Focus On Windows XP
By Fred Langa www.langa.com
1) Why A Special Focus On Windows XP?
2) XP: Upgrade Facts And Fictions
3) XPeriment #1: Fred Upgrades A Micron 1.2GHz Athlon
4) XPeriment #2: Fred Upgrades A Dell 550MHz PIII
5) Fred's XP Upgrade Advice
6) XP Pre-Installs Have Their Own Problems, Too...
7) Making XP More Secure
8) An XP/IE "Phone-Home" Issue
1) Special Focus: Windows XP
The release of a major new version of Windows is a huge event for
everyone dealing with computers because Windows is undoubtedly the "800
pound gorilla" of the operating system world. What happens with Windows--
- good or ill--- affects us all (even non-Windows users!).
And the release of XP is momentous not only because it's a new version of
Windows, but because it also represents the end of the line for Windows
9x, which was arguably the most important, most successful, most loved
and most hated operating system the world has ever known. It's possible
that no future OS will ever again have the impact that the Windows 9x
line had.
"XP Home" replaces Windows 9x and Windows ME; "XP Professional" is the
follow-on to Windows 2000 Pro. Now, instead of having one OS line based
on the Win9X core and a second OS line based on the NT/2K core, Microsoft
has unified its operating systems into a single entity based on NT/Win2K,
and available in Home and Professional versions.
We'll devote most of this issue to looking at XP from a real-world
perspective. In future issues, we'll add XP as one of the items we'll
cover in the normal mix: Your next LangaList will return to its regular
blend of topics.
2) XP: Upgrade Facts And Fictions
One thing you'll see touted about the new XP operating system is that
it's more stable than Win9x or ME--- and that can be quite true. XP is
built on the same "guts" as Windows 2000, and thus sheds a lot of the
ancient "legacy" support that's both plagued and benefited Win9x/ME for
years.
I say "plagued" because Microsoft--- in striving to make each new version
of Win9x/ME compatible with previous versions of Windows and previously-
released hardware and software--- ended up with an operating system that
tried to be a "jack of all hardware and software versions," and we know
how that goes: It was master of none.
But that also was its benefit: Windows9x was and is compatible across a
greater total range of systems and software than any other OS---
including Linux and the Mac. Even today, Windows9x can still run software
and hardware dating back to the earliest days of computing, while also
running on some of today's most modern hardware and software. It's an
impressive feat.
But at some point, it doesn't make sense to keep producing new systems
that are 100% compatible with--- and share the limitations of--- old
hardware and software. Microsoft knew that over a decade ago: That was
the original idea behind Windows NT ("New Technology"), which was to be a
clean break, a fresh start for Windows, uncluttered by the past,
unshackled from the problems of supporting old products.
NT didn't work out quite that way: People weren't going to ditch
perfectly good hardware and software just to upgrade an OS, and so NT
gained a fair amount of general compatibility. Because it was freed of
some of the worst elements of old software design, it was indeed far more
stable and secure than Windows9x, but NT gained those attributes at the
cost of heavy hardware requirements and lesser compatibility than the
Win9x family.
Windows 2000 was built on an improved version of NT's innards, with a
more current interface and with better/wider support for existing
hardware and software. Part of this was by Win2K's design, and part was
simply that enough time had passed since NT first appeared so hardware
standards advanced and more off-the-shelf, normal systems were
intrinsically Win2K capable. Even so, Win2K still never supported as much
hardware and software as did Win9X.
Today, Windows XP is also built on NT's/Win2k's guts, and like NT and
Win2K, it continues the tradition of gaining much of its stability by
supporting a far narrower, newer range of hardware and software than the
Win9x family. Yes, it supports a very large absolute number of products,
but it's nowhere near the total number that Win9x does.
Because of that, I think many, many potential XP users are headed for
upgrade trouble.
I realize this statement is in sharp contrast to what Microsoft
informally suggests: That XP should run fine on most machines two years
old, or less.
My assertion also contradicts what many analysts say: For example, a
current Ziff-Davis review of XP says "XP... may be the first operating
system since Windows 95 that can work adequately with older PCs for the
vast majority of consumers."
And at the XP launch last week, a Forrester Research analyst was quoted
as saying that XP will run well on existing machines, and that, "I think
the majority of users aren't even going to need to upgrade."
In the next item, we'll look at what happens when these rosy predictions
meet the reality of some of my systems here.
3) XPeriment #1: A Micron 1.2GHz Athlon
I have nine PCs here of varying ages and configurations. Of those, four
exceed Microsoft's recommended minimum requirements for XP, and two more
meet the rock-bottom absolute-minimum requirements. (XP Pro requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.asp ;
XP Home requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.asp )
But of those six total PCs that are theoretically XP-ready, only two fall
into the additional and informal "two years old or less" rule of thumb
that Microsoft suggests for optimal results. So, I decided to limit my
XPlorations to just those two newest boxes. One is a 1.2GHz Micron
Athlon, less than a year old, and the other is a two year old Dell 550
MHz PIII. Both have very large hard drives, 256MB of RAM, and are on a
small LAN. Both currently run Win98SE (and very well).
But I ran into trouble upgrading both to XP. The problem isn't the basic
hardware, but with a wide range of peripherals and essential software I
use.
For example, according to XP's own "system analyzer," to get XP to run on
my main PC--- the less-than-a-year-old 1.2GHz Athlon--- I'd have to
replace or upgrade my printer, my scanner, my digital camera (although XP
is supposed to work with most cameras), my sound card, my third-party
disk-maintenance utilities, my anti-virus tools, my CDR-burning tools
(although XP provides basic CDR capability in the OS), and my folder-
encryption tool. No, there's no problem with the core PC itself, but I'm
looking at minimally a ton of hassle, and possibly major hassle and
nontrivial expense to convert my system--- which works perfectly fine
under Windows98SE--- to XP.
If you've gone through any major OS upgrade or change-out before, you'll
realize that these kinds of compatibility issues are actually quite
normal and to be expected. But they stand in sharp contrast to the "most
people won't have to upgrade" lines we're hearing about XP; and to
Microsoft's ads showing people floating effortlessly through the sky as a
result of XP.
Upgrades aren't effortless, and XP isn't magic: When you upgrade from
*any* OS to any other OS, you will almost certainly run into
compatibility problems, some minor, some not. The claims of XP being a
painless upgrade for machines of recent vintage simply are not true.
But I'm getting ahead of myself because the Micron system was only one
data point; so let me tell you what happened with the second machine:
4) XPeriment #2: A Dell 550MHz PIII
A Dell 550 system is my normal guinea pig for experiments. For upgrade
tests, it's set up with a pristine, perfect installation of Windows98SE,
is totally current with all patches and updates, and is as well-tuned as
I can make it. There's no printer, scanner, etc: The system is ultra-
simple to reduce the number of variables in the mix. In effect, the
system is a "clean slate." Although this is not a fair real-life test
case--- the setup is far simpler than any PC in actual use--- it still
can shed light on an upgrade process.
When I launched the XP setup program, the readiness analyzer examined the
ultra-simple system and found no problems. But when I got the new OS
running, XP couldn't find the system's network card at all. I tried the
setup with both XP Home and Pro, but got exactly the same results.
This was ironic: Under Win98SE, the card worked perfectly. What's more,
the XP readiness analyzer even used the card during the early stages of
the XP upgrade to contact Microsoft for an updated compatibility list;
the card worked fine then. But once XP was installed and running, it
couldn't see the network card at all, even when I later waded in and
tried to enter the correct settings manually.
So, I now can use the XP-equipped PC as a stand-alone system, but can't
yet connect to the Internet or to any other system on the LAN here. I've
ordered a new network card, and will try to get the XP-equipped Dell
running online soon.
But I have to believe that XP's failing even in this ultra-simple upgrade
scenario bodes ill for what average users will encounter with normal, far
more-complex setups.
5) Fred's XP Upgrade Advice
I'll let you know how my ongoing upgrade saga plays out with these two
systems. But in the meantime, my upgrade experiences with XP suggest
something radically different from the claims being made about it. Yes,
XP can be far more stable than Win9x/ME, but that stability can come at a
high cost--- not only for the overpriced OS itself, but also for the
hardware and software you may have to update or replace, *even if you
have a fairly new system that exceeds Microsoft's own recommendations.*
If you're running Win9x/ME and are reasonably happy with it, my advice is
to sit tight: Resist the hype and ignore the rosy predictions: Don't
bother upgrading to XP because the benefits it offers probably won't
offset the hassle and/or costs of upgrading.
If you're running Win NT or 2K, you may have fewer upgrade issues because
XP shares so much in common with NT and 2K. But that also implies that
there may be even less reason to upgrade there--- especially with
relatively new installations of Win2K: You already have most of what XP
offers, so why go through the hassle of upgrading?
But if you do decide to upgrade, know what you're getting into: It's
extremely unlikely that you'll just be able to plop in the XP CD and have
it install smoothly: You're almost surely going to have to update or
upgrade at least some hardware and software, just as you would with any
other OS upgrade. XP's "effortless upgrade" is a myth. No OS upgrade is
effortless.
And although the network-card issue above shows that even the upgrade
analyzers may not fully do the job, they're better than nothing: I
strongly recommend you use one of several free system analyzers to know
what you're getting into before you spend a dime---or a minute---
upgrading an existing system to XP:
PC Pitstop offers a fast analysis at
http://www.pcpitstop.com/xpready/default.asp . Although it's not as
thorough as Microsoft own analysis tool, it's far, far quicker to run and
is good for a first pass analysis of a system's upgrade potential.
Microsoft's own tool--- which we must assume is authoritative--- is at
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/home/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp .
But note it's a 32MB download, and will connect back to Microsoft to
download additional components once it's run.
6) XP Pre-Installs Have Their Own Problems, Too...
One way to ensure that XP will work OK with all the hardware and software
on a system is, of course, to buy the PC new, with XP and all other
necessary hardware and software preinstalled: This from-scratch approach
avoids most of the hassles of upgrading an existing system, and is
probably the very best way to move to XP. It's also the most expensive.
But preinstalls of any OS--- not just XP--- can have drawbacks too, as
reader Tom Duda discovered:
Hi, Fred. I have a new computer, purchased recently, that is
made by Hewlett Packard. It came with Win XP Home Edition pre-
loaded. I immediately noticed that there were no recovery CDs
and called HPs tech support line. I was informed that recovery
is performed from the hard drive and that the recovery engine
is accessed by tapping the F10 key during system boot. "What,"
I asked, "happens if the hard drive fails?" The response was --
and this is a verbatim quote -- "If your computer is out of
warranty, then you're out of luck."
The recovery files are kept in a hidden 4 gig partition. fdisk,
if it is run (and that utility is nowhere to be found on my
system), can seriously mangle things because HP has a custom
boot loader. That is also apparently why their version of Win
XP does not come with FixMBR. I learned about the custom boot
loader and the hidden partition from a tech at Roxio, makers of
GoBack.
Isn't that swell? I thought you might want to add this to your
trove of knowledge. :-)
That's bad, yes. But even worse is that these recovery files (even if
they're out in the open or on a separate CD) often do nothing to protect
your data: Many times, these OEM-Recovery tools are a kind of disk-image
that restores your hard drive to exactly the way it was when it left the
factory. While that can undo problems caused by bad software you later
installed, or settings that were changed for whatever reason, it also
means that all your data--- every file, document, email, spreadsheet, etc-
that you created since you got the machine--- goes away. All your data
may get overwritten and become unrecoverable.
And, as Tom says, the OEM recovery tools may be useless if you need to
replace a major component, like the hard drive itself.
That's why OEM restore or recovery disks are not to be trusted: You need
a separate, independent backup mechanism that you can control, so that
you can overwrite only what needs to be overwritten, and/or so that you
can put back your data files after using the vendor's recovery method.
And note: The above is not specific to XP or Hewlett-Packard, but applies
to *all* similar OEM recovery disks/files.
7) Making XP More Secure
If you are using XP--- especially the Home version--- you ought to take a
look at Steve Gibson's SocketToMe and SocketLock at
http://grc.com/dos/sockettome.htm : There, you'll find information and
tools that can help close a potentially serious hole in XP's internet
plumbing.
8) An XP/IE "Phone-Home" Issue
An interesting but not hugely serious issue came to light last week
regarding the automatic error-reporting tool built into IE and XP: When
something goes wrong, the tool asks if it can send Microsoft information
about the problem for bug-finding purposes.
Trouble is, the memory dump and system information that the reporting
tool wants to send back may contain things like your passwords,
encryption keys, and even some content of documents you may have been
working on when the crash occurred.
But you don't have to let this happen: If you simply say no when the
reporting tool asks to send information back to Microsoft, nothing will
leave your PC.
The US DOE's CIAC has lots more info on the error-reporting problem,
including info on how you can turn it off:
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/m-005.shtml
CNET also ran a story on it:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7571224.html
This isn't a deliberate effort to snoop on you by Microsoft, but it shows
how even relatively innocuous things like bug reports can create a
security problem. It's also an interesting issue in light of Microsoft
assertions that its other services like Passport and Product Activation
are completely safe: I regard *all* these things as unsafe---
fundamentally flawed at the conceptual level. I don't want simply to have
to trust that some other entity--- like Microsoft--- is ensuring that my
data is safe from bugs, hackers, and malicious misuse. Bugs happen. And
deliberate hacking happens, too. That's why I want to maintain control
over my own data, on my own system.
(My thanks to the many readers who sent in info about the error-reporting
problem!)
By Fred Langa www.langa.com
1) Why A Special Focus On Windows XP?
2) XP: Upgrade Facts And Fictions
3) XPeriment #1: Fred Upgrades A Micron 1.2GHz Athlon
4) XPeriment #2: Fred Upgrades A Dell 550MHz PIII
5) Fred's XP Upgrade Advice
6) XP Pre-Installs Have Their Own Problems, Too...
7) Making XP More Secure
8) An XP/IE "Phone-Home" Issue
1) Special Focus: Windows XP
The release of a major new version of Windows is a huge event for
everyone dealing with computers because Windows is undoubtedly the "800
pound gorilla" of the operating system world. What happens with Windows--
- good or ill--- affects us all (even non-Windows users!).
And the release of XP is momentous not only because it's a new version of
Windows, but because it also represents the end of the line for Windows
9x, which was arguably the most important, most successful, most loved
and most hated operating system the world has ever known. It's possible
that no future OS will ever again have the impact that the Windows 9x
line had.
"XP Home" replaces Windows 9x and Windows ME; "XP Professional" is the
follow-on to Windows 2000 Pro. Now, instead of having one OS line based
on the Win9X core and a second OS line based on the NT/2K core, Microsoft
has unified its operating systems into a single entity based on NT/Win2K,
and available in Home and Professional versions.
We'll devote most of this issue to looking at XP from a real-world
perspective. In future issues, we'll add XP as one of the items we'll
cover in the normal mix: Your next LangaList will return to its regular
blend of topics.
2) XP: Upgrade Facts And Fictions
One thing you'll see touted about the new XP operating system is that
it's more stable than Win9x or ME--- and that can be quite true. XP is
built on the same "guts" as Windows 2000, and thus sheds a lot of the
ancient "legacy" support that's both plagued and benefited Win9x/ME for
years.
I say "plagued" because Microsoft--- in striving to make each new version
of Win9x/ME compatible with previous versions of Windows and previously-
released hardware and software--- ended up with an operating system that
tried to be a "jack of all hardware and software versions," and we know
how that goes: It was master of none.
But that also was its benefit: Windows9x was and is compatible across a
greater total range of systems and software than any other OS---
including Linux and the Mac. Even today, Windows9x can still run software
and hardware dating back to the earliest days of computing, while also
running on some of today's most modern hardware and software. It's an
impressive feat.
But at some point, it doesn't make sense to keep producing new systems
that are 100% compatible with--- and share the limitations of--- old
hardware and software. Microsoft knew that over a decade ago: That was
the original idea behind Windows NT ("New Technology"), which was to be a
clean break, a fresh start for Windows, uncluttered by the past,
unshackled from the problems of supporting old products.
NT didn't work out quite that way: People weren't going to ditch
perfectly good hardware and software just to upgrade an OS, and so NT
gained a fair amount of general compatibility. Because it was freed of
some of the worst elements of old software design, it was indeed far more
stable and secure than Windows9x, but NT gained those attributes at the
cost of heavy hardware requirements and lesser compatibility than the
Win9x family.
Windows 2000 was built on an improved version of NT's innards, with a
more current interface and with better/wider support for existing
hardware and software. Part of this was by Win2K's design, and part was
simply that enough time had passed since NT first appeared so hardware
standards advanced and more off-the-shelf, normal systems were
intrinsically Win2K capable. Even so, Win2K still never supported as much
hardware and software as did Win9X.
Today, Windows XP is also built on NT's/Win2k's guts, and like NT and
Win2K, it continues the tradition of gaining much of its stability by
supporting a far narrower, newer range of hardware and software than the
Win9x family. Yes, it supports a very large absolute number of products,
but it's nowhere near the total number that Win9x does.
Because of that, I think many, many potential XP users are headed for
upgrade trouble.
I realize this statement is in sharp contrast to what Microsoft
informally suggests: That XP should run fine on most machines two years
old, or less.
My assertion also contradicts what many analysts say: For example, a
current Ziff-Davis review of XP says "XP... may be the first operating
system since Windows 95 that can work adequately with older PCs for the
vast majority of consumers."
And at the XP launch last week, a Forrester Research analyst was quoted
as saying that XP will run well on existing machines, and that, "I think
the majority of users aren't even going to need to upgrade."
In the next item, we'll look at what happens when these rosy predictions
meet the reality of some of my systems here.
3) XPeriment #1: A Micron 1.2GHz Athlon
I have nine PCs here of varying ages and configurations. Of those, four
exceed Microsoft's recommended minimum requirements for XP, and two more
meet the rock-bottom absolute-minimum requirements. (XP Pro requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.asp ;
XP Home requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/upgrading/sysreqs.asp )
But of those six total PCs that are theoretically XP-ready, only two fall
into the additional and informal "two years old or less" rule of thumb
that Microsoft suggests for optimal results. So, I decided to limit my
XPlorations to just those two newest boxes. One is a 1.2GHz Micron
Athlon, less than a year old, and the other is a two year old Dell 550
MHz PIII. Both have very large hard drives, 256MB of RAM, and are on a
small LAN. Both currently run Win98SE (and very well).
But I ran into trouble upgrading both to XP. The problem isn't the basic
hardware, but with a wide range of peripherals and essential software I
use.
For example, according to XP's own "system analyzer," to get XP to run on
my main PC--- the less-than-a-year-old 1.2GHz Athlon--- I'd have to
replace or upgrade my printer, my scanner, my digital camera (although XP
is supposed to work with most cameras), my sound card, my third-party
disk-maintenance utilities, my anti-virus tools, my CDR-burning tools
(although XP provides basic CDR capability in the OS), and my folder-
encryption tool. No, there's no problem with the core PC itself, but I'm
looking at minimally a ton of hassle, and possibly major hassle and
nontrivial expense to convert my system--- which works perfectly fine
under Windows98SE--- to XP.
If you've gone through any major OS upgrade or change-out before, you'll
realize that these kinds of compatibility issues are actually quite
normal and to be expected. But they stand in sharp contrast to the "most
people won't have to upgrade" lines we're hearing about XP; and to
Microsoft's ads showing people floating effortlessly through the sky as a
result of XP.
Upgrades aren't effortless, and XP isn't magic: When you upgrade from
*any* OS to any other OS, you will almost certainly run into
compatibility problems, some minor, some not. The claims of XP being a
painless upgrade for machines of recent vintage simply are not true.
But I'm getting ahead of myself because the Micron system was only one
data point; so let me tell you what happened with the second machine:
4) XPeriment #2: A Dell 550MHz PIII
A Dell 550 system is my normal guinea pig for experiments. For upgrade
tests, it's set up with a pristine, perfect installation of Windows98SE,
is totally current with all patches and updates, and is as well-tuned as
I can make it. There's no printer, scanner, etc: The system is ultra-
simple to reduce the number of variables in the mix. In effect, the
system is a "clean slate." Although this is not a fair real-life test
case--- the setup is far simpler than any PC in actual use--- it still
can shed light on an upgrade process.
When I launched the XP setup program, the readiness analyzer examined the
ultra-simple system and found no problems. But when I got the new OS
running, XP couldn't find the system's network card at all. I tried the
setup with both XP Home and Pro, but got exactly the same results.
This was ironic: Under Win98SE, the card worked perfectly. What's more,
the XP readiness analyzer even used the card during the early stages of
the XP upgrade to contact Microsoft for an updated compatibility list;
the card worked fine then. But once XP was installed and running, it
couldn't see the network card at all, even when I later waded in and
tried to enter the correct settings manually.
So, I now can use the XP-equipped PC as a stand-alone system, but can't
yet connect to the Internet or to any other system on the LAN here. I've
ordered a new network card, and will try to get the XP-equipped Dell
running online soon.
But I have to believe that XP's failing even in this ultra-simple upgrade
scenario bodes ill for what average users will encounter with normal, far
more-complex setups.
5) Fred's XP Upgrade Advice
I'll let you know how my ongoing upgrade saga plays out with these two
systems. But in the meantime, my upgrade experiences with XP suggest
something radically different from the claims being made about it. Yes,
XP can be far more stable than Win9x/ME, but that stability can come at a
high cost--- not only for the overpriced OS itself, but also for the
hardware and software you may have to update or replace, *even if you
have a fairly new system that exceeds Microsoft's own recommendations.*
If you're running Win9x/ME and are reasonably happy with it, my advice is
to sit tight: Resist the hype and ignore the rosy predictions: Don't
bother upgrading to XP because the benefits it offers probably won't
offset the hassle and/or costs of upgrading.
If you're running Win NT or 2K, you may have fewer upgrade issues because
XP shares so much in common with NT and 2K. But that also implies that
there may be even less reason to upgrade there--- especially with
relatively new installations of Win2K: You already have most of what XP
offers, so why go through the hassle of upgrading?
But if you do decide to upgrade, know what you're getting into: It's
extremely unlikely that you'll just be able to plop in the XP CD and have
it install smoothly: You're almost surely going to have to update or
upgrade at least some hardware and software, just as you would with any
other OS upgrade. XP's "effortless upgrade" is a myth. No OS upgrade is
effortless.
And although the network-card issue above shows that even the upgrade
analyzers may not fully do the job, they're better than nothing: I
strongly recommend you use one of several free system analyzers to know
what you're getting into before you spend a dime---or a minute---
upgrading an existing system to XP:
PC Pitstop offers a fast analysis at
http://www.pcpitstop.com/xpready/default.asp . Although it's not as
thorough as Microsoft own analysis tool, it's far, far quicker to run and
is good for a first pass analysis of a system's upgrade potential.
Microsoft's own tool--- which we must assume is authoritative--- is at
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWSXP/home/howtobuy/upgrading/advisor.asp .
But note it's a 32MB download, and will connect back to Microsoft to
download additional components once it's run.
6) XP Pre-Installs Have Their Own Problems, Too...
One way to ensure that XP will work OK with all the hardware and software
on a system is, of course, to buy the PC new, with XP and all other
necessary hardware and software preinstalled: This from-scratch approach
avoids most of the hassles of upgrading an existing system, and is
probably the very best way to move to XP. It's also the most expensive.
But preinstalls of any OS--- not just XP--- can have drawbacks too, as
reader Tom Duda discovered:
Hi, Fred. I have a new computer, purchased recently, that is
made by Hewlett Packard. It came with Win XP Home Edition pre-
loaded. I immediately noticed that there were no recovery CDs
and called HPs tech support line. I was informed that recovery
is performed from the hard drive and that the recovery engine
is accessed by tapping the F10 key during system boot. "What,"
I asked, "happens if the hard drive fails?" The response was --
and this is a verbatim quote -- "If your computer is out of
warranty, then you're out of luck."
The recovery files are kept in a hidden 4 gig partition. fdisk,
if it is run (and that utility is nowhere to be found on my
system), can seriously mangle things because HP has a custom
boot loader. That is also apparently why their version of Win
XP does not come with FixMBR. I learned about the custom boot
loader and the hidden partition from a tech at Roxio, makers of
GoBack.
Isn't that swell? I thought you might want to add this to your
trove of knowledge. :-)
That's bad, yes. But even worse is that these recovery files (even if
they're out in the open or on a separate CD) often do nothing to protect
your data: Many times, these OEM-Recovery tools are a kind of disk-image
that restores your hard drive to exactly the way it was when it left the
factory. While that can undo problems caused by bad software you later
installed, or settings that were changed for whatever reason, it also
means that all your data--- every file, document, email, spreadsheet, etc-
that you created since you got the machine--- goes away. All your data
may get overwritten and become unrecoverable.
And, as Tom says, the OEM recovery tools may be useless if you need to
replace a major component, like the hard drive itself.
That's why OEM restore or recovery disks are not to be trusted: You need
a separate, independent backup mechanism that you can control, so that
you can overwrite only what needs to be overwritten, and/or so that you
can put back your data files after using the vendor's recovery method.
And note: The above is not specific to XP or Hewlett-Packard, but applies
to *all* similar OEM recovery disks/files.
7) Making XP More Secure
If you are using XP--- especially the Home version--- you ought to take a
look at Steve Gibson's SocketToMe and SocketLock at
http://grc.com/dos/sockettome.htm : There, you'll find information and
tools that can help close a potentially serious hole in XP's internet
plumbing.
8) An XP/IE "Phone-Home" Issue
An interesting but not hugely serious issue came to light last week
regarding the automatic error-reporting tool built into IE and XP: When
something goes wrong, the tool asks if it can send Microsoft information
about the problem for bug-finding purposes.
Trouble is, the memory dump and system information that the reporting
tool wants to send back may contain things like your passwords,
encryption keys, and even some content of documents you may have been
working on when the crash occurred.
But you don't have to let this happen: If you simply say no when the
reporting tool asks to send information back to Microsoft, nothing will
leave your PC.
The US DOE's CIAC has lots more info on the error-reporting problem,
including info on how you can turn it off:
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletins/m-005.shtml
CNET also ran a story on it:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7571224.html
This isn't a deliberate effort to snoop on you by Microsoft, but it shows
how even relatively innocuous things like bug reports can create a
security problem. It's also an interesting issue in light of Microsoft
assertions that its other services like Passport and Product Activation
are completely safe: I regard *all* these things as unsafe---
fundamentally flawed at the conceptual level. I don't want simply to have
to trust that some other entity--- like Microsoft--- is ensuring that my
data is safe from bugs, hackers, and malicious misuse. Bugs happen. And
deliberate hacking happens, too. That's why I want to maintain control
over my own data, on my own system.
(My thanks to the many readers who sent in info about the error-reporting
problem!)
