Microsoft spend millions on their O/S are we right to corporate hack it?

By uksp ·
Time and time again I've come across Corporates and Business with an apparently over zealous approach to O/S customisation. Strategy, Secutiry and Local IT teams all too keen to 'customize' and 'secure' a platform, often resulting in chopped functions and hacked registries ... often too this is done outside of Microsoft guidelines to whatever flavour the team(s) 'guru' is presently trending.
Are we losing the true flexibility and capability of the O/S in favour of ill-perceived control or are we collectively saying that as it comes out of the box it's not what we want?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

And your point is...

by cmiller5400 In reply to Microsoft spend millions ...

There are some reasons to "lock it tighter than a bull's @ss at fly time". One major benefit is that all the desktops are the same. There is no unauthorized software installed. You can manage licensing appropriately. etc. etc. etc.

Collapse -

Reponse To Answer

by uksp In reply to And your point is...

Quote "My staff `are experts and creative, the know what desktop they need, they know what tools they need. We put time into managing security, licences and software with them, they know when (for example) a particular freeware tools is bad news and we find an alternative. We accept an increased overhead in desktop management because our people produce with innovation and quality, ''app happy' staff are discouraged, for us it works well. Locking things down and managing change through stripped-out and locked-down desktops caused us more time and trouble than the current approach. We are in control and they know they are part of that control".
Not me but a colleague recently when I queried their 'open' approach within their organisation, a multi-faceted group of +5000 employees.

Collapse -

what comes out of the box is not how I want it . . .

by Who Am I Really In reply to Microsoft spend millions ...

OOBE is Not for me !

I strip, strangle, and reconfigure away as many of the default
"Come get me I'm using winders" settings as possible,

but I do all within the allowed framework of
- individual App. settings,
- Group Policy,
- Security Policy,
- Disabling "unnecessary" services,
- changing the start up type to manual for rarely used services
- and Reg edits for settings not accessible from a GUI menu or dialog

including using tools provided by MS
for XP

so that when I have completely reconfigured system
the running processes list is half of what a standard install is

The EULA says you may not work around any limitation in the software. . .

- meaning, you aren't supposed to get yer programmer friend to write a cute little program to bypass things like the 10 connection limit in the desktop OS so you can try using it as a server, or bypass the single socket limitation in home versions, or DRM etc.

However, you can do as much as you want to the OS using the supplied "Configuration Tools", including the registry editor.

edit: Add link

This is what a task bar and start menu looks like around here:

and is that way on every machine after I'm done my configuration

Collapse -

Reponse To Answer

by SmartAceW0LF In reply to what comes out of the box ...

My God that is one butt ugly desktop! OK so why did I waste our time to comment about that? Just saying, that is one ugly desktop dude.

Collapse -

Reponse To Answer

by Who Am I Really In reply to what comes out of the box ...

re: ugly

sure, it may be ugly to you

but it's functional to me

I have 27 items in the Quick Launch

try Pinnin' that many items to yer win7 taskbar
good luck with that

with the way it's set up, I rarely have to go up the start menu to get at something
maybe once or twice a week

and if I want, I can even shut down without going in to the start menu

but it's also the point,
someone sees that and says:
"Oh, that system must be old, yer still usin' win98!"
(swiped the long horn pic from a 95 system)

I just giggle and say I'd rather use 98 than vista or win7

I don't like the PlaySkool / FisherPrice look
never have, the first time I saw it I said, how do you turn that crap off

nor do I like the Fat Start Menu, that spies on you

things removed from Start Menu as "Not Necessary !"
- recent docs (I know where my docs are)
- recent programs (I know what I opened, and where to get it again)
- my anything (pic, music, docs, etc.)
- help & support (not helpful much nor supportive)
- favorites (I have none that winders needs to know about)
- search (there's nothing to see here)


Collapse -

Who's business is it?

by knaggs.cuan In reply to Microsoft spend millions ...

I think the point is tools are supplied and no other business can know just how you want to work. Especially if they have never heard about you. Yes MS, Apple and all the others have long R&amp phases in the dev cycle of the product .... but they cater for a massively diverse needs. If you need something to work in a certain way, well that's what you need.

The question is: when do you stop O/S customisation?

Collapse -

Well my take on this is

by OH Smeg Moderator In reply to Microsoft spend millions ...

M$ Supply something as the Masses may want it and individual companies supply things that that business needs.

What M$ thinks you need or want can be a very different thing from what a company actually needs or is required by Law to provide.

For instance would you be happy with your Medical Partitioner having an out of the Box Windows Install on their Work Stations and Server with no security at all?

Here a place like that wouldn't be around for long at all as their patients would be suing them for Losing their Patient Data.


Collapse -

But aren't we in part causing the problem ...?

by uksp In reply to Microsoft spend millions ...

"For Security" I expected ... needs must and 'open doors' must be closed when it comes to data and potential theft or misuse of.

I'm asking more around the limitations we impose on ourselves by continually hacking a new version or feature back to it's predecessor (or what we hacked in it back then), rather than embracing it and using it for it's intended potential, often that's toward greater interaction, functionality, ease of use and sharing, amongst other things.

If we are not fully open to innovation and evolution of products and if we are not fully exploring new potential within their work are we not contributing ourselves to the limiting of those who produce O/S's into 'development for the masses' (which I don't entirely agree with as there are still business and personal tailored version of most O/S versions).

Collapse -

Reponse To Answer

by Who Am I Really In reply to But aren't we in part cau ...

I don't use 90% of what's installed with XP
and I remove as much as possible
if / when I see a need / want to use such "features" I can put them back in
but from the outset I don't want them

I don't even think I used 50% of what shipped with win3.1 WFWG

how many people buy a car with every feature in the book?

not everyone

that's the direction MS moved with vista
with the multiple home and business versions of vista,
people whined about the cheaper versions not having the features that they want and the junk they didn't want was still included
and which version do we actually need for business?
with winNT, win2K and XP-Pro it was straight forward which version you needed for business (the only version available)

They should only sell 2 versions
but not in the same fashion as previous configs.
- XP Home / Pro or winMe / win2K or 9x / winNT

but rather as
- a base version (starter if you will) with the scalability to get the stuff you want as optional packages (better than the current anytime upgrade)
- a complete version with everything in the full feature set included

as an old hack from way back
I see multiple unnecessary and usually unused "features" as major security holes
aka, a "larger attack surface"
the more junk you have open / running the greater the risk of being compromised


Related Discussions

Related Forums