Slashdot Log In
Why Does XP Auto-Connect to sa.windows.com?
Posted by
Cliff
on Fri Jul 26, 2002 12:50 PM
from the why-does-it-need-this? dept.
from the why-does-it-need-this? dept.
termigator asks: "I have a private home network that has a Windows XP system on it (I know, the horrors, but it allows my wife to do some of her work at home). With recent discussions about DRM and the Microsoft EULA (which allows Microsoft to autodownload software), I decided to block all traffic on my Linux firewall from Microsoft systems (207.46.0.0/16) to the Windows XP box. This morning there was trapped traffic from Microsoft, after my wife was doing some work on the XP system the day before. I talked with my wife, and I could not determine what she could have done to cause the traffic to happen. Can anybody provide some insight?" Why can't Microsoft be up front about when it tries to phone home? Of course, phoning home isn't the big problem with most people, it's the fact that they try to be sneaky about it for certain tasks. With Microsoft pushing XP into the home, consumers should definitely be wary about storing private information on such systems until Microsoft provides some answers.
"Here is the logwatch summary:
Port 1053 is 'remote-as' and port 1054 is 'brvread'. I am guessing that the remote-as is related to the Remote Assistant feature in XP, but I've had no luck on finding any technical information about brvread via a Google search."Rejected packets from sa.windows.com (207.46.226.40). Port 1053 (tcp,eth0,output): 4 packet(s). Port 1054 (tcp,eth0,output): 4 packet(s). Total of 8 packet(s).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
also ask your wife... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, how about you try using the box? Do exactly what she does, keeping watch on the firewall status for anything of interest. Experiment with the system and see what happens on the firewall.
Lastly, consider removing the firewall block, and instead doing a tcpdump of the suspicious packets. See if anything of interest comes up.
It's all about trust (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's all about trust (Score:2)
Not according to the license.
And therein, some would say, lies the problem.
Ya lazy bum, you haven't tried Google yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Now should I complete the whoring and post a cut and paste?
naaa....
Re:Ya lazy bum, you haven't tried Google yet? (Score:2, Informative)
someone had to paste it!
Whoring completed (Score:2)
Re:Ya lazy bum, you haven't read the article yet? (Score:2)
If the guy wants the gnitty gritty details, he can install a packet sniffer and analyze it. People have already done this and written up summaries, though (see google again).
Re:Ya lazy bum, you haven't read the article yet? (Score:2)
Re:meta moderation (Score:2)
My (admittedly inflammatory) post currently stands at Flamebait=1, Informative=5, Overrated=2, obviously moderation points are being wasted. But are all of those fair? Surely it wasn't worth 5 Imformative points. So the Overrated is valid. Flaimbait, yes, maybe even a few more of these. But not really a good flame, it is so predictable.
Even better, the response to my post calling me on karma whoring and incomplete Google linkage has even better moderation. Flamebait=1, Insightful=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1 currently. Personally, I'd say the Insightful is the only one it really deserved, the Overrated and Underrated cancel each other out and I'm not interested in responding so it can't be a proper flame, right?
Oh, and this post? -3 Offtopic, definately.
Re:Ya lazy bum, you haven't read the article yet? (Score:2)
Re:The LockerGnome article is incorrect (Score:2)
Ad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ad (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mind the ads, I realize
Re:Ad (Score:2)
I agree that the ads shouldn't be uber-obtrusive to the point where they hurt the site, though.
Re:Ad (Score:2)
Re:Ad (Score:2)
Re:Ad (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe it has to be on purpose to qualify as prior art.
error reporting (Score:2)
Google (Score:2)
Search Assistant (Score:2, Informative)
You can turn the feature off by changing the search method to 'Classic' in Internet Options.
It's there to invade your privacy. (Score:5, Funny)
Then it proceeds to do a scan of all of your hard disk, counting the mp3's and divx's you have. It reports these figures to the MPAA and RIAA right off the bat.
In stage two, it scans all images on your PC searching for even the slightest bit of nudity. It then analyzes the photo for age, race, sex and fetish information. If it finds anything underage or otherwise disturbing, it notifies the police. And your ISP. And the feds.
Due to provisions of the PATRIOT act, the newest revision reports if you've visited aclu.org or any democratic candidate sites. It also counts the number of baptist websites you visit on a daily basis (minumum of 10 required).
It then audits your system for any source code you have. If it finds any, it will append to it a microsoft copyright and copy it over to microsoft. (You *DID* see that in the ELUA, right?)
In other words, it does everything you suspect of it. And more!
XP Experiences (Score:3, Interesting)
My father has a couple of computers, and I had to run a program on his Windows XP machine, because I needed to use the "QTopia Desktop" synchronization software that came on the CD accompanying my handheld Linux-based Sharp Zaurus (why they didn't give software on the CD that would work with a Linux-OS computer, I'll never understand...)
Anyway, I needed to do a search for some Zaurus sites (I didn't want to bother to go and check the URLs I had on my computer which was in the other room...so, not thinking, I cleared the URL window in Internet Explorer, and typed in "google" (to get the full URL automatically, the way you can in Mozilla). When I did this, I got a page that said: "If you wish to search the Internet, use MSN.COM"-- complete with the four-color butterfly/Windows XP logo...then, I was transferred to MSN.COM! I didn't even get a chance to say whether or not I really wanted to "Go There Today".
OK fine...I figured it was my fault, I should have typed in the full URL, I should have guessed that Microsoft would do this. So, I cleared the URL window again, and typed in "http://www.google.com/". The computer LOCKED UP-- then came a glimpse of the "Blue Screen of Death" (I think, I am not sure), and then the computer simply rebooted!
When I told me father about this, he laughed, and then when the computer had booted again, he drilled down through his "Favorites" menus, and came to the entry for "Google," and I was finally able to "Google". Since then, I only use the "Favorites" to get to Google whenever I'm using my Dad's machine, so that I don't get rebooted again.
Another thing: if you want to find a book online, Windows XP does it's level-best to make you buy it from Barnes & Noble. I have nothing against B&N, but I do like to use Amazon.com, or ThinkGeek, or some of the other tech bookstores online. But Barnes & Noble is paying Microsoft to be first with XP, and so they get all the traffic if somebody is new to computers, like a friend of mine who recently bought his first computer (this is how I learned about XP's desire to make you buy books only from B&N). My friend's system came with XP pre-installed.
At the time he was looking for a computer, I couldn't convince him that Linux would be a better choice (anyway, all the $800 dollar systems advertised in the newspapers come pre-loaded with XP, no Linux systems in sight) and now he's been spooked because the folks at the place where he bought the computer told him they couldn't (wouldn't?) help him if he switched the operating system (I said "So What! I'll help you!), but it seems that someone there implied that he would lose ALL support if he put Linux on his computer--that it would "Void the Warranty". They can't say it officially, but I wasn't there when the threat was made. Now my friend won't even consider switching; he is having problems with the CD-RW, a hardware problem. (In fact, nobody seems to know how to make it work; it just keeps screwing up blank CD's.)
However he is getting wary of Microsoft, now that some of the things I told him would happen are coming true, plus worse things I didn't even think would be problems (hours on the phone, but nothing gets fixed when they finally answer; being bounced back & forth between Microsoft, the company that sold the machine, & the manufacturer; nobody taking responsibility for tech support, and his "Free MSN Subscription for TWO Years" being WORTHLESS, because he can never get connected: either the lines are busy, or he gets tossed offline during important "secure" transactions, and doesn't know if orders went through or not. He likes use uBid.com (I think it is called). He finally gave up & got a cable modem subscription, and never uses his "Free MSN account" anymore.
--MarkVII
Re:XP Experiences (Score:2)
Re:The OS is a lot of the problem (Score:2)
If a hardware driver has to run in supervisor mode on the processor - and this is true of many Linux drivers as well - there's only a limited amount that the kernel can do to prevent it fux0ring things up. The difference I think is that open source kernel drivers for/in stable kernels tend not to crash very much, because of the peer review thing. Unless they're quite obscure drivers that hardly any developers use.
Re:XP Experiences (Score:2)
block explorer with zone alarm (Score:2, Informative)
(and this doesn't interfere with internet explorer accessing the network, FYI)
List of ways Windows XP connects to MS computers: (Score:4, Informative)
Here is a (probably incomplete) list of ways Windows XP connects to Microsoft's servers. To generate this list yourself, disable Microsoft's firewall, and use the ZoneAlarm firewall, which is free for personal use. When Windows XP tries to connect to Microsoft, ZoneAlarm will bring up a dialog box asking whether that is okay. If you say no to some of the requests, some functions of Windows XP will not work (like networking).
- Application Layer Gateway Service (Requires server rights.)
- Fax Service
- File Signature Verification
- Generic Host Process for Win32 Services (Requires server rights.)
- Microsoft Application Error Reporting
- Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer
- Microsoft Direct Play Voice Test
- Microsoft Help and Support Center
- Microsoft Help Center Hosting Server (Wants server rights.)
- Microsoft Management Console
- Microsoft Media Player (tells Microsoft the music you like)
- Microsoft Network Availability Test
- Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy Service
- MS DTC Console program
- Run DLL as an app
- Services and Controller app
- Time Service, sets the time on your computer from Microsoft's computer.
- Microsoft Office keeps a number in each file you create that identifies
your computer. Microsoft has never said why.
- Microsoft mouse software has reduced functionality until you let it connect
to Microsoft computers.
These are just the ones I know. There may be others.So, if you use Windows XP, your computer is dependent on Microsoft computers. That's bad, not only because you lose control over your possession, but because Microsoft produces buggy software and doesn't patch bugs quickly. For example, as of July 26, 2002, there are 20 unpatched security holes in Microsoft Internet Explorer [pivx.com]. This is a terrible record for a company that has $40 billion in the bank. Obviously, with that kind of money, Microsoft could fix the bugs if it wanted to fix them. Since the bugs are very public and Microsoft has the money, it seems reasonable to suppose that top management at Microsoft has deliberately decided that the bugs should remain, at least for now.
It seems possible that there is a connection between all the bugs and the U.S. government's friendly treatment of Microsoft's law-breaking [usdoj.gov]. The U.S. government's CIA and FBI and NSA departments spy on the entire world, and unpatched vulnerabilities in Microsoft software help spies.
There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications. The registry file is a single, very vulnerable, point of failure. Microsoft apparently designed it this way to provide copy protection. Since most entries in the registry are poorly documented or not documented, the registry effectively prevents control by the user. There are many areas like this where what Microsoft's design conflicts with the needs of the users.
Note that Microsoft does not support making functional complete backups under Windows XP. Look at Microsoft's policy about this: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation [microsoft.com]. Only those who work with Microsoft software will understand the true meaning of Microsoft's policy. Since almost all programs use the registry operating system file, if you cannot make a functional copy of the operating system you cannot make a functional copy of all your application installations and configurations. There are other software companies that try to fix this, but the fixes don't work well, and Microsoft can, of course, break their implementations, as they have often done with other kinds of competitors.
Because the configuration information for the motherboard and the configuration information for the applications are mixed together in the registry file, the registry tends to prevent you from moving a hard drive to a computer with a different motherboard. That's another implication of the above Microsoft policy. So, if you have a motherboard failure, and a good complete backup, you may not be able to recover unless you have a spare computer with the same motherboard.
Only technically knowledgeable people know how to avoid signing up for a Microsoft Passport account during initial use of Windows XP. The name Passport gives an indication of Microsoft's thinking. A passport is a document issued by a sovereign nation. Without it, the nation's citizens cannot travel, and, if they leave, won't be allowed back in their own country. In Microsoft's corporate thinking, the company seems to be moving in the direction of believing that they own the user's computer. Most people are both honest and intimidated. Apparently about 95% do whatever they are asked on the screen. They give their personal information to Microsoft. They don't realize that, if they feel forced to get a Passport account, they should enter almost completely fictitious information, since the real question is not "What is your name and address", but "Can we invade your privacy". The honest answer to this is "No, you cannot invade my privacy", and the only effective way to communicate that is to give completely fictitious information. Since it is the educated people who have computers, Microsoft is building a database of the personal lives of educated people. Microsoft knows when they connect and from what IP address (which tends to show the area), what kind of help they ask, and information about what they are doing with their computers, including what music they like. It is not known, and there is no way to know, how much Microsoft or other organizations make use of this information, or their plans for future use.
Not only has Windows XP definitely gone further in the direction of allowing the user less control over his or her own machine, but with Palladium, Microsoft apparently intends to finish the job: Microsoft will have ultimate control over the user's computer and therefore all his or her data. Even now, under Windows XP, a recent security patch requires that the user agree to a contract that gives Microsoft administrator privileges over the user's computer [theregus.com]. The contract says that if a user wants to patch his or her system against a bug which would allow an attack over the Internet, he or she must give Microsoft legal control over the computer. See this article also: Microsoft's Digital Rights Management-- A Little Deeper [bsdvault.net]. You may need to be a lawyer to take apart the crucial sentence. "These security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and [my emphasis] use other software on your computer" legally includes this meaning: "These updates may disable your ability to use other software on your computer." Note that the term "security related updates" is meaningless to the user because the updates have no relation to user security. So, the sentence effectively means that Microsoft can control the user's computer without notice and whenever it wants. That kind of sentence is known in psychology as "testing the limits". If there is no strong public complaint about this, expect to see more and stronger language like this.
This Register article shows the direction Microsoft is going: MS Palladium protects IT vendors, not you [theregus.com]. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Microsoft is well down that road. See this ZDNet article, also: MS: Why we can't trust your 'trustworthy' OS [zdnet.com].
These Microsoft policies mean that any government which wants to be independent of the United States government, and any government which represents itself as controlled by the people, cannot use Microsoft operating systems, or other Microsoft proprietary systems.
Microsoft's self-destructiveness does not mean that the user should be self-destructive. There is no need to apologize for using Microsoft software. The correct solution to abuse is persuading the abuser to stop being abusive. Once I posted to a Slashdot story a link to an article on a web site of mine. By far the majority of visitors from the Slashdot story used Microsoft operating systems. Rather than feel embarrassed because Microsoft is abusive, action needs to be taken to prevent the abuse. If you are against Microsoft abuse, you are not against Microsoft; you are more pro-Microsoft than Bill Gates.
In some areas, Microsoft Windows XP has reduced functionality. For example, the command line interface does less in some ways than the CLI in Windows 98 SE (Second Edition). The CLI is a big embarrassment because of its limited capabilities, but at least in Win 95 it worked. With every version since then it has worked less well. (There are two kinds of command prompt, and, according to Microsoft employees, the differences between them are not fully documented.)
The command line prompt sometimes begins to display short file names. Microsoft employees say that Microsoft has no fix, although someone not connected with Microsoft did make a work-around.
Cutting and pasting into a command line program often puts successive extra spaces before each line. Microsoft employees say that there is no plan to fix this.
The fast paste mode that is in Windows 98 is gone in Windows XP. Microsoft employees say there is no plan to fix this.
The DOS QuickEdit mode sometimes flashes wildly when trying to edit from a DOS box.
When using the command line interface, Windows XP doesn't always update the time. After several hours, the time reported to command line programs can be several hours in error.
There is a DOS program called START.EXE that can be used to start other programs. But it does not operate the same way as in other versions of Windows. It starts a program, but cannot be made to return control to the command line program as previous versions did. There is no technical reason for this; it is just one of the shortcomings that are allowed to exist.
People often say that DOS has gone away. But Microsoft still calls the commandline interface DOS, and in Windows XP Microsoft has added new programs for configuring the OS that work only under DOS.
There are many other insufficiencies in Windows XP. Sometimes when you press a key while using Windows XP, it is seconds until there is any response. Apparently there is something wrong with the CPU scheduler in XP, because there are a lot of complaints about this in the forums and MS people have said that they are working on it. On one particular fresh installation of XP, on an Intel motherboard with either a Matrox G550 or an ATI Radeon video adapter, it requires 18 seconds to display a directory listing of 94 items. This is apparently related to a bug in the video software, not the adapter drivers.
Something is wrong with the Alt-Tab display of running programs under Windows XP. If there are a lot of programs, not all of them are displayed. The order jumps around in a seemingly random way.
Another indication of the direction Microsoft is taking Windows XP is that menus are sometimes 7 levels deep.
The most recent version of this article is available at http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm [hevanet.com].
Re:List of ways Windows XP connects to MS computer (Score:3, Insightful)
FUD Alert!! Troll alert!!! 99% of this post is such BS that it's not even worth responding too...however, I'll tackle possibly the most egregious point (it kinda proves the rest as BS as well).
There are many other big shortcomings in Windows XP. Windows XP, and all current Windows operating systems, have a file called the registry in which configuration information is written. If this one (large, often fragmented) file becomes corrupted, the only way of recovering may be to re-format the hard drive, re-install the operating system, and then re-install and re-configure all the applications.
BULLSHIT! Microsoft has the ability (I know AT least since Win98) that Windows automatically backs up the registry periodically (ie, at shutdown or boot, major hardware change, etc). IF it ever gets corrupted, there will be a backup to restore from. That's also bullshit what you claim about not being able to backup--it works fine. If you had actualyl read the link you linked to, you would see it's refering to SID--a special identifier used on MS networks (somewhat akin to an IP address, not some evil ploy). Duplicate SID's, just like duplicate IP's, conflict.
How bout you go get a life and stop verbally stabbing at microsoft from your parents home (PennyArcade ;)
Re:List of ways Windows XP connects to MS computer (Score:3, Informative)
Irrespective of the whether the rest of his post is right, that's not true. Windows 2000 does not backup the SOFTWARE hive automatically, although it does back up the other even more important one, SYSTEM I think (this is completely moronic, because the system is almost unusable without an uptodate SOFTWARE hive). If you have a power cut, as I discovered to my cost, your registry may be corrupted beyond Windows ability to repair it. Your only option (unless there's some expensive payware I don't know about) is to completely reinstall Win2K.
You might say that I should have backed it up myself. But that would be nonsense. Is this covered anywhere in the getting started documentation? (I didn't see a copy of that, actually, because we have a site license and I just installed it from a CD) Does it say when you first install: "Tip of the Day: Windows 2000 is a crappy operating system, so you'd damn well back up your registry after every change if you don't want to have to reinstall everythign after a power cut!"
I think not.
Re:List of ways Windows XP connects to MS computer (Score:2, Informative)
Not a cureall for Registry Corruption, but it's an improvement from Windows 2000.
I wrote the story at the second link. (Score:2)
"It's a direct
I wrote the story at the second link. But I wrote the present story AFTER the link was posted. The story needed to be updated. So I hastily updated it, FTP'd it to the server, and decided to post most of it directly to the story.
The story was modded up because it addresses a very, very serious issue. We are seeing a sickness among large companies. Consider Enron and WorldComm and Microsoft as part of a larger social illness. They all lost their way and began to be adversarial toward the world and towards themselves.
The problem is with backups, not rollouts. (Score:2)
Without going into a long story, there is a problem in making backups of Windows XP that actually can be used to make a copy that restores full functioning. The Microsoft article [microsoft.com] says,
"Microsoft does not provide support for computers on which Windows XP is installed by duplication of fully installed copies of Windows XP. Microsoft does support computers on which Windows XP is installed by use of disk-duplication software and the System Preparation tool (Sysprep.exe)."
There is only one kind of backup that is a true backup: A fully installed copy, or some method of creating a fully installed copy. Microsoft is saying that that is "not supported". That language hides the fact that Microsoft made it difficult.
You said, "You most certainly can (and I have) use disk imaging software to back up and restore your system, complete with registry."
I've done it too. But, as Microsoft says, Microsoft does not support this. Think about that for a moment. Suppose Linus Torvalds said, "I don't want Linux to support fully functional backups". That would be preposterous. Why, then, do people accept the same statement from Microsoft? Maybe that is because they have been habituated to being abused.
Please take Microsoft's statement seriously. Consider a real life situation. If you have had a hardware failure, when you do the restore it may not be to a computer that is identical to the one on which Win XP was first installed. (If several years have passed since the computer was made, it may not be possible to buy identical components, for example.)
There can be serious problems with using a restored copy since, with Windows XP, most of the configuration is thrown into one pot, the registry. Yes, you may be successful hand-editing the registry, but maybe you won't. Even if you are successful, you could not call a backup that needs considerable adjustment a "fully functional backup". In a real life situation, the cost of doing a restore to alternate equipment may be more than the cost of completely re-installing the software.
The problem is not in changing the SID. SysInternals [sysinternals.com] provides a free utility, NewSID [sysinternals.com], to change the SID. The problem is that Microsoft has deliberately made it difficult to make functional backups, apparently as a method of copy protection. Remember, we are NOT talking about manufacturers making copies that work on identical equipment. We are talking about a backup that can actually be used immediately after a hardware failure to do a repair in which the new system is not identical.
It is not impossible that someone could move a backup to new hardware. But, in practice, it may be impossible or too expensive under some circumstances.
I use disk cloning software when the hard drives are not identical, and a mirroring controller like the Promise FastTrak when the drives are identical. Remember, I am making copies that are fully legal because I have purchased licenses for them. I am only trying to save time; re-installing all the software might cost far more than the cost of Windows XP. The issue is not with rollout of new machines. The issue is whether your backup can actually be used to make a fully functional copy.
Most people who use Windows XP don't know of the existence of hard disk cloning software or hardware. One effect of Microsoft's policy is that Microsoft does not tell them. Even if they did have such software, and they new how to use it, most users might still have the difficulties mentioned here.
Re:The problem is with backups, not rollouts. (Score:2)
They are not referring to backups, they are referring to GHOST images. That's what "installed by duplication" means.
Again you are not technically competent to be discussing this matter. Stick to "Paper or plastic" as your career choice.
If you are willing to learn, feel free to send me an email and I can answer your questions. But quit trying to pass yourself off as a subject matter expert.
Ghost doesn't always work as a backup. (Score:2)
"Ghost" is a term created by a company that was later bought by Symantec.
Symantec's product is expensive. Most users of Windows XP don't know it exists. In the situation mentioned, it doesn't always work as a backup.
I stand by my comments.
Re:Ghost doesn't always work as a backup. (Score:2)
And suprise, suprise... if you change the hardware, the ghost image won't work. It's not meant to.
Re:The problem is with backups, not rollouts. (Score:2)
Re:The problem is with backups, not rollouts. (Score:2)
However he's talking about it in relation to a knowledgebase article which does not discuss what he is referring to.
It would be like me trying to claim the rules of basketball do not accurately detail how to play soccer. Most people would react "Huh? WTF are you talking about?" Which is what I am doing to this poor schmuck.
Re:The problem is with backups, not rollouts. (Score:2)
Trying to make some preparations for recovery from catastrophe.
Right.
Re:The problem is with backups, not rollouts. (Score:2)
Please explain. (Score:2)
I was not able to get the time service to use any but Microsoft's computers. Please explain how to do this. Microsoft certainly does not make it easy to use NIST servers.
Sysprep does not allow fully functional backups, as Microsoft says. Sysprep is used to prepare new systems.
Anger problem. (Score:2)
What is most interesting about your comment is that you are using this situation as a way of acting out your anger.
I stand by what I said about making functional backups. Most people don't try to do restores, so they don't realize how many times backups aren't really backups.
It is interesting how difficult it is for people to deal with an abuser. Instead of efficiently moving to limit the destructiveness of the abuser, the the abused people often begin to attack each other, as you have done.
When I first tried to change the time server in Windows XP, I got error messages. The system I was testing would not let me make the change. I got error messages when I tried to use any but Microsoft's time server. Now, it works. Thanks for the info. I changed my article to reflect this new information.
I don't say that I know everything about Windows XP. You undoubtedly know things that I don't know. I think it is very likely I know things you don't know. It is interesting that you have the presumption that, if you know something I don't know, that gives you a license to make an angry attack. It is also interesting that you have the presumption that, if I say one thing that is mistaken, you can ignore everything else I said.
More details about registry problems: (Score:2)
There's some misunderstanding here. First, it is not a registry backup that you want, it is a backup that you can restore. I don't know any way of replacing an entire registry with an exported text file. If there is a way, would someone tell me?
More details about registry problems: The problem with the registry is this. Suppose the registry becomes corrupted, but the software that the corruption affects is not used for a considerable time. After the corruption occurs, the computer is upgraded, perhaps with new application software, perhaps with new drivers. Then maybe new system preferences are applied. Suppose the company has saved backups of all previous versions of the registry on CD (an unlikely event).
See the problem? Since all the software is connected to all the other software by the registry, corruption that goes unnoticed for a while can create an impossible situation. If the company goes back to the original, known good registry, they must give up all the time they spent upgrading the computer. This may be substantial, especially since they may not have complete records about what upgrading was done.
In actuality the situations caused by the registry are far, far more complicated than this. For example, you may think that some failure you are having is caused by registry corruption. However, it may take far too much time to prove whether that is the case. If you think of all the combinations of difficult circumstances, you will see that having most configuration settings in one file is sometimes devastating for the user.
Consider that the person who is using the computer probably has an important job in the company, and wants to use the computer, since only some functions don't work, but others do. Consider that a repair person must be supervised 100% of the time at some companies, because of security needs.
Please educate me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing like this in Linux or BSD. First, there is no single file in which corruption can make an entire installation worthless. Second, there is far better error checking, so corruption of any kind is less likely to occur. With Windows XP, sometimes a faulty program can cause the entire OS to become unstable. (I have personally seen this at least 50 times.) My experience with Linux is that the OS just throws the faulty application out of memory and comes back and says, okay, what else do you want to do?
With Linux, a software upgrade that you much later discover was bad causes you to re-install a known good version. With Microsoft Windows XP, because of the connection between all programs by the registry, you may have to start over with a re-formatted hard drive. This usually takes many hours, especially in situations in which a company employee uses a system with special adjustments or programs, which is often the case.
Anger problem. (Score:2)
I suggest you deal with your anger problem, and not bring it to Slashdot.
Your comments do not apply to the situation mentioned. You apparently haven't read my comment carefully.
Users have always had the option of making backups of the registry. Making useful backups is often difficult or impossible. Backing up the registry in Windows XP is even more difficult, because the registry in now not all in one file, but is partly spread to several files, and the OS prevents you from making copies with xcopy.exe or the copy command. So, you cannot create your own backup tools, as you could in Windows 98.
Re:More details about registry problems: (Score:2)
But it really really bugs me to see people who clearly have no desire to learn, and show no technical competence go off trying to sound like an expert and offer advice.
Self-referential?
Yes, but impossible to back up? (Score:2)
I don't think I expressed the question very well. Those files do not pose the same problem as the registry in Windows. The registry connects the configuration of the OS with the configuration of all of the software that is installed.
In the registry, if you get corruption and don't realize it, and do other installations and changes that write to the registry, it can become impossible to go back to an earlier backup without losing all of the work of upgrading.
There is nothing like this in Linux or BSD, apparently. See the section "More Details about Registry Problems" in the article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. [hevanet.com]
That is a good question. (Score:2)
Also, it is the direction that Microsoft is going that is even more alarming. Windows Media Player already reports your music choices to Microsoft. The EULA for a security bug fix [bsdvault.net] to Windows Media Player gives Microsoft complete control over your computer: They own it, not you. That shows that Microsoft can and will be sneaky. (The EULA says that it is limited to Digital Rights Management, but Microsoft is trying, with Palladium, to extend Digital Rights Management to everything you do on your computer.)
Re:That is a good question. (Score:2)
One of the cheap shots for effective security is to never use the machine to be patched to download the patches. Use something else, anything else. I'm very comfortable using Microsoft Windows NT to download RedHat patches.
gives Microsoft complete control over your computer: They own it, not you.
That's the My of My Computer. I think the "My" has to refer to whoever named it so.
The /wait parameter just makes things worse. (Score:2)
Start is broken in Windows XP. (Score:2)
How can i find out ALL of Microsoft's domains (Score:2)
is there any way to find out all of the subdomains at microsoft.com (or msn.com) ?
ie:
sa.microsoft.com
windowsmedia.microsoft.
msid.msn.com
or can they create subdomains that are completly secret (until found out)
as i would like a list of every microsoft subdomain (and msn domains) so i can add them to the Host file project [remember.mine.nu] so they can be selectivly blocked ?
any help would be apreciated as i already have an extensive list of MS domains but i would really like to grab them all (and any future ones)