly?) most of your client machines are just pre-made Dell/HP/IBM/whatever boxes, then you shouldn't even need to install drivers. These are usually integrated into the OEM XP Installation CD, for the express purpose of removing the necessity to install drivers, both for the convenience of the OEM during initial installation and for the client for subsequent (re)-installations.
So, not only would all of the above save time, it would require little preparation to do, would be entirely legal, and the new media should serve you till the end of XP's lifecycle; MS will _NOT_ be releasing another Service Pack for XP, I can guarantee that with 99% probability. So the CD's should not need to be remastered for a future update.
As for bringing my IT crap with me, you're correct, I don't. Two reasons:
1. I very rarely ever need to reinstall the OS on clients machines, it's a last resort, and I find it unusual that I can't find a better solution.
2. Nearly all machines I service have an OEM recovery partition for complete reinstallation of the OS without media, restoring it to the condition it was in when it left the factory, so media isn't required.
Actually, I do carry some equipment. A USB Key with common and very useful applications: XP SP3/Vista SP1/Sysinternals Suite/Avast/Ad-Aware/Spybot/other bits and pieces. I find they can be invaluable in patching machines up and diagnosing problems.
Some of those acres are self imposed, let's see:
a) If you're installing SP3 every time (as you should be), why are you doing it separately? You should be slipstreaming the SP3 installation into the original installation media, so no separate installation is required, it's integrated as part of the main install. This will save a significant amount of time (by your estimation, an hour), and many would argue, is cleaner as well. It'll probably even save space, as old files from the RTM/SP1/SP2 installation won't be backed up.
b) Assuming these are just everyday desktop boxes, most of the hardware should be found on Windows Update in the hardware section, this isn't a guarantee, but I've had great success with it. It of course won't be the latest available much of the time, but it will likely have been tested by Microsoft and certified, so stability is likely very high. What isn't found, manually install.
c) When copying the saved data back, the permission specific metadata will usually (I add the qualifier for specific cases that no doubt exist) automatically change to match the logged on user doing the copying. If they don't, change them? You say you should be able to change the UID, by UID, I assume you mean either the owner or the permissions. You can change the owner and permissions of all files and folders in a directory recursively through the permissions GUI in Explorer, or do it by the command line: takeown.exe for fiddling with ownership, cacls.exe for ACL's (icacls.exe is preferred in Vista). You have _BOTH_ a GUI and CLI frontend to make the changes you desire, so what's the problem?
Finally, some of your estimations seem a little "padded", I've done a ridiculous amount of XP installations, and THREE HOURS?! What are you installing it on? You'd be hard pushed to find 2001 era hardware from the original XP release that took anywhere near that long. In my experience, 1.5hrs is usually the upper bound, with 30minutes the lower bound.
Bluntly, this comes down to competence; a competent technician knows the tricks to accomplish his objective efficiently and save time, just like a efficient Linux/Unix admin will save time with his tricks of the trade. The above three recommendations, _especially_ the first of slipstreaming the service pack is ridiculously basic. If you aren't doing this, I wonder what else you are doing wrong that isn't in your account.
I'm not even going into the whole registry, security, out of control dev's of your last paragraph. It'd take forever, and is just a random selection/rant of Windows issues that are frequently not issues and just poorly understood and managed.
Even if Microsoft determines that your copy of Windows is pirated (false-positive issues aside), you're still able to receive security and critical updates. However, I believe only through the automatic updates mechanism, going to the Windows/Microsoft update web-site will fail during scanning due to a piracy check failure.
Of course, the above doesn't apply to Vista and newer which dumps the dependency on updating through a website in favour of a Windows Update control panel applet.
So, apart from the annoying nags, the only updates you won't receive with a pirated copy are "feature" updates, various bugfixes, etc...; in short, things that aren't security related.
I loathe Conroy, and everything national internet filtering involves, but in this case, it's more than just a technicality.
Whereas all the other major contenders submitted official proposals in the tender process, Telstra instead submitted an "informal" proposal that lacked significant details that the other official proposals had, not to mention vague estimations on things as minor as "network coverage". Further, many of these estimations fell far short of the government requirements in the first place. Add in the fact that Telstra wanted their flawed and half-baked proposal to be considered with the same standing as the detailed official tenders their rivals had submitted, and you being to realise that Telstra is just a joke.
Today it emerged that they didn't submit details on how they intended to liase with and include small business in the construction and development process; which is oh-so-fitting keeping in mind this is a giant telecom monopoly.
These articles better explain how absurd Telstra's position and conduct regarding the tender process has been to date. I challenge you to read them and not agree that they should have been kicked out of the evaluation process. Frankly, I'd have kicked them out some time ago.
Telstra bends the rules on internet bid
Telstra excluded from broadband network tender