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

[Paul Sture]

On 2015-05-15, Chris Scheers <chris at applied-synergy.com> wrote:
> Paul Sture wrote:
>> On 2015-05-13, Chris Scheers <chris at applied-synergy.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> When each system boots, you will go through a minimal configuration. 
>>> This is basically the same setup you see when you boot a new machine out 
>>> of the box.  (In fact, Microsoft calls it OOBE, Out Of the Box Experience.)

The "Out Of the Box Experience" was much favoured by Ballmer.  It always
seemed too labour intensive to me.

>>> Among things, this will ensure that each machine has a unique SID.  If 
>>> you just clone disks without SYSPREP, the machines will have the same 
>>> SID which can cause "interesting" issues.
>> 
>> The requirement for a unique SID turns out to be a myth (though SYSPREP
>> does other things that you'll need). Summary here:
>> 
>> <http://securityvibe.net/2009/11/07/newsid-retired/>
>> 
>> Mark Russinovitch's original post with the full details here:
>> 
>> <http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2009/11/03/3291024.aspx>
>
> Interesting.
>
> Back in the early WinXP days, I had problems with cloned system disks 
> and flaky network file access.  These problems were cleared up with 
> SYSPREP.  I always assumed this was related to the SIDs, but it may have 
> been some other issue.
>
> Then again, this was using NETBEUI, which is no longer supported in any 
> case.

I wonder if NETBEUI was indeed part of it? IIRC the NT4 Server Resource
Kit* addressed the subject of why a unique SID was important, and the
ability to do the right thing with respect to the SID was a major
selling point of Norton Ghost and competing utilities back in the day.

* It's online at:
<http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windowsnt/4/server/reskit/en-us/default.mspx?mfr=true>

-- 
I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as
equals.                                            -- Winston Churchill