[Info-vax] Do you (or someone you work with) sysman on Windows?

[Hans Vlems]

Op woensdag 13 mei 2015 11:58:19 UTC+2 schreef johnwa... at yahoo.co.uk:
> On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 08:58:06 UTC+1, Hans Vlems  wrote:
> > Op dinsdag 12 mei 2015 14:05:31 UTC+2 schreef Richard Maher:
> > > Look, this has been doing my head in for years :-(
> > > 
> > > I understand the transition we went through from isolated nodes to 
> > > clusters and from VAX to Alpha to IA64 to x86. But given a hardware 
> > > platform and an upgrade from 32 Windows to 32 Bit windows why would you 
> > > possibly start with a virgin disk and then search the web for matching 
> > > packages DLLs (version close enough) anyone got the Inventory/manifests?
> > > 
> > > Why don't they understand Image-Backup -> upgrade -> go/no-go decision?
> > > 
> > > I keep telling them that 2008 R1 will give them 5 more years but Oh No. 
> > > Go 64 bit, Microsoft no longer support Oracle so change DB DLLs, Go 
> > > LOG4Net, Go Web Farm, GO CRAZY :-(
> > > 
> > > Why, Why, Why do they always rebuild the system disk from scratch???
> > 
> > The Windows installation procedure customizes the distribution kit according 
> > to the hardware layer present at installtion time. There are just too many permutations possible to install all drivers. 
> > Now compare that to VMS where all hardware variants were both known and 
> > under control by the OS vendor. This allows for a neat design and makes it
> > feasible to create a generic system disk.
> > Given the combinations of cpu's, pci bridges, peripheral controllers, you name
> > it, that Microsoft has to deal with and still always come up with a bootable
> > disk for a given platform is good engineering.
> > Moving a system disk to a different platform is simple: find all the hardware
> > differences and pre install the required new drivers :-)
> > Hans
> 
> But Microsoft *doesn't* always come up with a usefully working bootable
> disk for a given platform.
> 
> That responsibility is frequently left to the system builders (e.g.
> the Dells and HPQs of this world).
> 
> This becomes painfully obvious if you ever take a raw retail Windows
> CD (pick a version, any version) and attempt to build a working system
> from it, something which vaguely resembles the system as received but
> e.g. without the unnecessary trialware which has been popular in recent
> years.
> 
> Fortunately for MS, very few people actually do that kind of DIY
> thing. I'm perhaps one of the few that has done.

Yes, it is a somewhat uncertain procedure especially on laptops.
Perhaps I've been lucky so far, all systems booted alright even though video
in most cases was restricted to 800x600. Having no recognized network device
is a PITA though. Anyway, the missing drivers are usually easily found on
the vendor's website, burned on a cd and installed later on. 
I don't blame Microsoft for producing a bad kit, they haven't got a crytal
ball either....
Hans