Colin--
"I don't know what is going on with BitLocker. BitLocker operates above
the block level so VSS can take snapshots and CompletePC Backup can
restore a volume in spite of BitLocker. In such a restore scenario the
files would no longer be encrypted, however, and BitLocker would have to
applied again to restore the encryption. Obviously the permissions to
CompletePC Backup are sensitive indeed if the local system has encrypted
volumes.
But I do know that booting into Safe Mode in XP will not kill the Vista
restore points because VSS is not active in Safe Mode. That is why you
cannot create a restore point in Safe Mode. System Restore depends on
VSS to take the snapshot for a new restore point. System Restore does
not depend on VSS to restore to a saved point because no snapshot is
needed (already taken). That is why System Restore in Safe Mode is only
one way. Folks assume that manipulating System Restore in Vista and XP
somehow can affect the dying Vista RP problem. But it is not System
Restore that is causing the problem."
This is pretty interesting info and well written. I wasn't aware of the
safe mode but of course that is logical--safe mode is a more pristine
environment that doesn't load a number of files and drivers so that you
can keep them from interfering with what you want to get done. I ust need
help understanding the concept of an XP driver--and we aren't of course
talking about device or software drivers.
I'd like to know what is going on with Bit Locker. I still have trouble
getting my head around the concept of the ***'XP driver'*** that i've
seen mentioned in connection with VSS situation andand system restore on
a dual boot. I'd appreciate reading more about the 'XP' driver because
it's not a driver concept I've focused on if there is some reference that
defines it better than I've seen.
i''ll have to learn some Bit Locker from scratch and figure out how it
works and try this out. Probably some info and links on the UAC blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/uac/ Aaron Margolis [MSFT UAC Team] "How Do I turn
off that annoying UAC"--can't imagine why that thought would have
occurred to anyone ensconsed in a bunker in UACity.
Aaron writes:
"Those of you who follow this blog are probably aware that there has
been... well, let's say dissatisfaction ... (yes, that's putting it
nicely)... with the current implementations of UAC. One of the
frequently asked questions about Vista today is "How do I turn UAC off?",
and even some "experts" suggest turning it off."
I predict you are going to see some interesting enterprise approaches to
this problem, Mr. Margolis and you will hear loud and clearly from the
masses as the help desk and your Convergys of Ohio in India phones get
flooded and the incompetent PSS that MSFT fronts to speak to the masses
for help besides this group becomes more befuddled than ever with UAC.
It is a scary thought having some of those non quality controlled
outsourced Microsfot support contractor from Convergys of Ohio minimum
wage butts in seats who struggle with English mightighly trying to
explain UAC to the soccer mom in Plano, Texas or Tacoma, Washington. I
can hear a lot of their usual refrain coming accross the sea "Yes Yes Ok
OK."
Most of the Beta chats ( all but a couple actually) have been posted on
"Vista web sites constructed by TBTs and others" and for a lot of them
permission was asked or always to disperse it after the chat finished,
until it became understood that the chat was not under any agreement and
the question stopped coming up. Why MSFT just doesn't post them and the
Live Meeting transcripts and slide decks at one central place to me is
ridiculous except and unless it is to promote the feeling of smug
exclusivity it seems to give some BT's or TAPs (Technology Adoption
Program)or whatever acronym who spend hours fiercely posting that someone
has posted some tidbit as if El Quada had attacked Redmond instead of
concentrating on the many outstanding buts that haven't been touched or
that they could have but haven't reported--or the scenario voting they
could have but haven't done which can be done publicly.
I imagine the MVP/TAP and other 'abbrevation group' chats are kept
private. But most of this is for the same reason that people learned a
long time ago they can charge $500 for a bottle of champaing in the VIP
room as long as they have suckers with disposable income to pay it. It
feeds the insatiable hunger for being the chosen fewer, or part of a more
exclusive private group particularly in a country like mine where
egalitarian instincts have been overshadowed by clear demarcation of
haves and have nots and the governming body is currently shelving huge
doemestic and foreign problems to play with an amendment for a week on
burning a piece of fabric as a symbol so that they can energize a base to
vote stupidly in November.
When you think about it, or when I do, I don't see what the MSFT
Betanistas or anyone at MSFT at all to gain by keeping those chats
private at least the content--maybe they want to limit the numbers
live--but the transcripts ought to be made available as well as the
frequent Vista Live Meetings if MSFT is sincere about creating a bigger
number of more knowledgable users. The major driving force not to make
this information available is to give Beta testers a sense of elitism and
reverse envy even though a large percentage of Beta testers don't really
participate in Beta testing, nor do they read the material made available
to them nor could they pass a comprehensive test on Vista at nearly any
level. If there are about 26,000 or so Beta Testers markedly less than
5%-7% actually participate on their newsgroups or in any other Connect
capacity.
It would seem paradoxical that if Mr. Buffett is giving Bill and Melinda
more than $31 billion to go after global medical problems and universal
education problems among many others, Bill would stir a little knowledge
dogfood by getting as much information out on the cash cow that brings in
the money for this philanthropy as he can. (BTW I can give away money as
well as Melinda and Bill any day of the week and twice on Sunday, and if
I make a mistake with Melinda, Bill, and Warren's money "it just doesn't
mean the same as with my money" to quote Bill Gates this afternoon.) <
:O )
It is also hypocritical for leaders of the Beta to claim that they want
feedback from the unwashed public beta using masses when they are
witholding substantial information from the unwashed masses that would
enable them to give higher quality, more meaningful feedback and to test
tools more fully. The current Chief Software Architect of the company who
makes Vista and the guy Chris Jones reports to in a sense is on TV
strengthening the capital for a foundation he said today wants to get a
decent education for all Americans. How about a decent Vista education
for all people who are willing to test the buggy cash cow Vista and
enable MSFT's PR machine to build interest in it. It's a very
aristocratic and I believe harmful point of view for them to take. I see
no justification in witholding information from say a Recovery Chat or a
Recovery Live meeting when it is obvious to them that people are
struggling with the information.
It reminds me of the experiment in the movie "Trading Places":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/
I have often smiled at the way MSFT seems to give a 'Raiders of the Lost
Ark' context to their information--trying to build some insatiable
curiosity towards a climax when they finally say software isn't Beta just
because a date comes and passes and a launch is held. "I'd like to
discuss this but I can't, Rob Scoble often wrote. Because what? El Quada
would steal it? IBM? Apple? Google. Open Source? Dream on.
The systemic ignorance by testers and the public on Win RE and System
Restore and their implications and interelationships with UAC permissions
and log in access and Bit Locker and how they really work is a great
case in point. They are the spare tire or the way to fix a broken OS and
when Charley Russell says "you wouldn't believe how many people don't
back up" I believe Charley Russell. I believe 80% of people don't; Win
One Care live team blogs 65%. No way in hell. It's higher.
The public has been given no meaningful informaiton and some junk called
a Vista Product Manual that is fairly insulting to anyone who has spent
at least a week with a Windows OS.
Those of you who follow this blog are probably aware that there has
been... well, let's say dissatisfaction ... (yes, that's putting it
nicely)... with the current implementations of UAC. One of the
frequently asked questions about Vista today is "How do I turn UAC off?",
and even some "experts" suggest turning it off.
Every American having 'decent education' where as high as 1/4 aren't
graduating even a pale shadow of a high school and most professionals in
America have no clue that their Senate is taking a full week to debate a
flag burning amendment while blocking embryonic stem cells with a
thoracic surgeon doing the blocking on the Senate floor--wonder how that
grabs disease prevention oriented Melinda and Bill Gates and the docs at
his health focused foundation? Wonder if ole Bill thinks those mostly
millionaires in the Senate doing this are using their 'decent
educations'?
Some should have gone to stop the consumately stupid infectious disease
concept where China gave Tamiflu to 600,000 asymptomatic farmers and
suburban US pharmacies are out of Tamiflu which would only kill people
faster if the now human to human Avian Flu goes pandemic by building
resistance with zero efficacy. No restore points from that disease. No
Startup Repair or Complete Restore for individuals once H5N1 gets going.
US newspapers talking about vaccine being stored when there is in fact
no vaccine for this disease nor can there be until samples of the
pandemic strain are obtained, but I have digressed a litlte from VSS and
SR and how to keep the points functional on a dual boot.
CH
I don't know what is going on with BitLocker. BitLocker operates above
the block level so VSS can take snapshots and CompletePC Backup can
restore a volume in spite of BitLocker. In such a restore scenario the
files would no longer be encrypted, however, and BitLocker would have to
applied again to restore the encryption. Obviously the permissions to
CompletePC Backup are sensitive indeed if the local system has encrypted
volumes.
But I do know that booting into Safe Mode in XP will not kill the Vista
restore points because VSS is not active in Safe Mode. That is why you
cannot create a restore point in Safe Mode. System Restore depends on
VSS to take the snapshot for a new restore point. System Restore does
not depend on VSS to restore to a saved point because no snapshot is
needed (already taken). That is why System Restore in Safe Mode is only
one way. Folks assume that manipulating System Restore in Vista and XP
somehow can affect the dying Vista RP problem. But it is not System
Restore that is causing the problem.
Most if not all of this info is in the transcripts and slides used in
recent Live Meetings and chats which I attended during the TechBeta
Feature Focus week for CompletePC Backup. They may not be available
outside of TechBeta and probably are not distributable to the public
beta folks. While TechBeta is not NDA, I attended one session for MVP's
that was covered by my NDA but I think I have been careful in the above
not to state any NDA material.
What I am not yet clear on is the impact of XP VSS on other Vista shadow
copies besides restore points made with Vista VSS. Maybe nothing.
"Chad Harris" <Bushisamoron.net> wrote in message
Colin --
I don't know the answer to this and I've learned that when you wonder
about something you're probably right. If you get information on this
nailed down, let us know. Also you brought up a couple of interesting
points on the thread "newer build" that started a couple days ago. Can
you take a look at my questions because I thought you suggested that
either 1) bit locker 2) or booting to safe mode on the XP boot--(a
little more trouble to be sure for those of us who just type a file
path to use the xp boot files) that both of those might confer
protection on those VSS restore points. I was urging that if the
points stay there to test them to see if they really restore (you can
always undo them).
Thanks,
CH
It wouldn't be an issue for enterprises since they won't get boxes
with Home or Home Premium installed any more than they got boxes with
XP Home. What is supported in all editions of Windows is VSS. But the
reason I heard that CompletePC Backup will not be available on Home
Basic or Premium is that one of its underpinnings is WinRE.
"Chad Harris" <Bushisamoron.net> wrote in message
Colin--
Win RE should be available on any Vista DVD whatever the "edition"
as far as I know. They won't withold that just for Premium users.
If that's the case I'm surprised and I doubt that would happen.
What no one from MSFT ever wants to see discussed is that OEM users
who pay sometimes large bucks for boxes from their 300 named partners
are deprived of reaching Win RE from either partitions or so-called
Recovery Discs 99+% of the time, just as they are denied doing repair
install booting from the DVD in Win XP. Go on any XP newsgroup are
chat for a half hour and you'll see a parade of people who have
preinstalled OEM XP, no CD from MSFT and can't do diddly squatt with
what OEM brung 'em to dance with cryin' all over the place.
We're talking about more people on both OS's than can fit around the
table for a poker game--500 million to be specific.
CH
Yes, more advanced options are available when booting from the dvd.
I suspect that is the underlying WinRE which you cannot see when
having booted XP. btw, if I'm right, Vista Home Basic and Premium
users would not ever see such advanced options. But then those
systems are almost certainly going to be preinstalled anyway.
message yes, I brought it up.
You should have had an option, but if
there wasn't anythig but a single drive/partition in the machine,
that may have been the reason.
I think it also differs depending on whether you start the install
from a DVD boot, or from within an existing Windows installation.
Haven't played around with it much, actually. Just know it can be a
problem if you're not careful.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
John Barnes wrote:
Interesting suggestion. My installation of Vista (you brought it
up) only
offered to reformat the partition, and obviously did a quick
format as it
took only seconds. No other options were presented to me. I had
planned
to do as you recommend but was not available. I had my x64 and
x86 drives
disconnected and the only partition on the drive was an old x86.
message
of the non-free partition tools, I'm partial to Acronis Disk
Director.
And it runs in XP x64. However, with all of these tools, you can
use
them to change partition sizes and number, but then you should
use Vista
to recreate and reformat any partition you're going to use for
Vista.
I've seen a number of issues with folks who used one of these
tools to
non-destructively rearrange their partitions, but then had boot
issues
when Vista was installed into a partition that had been created
with the
tool. Using the partition tool to do the re-arrangement, but then
using
Vista during the installation process to drop and recreate the
partition
is a better bet.
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
- Bobb - wrote:
I'm gonna install latest version of Vista so I need to resize a
partition.
I've got XP all alone on a 141gb partition and rather than image
it,repartition and reinstall, I just visited BootIt NG and UBCD
http://67.19.82.66/ubcd/website/index.html to check the free
software.
Any opinions on freeware ?- good or bad - easy to use etc on any
of
these:
BootIt NG
Ranish Partition Manager 2.40
TestDisk 6.2
Partition Resizer 1.3.4
Active@ Partition Recovery
Both drives are NTFS
Drive 1 has 2 installs of XP(C) and E (old XP install) and a
library(D).
Drive 2 = X64 ( E = 25 gb) and XP SP2 ( F= 141gb)
I want to resize F to be ~ 25gb and then make 2 new partitions
on Drive
2 - Vista and a library. So I expect to use the program to
resize F- get
the 2 new partitions on there and then I'm done with it ( so
that's why
I didn't want to spend ~$50 for the solution).
I figured both X64 installs to go on the same drive. Drive 1 WAS
a
standalone XP/ X64 drive that I'm reusing to see differences
between X64
and Vista.
Plan B : I could use Norton Ghost to image F - save the install
to
CD/DVD and when Vista trial is over, restore it there .
