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