De-Mate Those Cables!

I actually do have a lot to write about but I just don't have time during this last month of the year, I am extremely busy as probably most admins are this time of year--but in addition to our server migration (which still hasn't yet arrived) I had to migrate an accounting database and also a UPS database in the meantime.

It's been quite the month and I've been taking pictures just "documenting" my days. Currently I am busy in my own hell trying to organize and prepare for the server migration, here are a few shots of the BatCave.

Anyway, just remember, to pull straight out when de-mating. . .(WTH seriously?)

Vintage!

Dell PowerEdge R710 Configuration Options, What they mean, Microsoft CALs & Pre Migration Migraine

What gives you an equal headache to subnet masking without a subnet calculator? Well, probably a server migration of any size with considerable changes in technology, licensing and options. Then finally gaining enough confidence to place the order based on what you know and forecast what you will need.

Today I finally placed such an order with Dell. The last time I made such decision to place a large purchase with them was years ago when I first arrived here and had to do a PC Rollout, man those days were hectic.

For the past several years I had been informing superiors about the need to get a new primary server and for years it kept being put on the back burner for financial reasons or simply, "let's see how it goes." Fortunately the "let's see how it goes," approach got us through several years, of course I was under the server's hood constantly making sure it remained optimal and maintained so any major disasters would be avoided. This preventative maintenance and care paid off and yet this server we are currently running on is still kicking like a 90 yr. old man talking about the olden days in his death bed. Or maybe the analogy of Moses would be better, his 'eye has not grown dim or his vital force did not flee him.' That's how I feel this server is operating right now. It is still very useful for our environment but we are limited in what we can do with it. We are flying up but hitting the ceiling. Also, we are no longer supported with both hardware and software, for over several years now, which is not good in IT. Either way, it has served its purpose and it needs to be retired, thus the dawn of a new primary server.

I must admit, I am not as seasoned as many other vets in the field, but I do no how to do my job and manage a network. I didn't start as a network admin in a small business taking an old UNIX guy's job for failing at Windows because I looked cute on a computer. I "acquired" it because I was worth a shot and had some crazy motivation to excel in this field and still do--though some priorities have changed.

Anyway, enough AdminAlive Lore™, that's a subject for another time and has already been slightly covered elsewhere (for those that knew the old me). Let's talk about the process and many other details I had to become familiar with before becoming comfortable with this purchase.


Information Gathering, Presales

To start out with, I really began the process (on and off) in June of this year. As I do with most bigger purchases, I decided roughly what solution I needed and requested a quote to find the price ranges I was looking at and what could be either changed in the configuration or what could be left out all together. Usually though before even requesting a quote from our Dell rep, I normally configure a machine or server on their website to get an even clearer understanding of what hardware is currently available and also an even more rougher price range. Then I shortly send a general spec request for quote and go from there.

The first quote I received was a good price and was lower than I expected it to be. It was on a PowerEdge R710. Here are the general specs, Xeon E5520 x1, RAID 1/5, SBS 2008, 4GB RAM, 146GB HDD and 300GB HDD (RAID 5) with SBS 2008 Std OEM.

Though I really wasn't looking to purchase at that time, I needed something to base my meetings with managers for pricing, technology and so forth--it's always good to be prepared.


Signs of The Times

Between then and November, we had several meetings regarding the future of our network and more on this new server and of course I brought what little I knew on pricing and hardware to the discussion. A lot revolved around, "well do we really need to upgrade? the server is working fine right now." One thing to remember, while it is good to know your technical reasons for certain things in a network, it often does very little in convincing the guys that sign your check that a certain move is a good idea. After going in circles for a few times in various meetings I dropped my case even though I had compelling reasons to upgrade or at least set a day to do it.

It wasn't until about a month or two ago that we had a server crash that affected the network, and yes it was our primary server. It was due to the OS drives filling up with different Exchange logs, BadMail files and other accumulated data. So I wrote a script to take care of the BadMail files regularly (daily). I changed some settings on the Exchange logs management and moved some folders around. I literally began to rob Paul to pay Peter on the server's HDDs (or was it Peter I'm robbing?) I was able to free up enough space to continue operating and while the crash made the executives go D: it soon wore off and were more than happy to know that we are "good" again. Though now at this time knowing I had to keep a closer watch on the storage I kept having to make room to avoid another server crash due to no disk space. Long story short, it finally moved them to make a final okay to order a server around in the middle of November I believe.


Where's the Server?

We finally had our last meeting regarding this purchase and decided to go with it, I was asked, "so when can we expect this server purchase?" I said clearly, "probably mid December, it's been a while since I looked at the hardware and I need to do more research, plus they will probably have better deals so close to the close of the quarter."

Additionally what I wanted to also do was wait for the SBS 2008 Trial to come in the mail which I had ordered along with a fat SBS 2008 Unleashed book. I had a new OS coming and I had a lot to learn about it. I'm a 2K and XP admin, a lot has changed even though a lot has not changed. So therefore I had planned on installing it on a VM and playing with it there to get more comfortable with it, but of course it turned from one extreme to the other. Multiple times I got asked: "is it here yet?" "Well I don't see it, did you order it?" "Where is it?" "Why the wait?" Seriously! Did I not say mid December? I thought to myself.

At this point (even after explaining over again 'why the wait' it was not stopping the badgering) I decided to say screw it. I put aside my hopes of running the trial version and began focusing on making a purchase based on an informed choice.


Let's Go All Out Decisions

 I again followed my same procedure at this point as discussed before, but this time I decided not to be scared of optimizing the server. I remembered the time I did the PC Rollout and I skimped out on a lot of good upgrades at the time of purchase trying to make an appealing price to the CEO. An appealing price is what I got him and we ended up with what we paid for. The main reason we got a good "bang for the buck" was because compared to what this network was running on, it was a drastically huge improvement even if they were running on 256MB of RAM when 512 - 1GB was normal. That is the reason I went "scalable" knowing we would probably outgrow the post-purchase specs in a year--at least I'd be able to upgrade them little by little.

By now though, I have quite a bit of purchasing and decision power in this company that I have a lot more say so in this area which I'm grateful for. To make this part of the story shorter, I ended up perhaps quadrupling the specs of the same PowerEdge R710 server for probably a few hundred dollars difference. Seriously, I'm talking about from UDIMM to RDIMM memory, from 4GB to 12GB, Single to Multi-CPU, from 4MB Cache to 8MB Cache, Enterprise consoles etc. It is a beast for this company and it didn't really cost that much more than the original gimp server configuration. How? Well as I had predicted, there would be better deals come December, 40% in fact for us plus whatever business discount we received saved us a ton and gained us a lot more. I was well below our anticipated cost that I even went for the better APC UPS, this baby here: 120V SmartUPS.

However it wasn't as easy as it may have seemed. I was actually pretty intimidated by the lack of experience with certain technologies and something new I had not had to deal with before, Microsoft Open Licensing.


Dell Server Technologies, and Vagueness

Let's first talk about the hardware aspect of this. As per the Dell quote (if you're familiar with their format) the Excel looking formatted quote form can be confusing. Mainly because the rows are labeled for certain hardware parts but the description columns are totally different hardware. So if it says Video Card the column where the hardware is specified will say something like "Intel Dual NIC (23423-234234234)". I actually became irritated at that and sent an email to one of the Dell reps, he explained that their system has not yet been 'updated' to the new format so some of the information does not match. Sounded like a generic excuse to me.

Aside from that confusing aspect, the hardware listed is usually incredibly vague save the CPU and perhaps the OS selection. So before actually making my decision based on the quote and general specs specified, I went line by line on the Dell configuration website to find out what each part was. Let me tell you, if you are not familiar with the Dell hardware setups and vague terms, it can really prove challenging or just plain "wtf?".

Hopefully the following information will prove useful to someone, those that may find themselves here:

The "Customize" button appeals to all of us, but if you are not sure what each configuration does or means, it may prove a pain in the bollocks.

So here I'll try to do my best not to burden this post further than I already have, but it's my blog, I'll be as wordy as I want! ;-)


PowerEdge R710, What do the Dell Configuration Options Mean?

I actually asked myself that question a few times on certain configuration menus and had to find out through their people, well here hopefully is a documented record of what they mean to save you the hassle. Mind you, a lot of the information is based on what multiple Dell representatives told me with their actual mouth, if it's incorrect, blame them and don't kill the messenger.

•  Does choosing an 4, 6, 8 HDD chassis change the dimensions of the PowerEdge R710? No it doesn't, according to Dell, the "inside changed" but the outside remains the same, so yes it will stay a 2U even up to an 8 HDD chassis.
• What is PERC? PowerEdge RAID Controller. It is just a RAID controller for PowerEdge server's, that are able to utilize SAS.
• SBS 2008 options does not specify if it is 32 or 64 bit, which am I getting? You are getting 64 bit, because SBS 2008 only comes in 64 bit, because of Exchange.
• Does the SBS 2008 Std option come with 5 CALs? Yes.
• How are the OS Partitions options setup, how do they differ? If you choose a partitioned configuration it will automatically be done on your RAID 1 set array. So yes, if you have a 146GB RAID 1, it will be partitioned to 40 or 80GB, and you will have the left over as an additional partition (eww.) The other two options, "Maximum Microsoft OS Partition Override, GPT Enabled" and "Maximum Partition Size Override for Microsoft Windows Factory" are basically the same thing according to Dell. They use the entire disk to install your Server OS (OEM). I could not get a straight answer what GPT was, so I joked with him and said, "GIANT PARTITION TABLE maybe?" He did not respond, but on a more serious note, it may be for a Terabyte OS drive?
• Will the Dell configuration page warn me if I need a bigger power supply unit? Unfortunately, no. So since it only gives you two options, a 570w or a 870w PSU, I'd go with the 870w PSU if you do more than a few upgrades away from the default configuration.
•  What is Broadcom's TOE? It is TCP/IP Offload Engine (PDF), sort of like what SCSI does for the CPU.

That is most of what I gathered, if anything else was left out I probably chose "No Option" and didn't bother with it because I knew I didn't need it.


Microsoft Open Licensing, Open Business Licensing, Open Value, Open Orifice?

(Disclaimer: I am not a Microsoft Licensing Specialist nor do I want to be, all information should be verified before making business decisions or I'll AdminSlap™ you. This information is here to simply share personal net admin experiences. That's right, in OG Courier font.)

I think one of the more problematic road blocks I came across was Microsoft's licensing programs and options and requirements. If you have not looked at the newer options, maybe you should, because it's confusing. Seriously, I spoke with a "Microsoft Licensing Specialist" twice and was still confused. Then I spoke with a reseller and he explained it a bit better than the specialist did. Then I again went back to Microsoft's licensing website and was further confused. One of the more confusing things is when all the licensing terms begin to sound the same.

So here I will attempt to give  you accurate information--and as simple as I can possibly put it. Ready?

Pirate their software.

I'm kidding! While that may actually simplify things, you're bound to get pegged one day with a fat audit fine. Really it all depends on the size of your organization and how much money you have to spend. Options are split into two sections, ones you can pay in three split payments and ones you must pay upfront, each have their advantages depending on what you need and what you want to spend.

Here are a few basics:

• Software Assurance is basically a common maintenance agreement as you probably have with many other vendors. It insures you get free upgrades to the newest software during your term, discounts, support, possible certifications and classes (all depending on what SA you choose.)
• Open Business Licensing is actually not very easy to find by simple Google searches (also known as MOB, Microsoft Open Business) and why, I do not know. In fact it doesn't even appear on the Microsoft website under that name, except for some obscure link to the Microsoft Australia division. But both Dell and a few other vendors offered that package to me in those exact words, "Open Business Licensing." However with a little bit of comparing, it seems to be the same as what Microsoft has listed as "Microsoft Open Licensing." From what I learned, this is the most basic and probably the one you may really be looking for. What it is, is a 2 yr renewable agreement that requires  you to buy 5 licenses of any Microsoft product (for registration or renewal) that grants you rights to the respective software. However, you are only buying the software license and not any media. Therefore you save a small percentage per license since you are not buying media or retail boxing. Keep in mind, this is NOT OEM. That means you do the installations, you acquire the software by downloading it off Microsoft's site or using your own copy. All licensing tracking and keys are done online. This is an excellent solution for any business in my opinion. It eliminates the hassle of handling paper licenses and certificates etc. It also gives you the right to transfer licensees between computers and hardware, unlike OEM licenses that are only legible for the hardware it came with. There is no complicated forecasting or points system required either. This option also allows  you to add the Software Assurance agreement if you wish or decline it as well (which is good, because it can become expensive with SA.) So case in point, MOB is a renewable agreement that gives you electronic licenses, no more paper.
• Open Value Licensing, is the other common option. According to Dell, it offers a 6-10% discount per license. However, every license you purchase automatically comes with Software Assurance for 3 yrs., which may spike your pricing right off the bat. But this option lets you spread the total payments across the 3 yrs. And yes, Software Assurance is paid for every single license, it is not a single package that blankets all licenses as you normally encounter in regular "maintenance agreements." The Microsoft website also has one with "Subscription" appended to it, the big difference that I saw was 1 or 3 yr. agreement with a few variations.

There are plenty of other options that Microsoft offers, while I don't really consider them options but more like legalistic management, MOB seems to be perhaps the cheapest and most effective option for smaller businesses, unless you upgrade a lot and like having the latest software versions--then go with a Value subscription, you'll save money in the long run. But in most cases, smaller businesses will efficiently use software well into their life cycle for highest ROI.


Now Let's Talk Microsoft's COW$

I mean, let's talk about Microsoft CALs. I already knew CALs were implemented and tracked different since the Win2k days, but I just wasn't quite clear on how they worked and what really changed. Do you remember Per Seat and Per Server licensing? Even more, do you recall Small Business Server 2000 enforced CAL? If you're coming from that era still (don't be ashamed, I know people still running Windows 98SE, no joke!), it may take a little getting used to the new methods of CAL deployment.

Now they are divided into two categories, USER CAL and DEVICE CAL, no more Server CAL, well not like the old way at least. Additionally, it is again, not enforced in Windows 20008 (even in SBS 2008). So knowing this, you must know, there is room for either abuse or error involving remaining "legit" with your Microsoft Licensing. I say error because if you purchase a certain amount of CALs and you think you are all set, the server will not tell you that you're out of CALs or perhaps using the software illegitimately, it will work just fine regardless. Heck you can have 0 CALs with 1,000 users and it still won't tell you. But if you get audited, this error may cost you, so therefore it is important you understand how Windows Server 2008 'counts CALs.'

I had studied up a bit on current CAL methods and options and came across a common description of both types:

• DEVICE CALs: recommended for networks that contain devices that are used by multiple people, for example a company that runs shifts. Say you have 75 employees and 25 computers, but you run 3 shifts, 25 employees a shift. Device CALs in this case will save you money, you simply license the 25 computers/devices than all 75 employees. Using USER CALs in this scenario would be unnecessarily expensive, having to purchase 75 CALs.
• USER CALs: recommended for networks that contain users that use multiple devices, for example roaming/mobile users and PDA/Smartphone users. Say you have again 25 computers, and 25 employees that use them. At first glance you could probably choose either option and probably be okay. But let's throw in a PDA/Smart Phone and a laptop for every user. That easily turns into 75 devices, and now it matters which CAL you choose. As before, you end up paying more for the same services by choosing the wrong CAL, thus in this scenario you'd choose USER CALs, 25 of them and they are covered on all 75 devices.

Now these are the typical scenarios often cited in books and Microsoft websites, but for people new to this method and perhaps with lingering remnants of the older method may become confused or have some questions on how to 'count CALs' that most documentation on CALs doesn't explain. I had these very questions, and as stupid as they may be to some, the 3 - 4 people I spoke with could not give me a straight answer or simply did not know. However I finally got a Microsoft representative to answer my questions regarding how they are counted. The following were the questions I wondered about, was it just me complicating the matter further? Probably, but still good to know, here is a summarized version of what the dialogue went like between Microsoft and myself:

• How are CALs counted? "What do you mean counted?"
• Let me rephrase that, are CAL licenses 'counted' by simply counting how many computers are accessing the server or by active connections? Windows 2008 does not activate CALs based on connections, but on the quantity of devices accessing the server, one per device.
• So does that mean that DEVICE CALs that are not "active" or in use can be used by a different device logically, say a remote machine? ". . .what do you mean, a CAL 'not in use'?"
• A device/computer not being used is technically not using a CAL (this is a remnant of the old way of doing it by concurrent connections), but what if the same employee that is not using that device because he is at home, but chooses to VPN, can that CAL license apply to that remote machine? "No! He would need a CAL too, all CALs are always active."
• What if I choose USER CALs, do I count the amount of user names in Active Directory, does every single user name require a USER CAL? "No! CAL Licensing is in no way tied to Active Directory. You can have 100 user accounts and only 5 USER CALs and it will still operate and you'd still be licensed, provided only 5 employees are using the network."
• So the amount of user accounts is totally unrelated? "Yes! To decide how many USER CALs you need, just count how many humans, real people are using your network. *voice face palm.*"

Seriously, this dude although he was able to provide me answers, he had a crazy tone with me. But you cannot fault me or anyone else that may have wondered the same things, because there are software programs that do base their licenses on Active Directory and user accounts. There are program licenses that pool their 'device' licenses (i.e. SBS 2000) or by concurrent connections.

After getting answers to these questions, then and only then I felt more confident in the type of CALs I was going to purchase. Originally, Dell had quoted me for DEVICE CALs--which they in fact configured, I wasn't asked which type I wanted. Good thing I became better informed, because in reality, DEVICE CALs in this case would have been a poor decision for us. Where in most SMBs, DEVICE CALs may be enough, it is not so in our company. We actually have more devices than we do employees due to servers, service workstations, production workstations, manufacturing machines that run Windows, PDAs, laptops and several other networked nodes that require user access, it would have simply been foolish and expensive to go DEVICE CAL. But the even far more worse thing is, I was only being quoted for a certain amount of CALs, a number matching how many users we have, because no one asked, 'do you have more devices than users?' So while everything would have worked fine and dandy from an operational level, we would have been illegally operating on a Terms of Service level, over words and technicality. So once I realized this, I quickly informed our Dell representative and had the configuration changed. An additional thing that was changed in the CALs is that you can now purchase single CALs! No more of this having more than  you need crap. If you need 47 CALs, 47 is what you get. If you need 8, 8 is what you get. That alone saved us a nice chunk of change, the price of 2 CALs to be exact. Since now we are using USER CALs, (as soon as it is implemented) we can rest assured we are legit for all mobile and remote users.


Admin Nesting Phase™

Since now I am simply awaiting the arrival of my new progeny, I have began to "nest." These past several weeks have been quite stressful, managing a network, managing users, managing myself that my server room which unfortunately is my office as well has been neglected. I need to clean! I have papers, quotes, licensing information, CDs, DVDs, retail packaging, Cokes, empty shipping boxes, cables, computer guts and all sorts of clutter laying around. I need to make way for this new server and start reorganizing stuff again and start documenting key configurations etc. I feel like a woman well into her 5th month of pregnancy frantically cleaning and wanting to keep everything in an unreasonable 'ready' condition.

Anyway, time to snip this excessively long trail of words spewing from my finger tips. I hope some of this information helps a fellow admin out there somewhere either technically or just for a laugh, "wow that dude is crazy lol. . ."

Blurry Screen, User Interaction

Sometimes you just have to start troubleshooting by asking the obvious.

Notice the user's response, "no. . yes" /facepalm

Chatting With Cisco Systems Inc, Presales

Just for humor, yes my user name "Thomas" is fake. Captain Kirk's Nipples!

Outlook 2007 Hangs, Locks or Freezes When Opening An Email?

Apparently it's an old problem and I have yet to confirm if SP2 fixes this issue. However, Outlook can lock up your current window after opening an email, as if there is something that should be clicked. You'll hear the "ding" or is it "dong"? sound when you try anything else. The only way to get out of it is to kill Outlook.

This happens after you create a new profile for a user or email account in a Windows XP Pro machine running Office 2007. For some reason it doesn't seem to complete setup. To fix this problem (and a sort of a work around) is to open Word (or Excel etc) and as with most fresh Office setups, the "enter your initials" box comes up. Hit OK. Close Word and open Outlook, the problem should be resolved. I'll update tomorrow after applying SP2 if it still occurs. I may just have been late in applying this SP :-\

Motorola Droid & CompanionLink

Quick update:

I evaluated CompanionLink for Google, and it seemed unstable after a couple of hours of use. I am not sure if it was just the system it was installed on but we noticed it was extremely slow (even after playing with the settings) mainly with "Reading Outlook File" and eventually would often crash after taking a long time. It would usually freeze up Outlook. Now I am not sure if the program is just buggy or our install is just bad, anyway, I uninstalled it and continued using the Google Calender Sync alone (which works fine) and currently manually updating contacts until further notice.

Motorola Droid, Outlook Sync & Brief Review

Friday I got the, "let's get our net admin an hour before he leaves" approach. Seriously, don't you ever notice that? Usually problems will be minimal and easy throughout most of the day until about 1 hour before you leave, and usually the issue takes a little more than just an hour? Maybe it's just me, but at this time I wasn't too bothered by it considering I had the chance to play with the new Motorola Droid.

I had time to configure it and set it up, but quickly realized it wasn't without its flaws. Let is first though cover a few of the things I really found attractive.

First of all, it looks good. You cannot tell from the pictures though, but it has a nice finish, a very smooth screen a decent keypad and it is thin. The first thing I noticed, compared to the iPhone, (oh yes we are going to compare them) is that the screen is a bit taller. This is probably due to the fact that Google/Motorola saw the complete uselessness of Apple's big fat round button that does just about as much as the Any Key. The width of the screens are pretty much the same width, which is good because it keeps it small and comparable to the iPhone. However, even though it does have a taller screen than the iPhone, it is still the same size on the outer dimensions.

So does this mean that the Droid has no "home key"? Absolutely not! It in fact has FOUR different buttons on the face screen, FOUR buttons. A "Return," "Menu," "Home" (for you Apple fanboys), and a "Search" key. Sure an iPhone user could argue, "these aren't real buttons they aren't depressible in case the phone freezes up!" Oh but of course, as has been already noted in another post, this wouldn't be needed if there was a detachable battery--none of the hold-down-for-5-seconds-crap here. It comes with a battery that can be removed, like any real manly phone should have. What is more, the back slide-out cover is metal! Yes, metal, not some crappy plastic like the MotoQ had on the back, but a solid, sturdy metal cover. Underneath the battery hidden, is the microSD chip, this one came with a 16GB one (pre-installed) and expandable up to 32GB--but technically, infinite, as many as these mini cards you can fill up. One thing I forgot to mention with the face "buttons" were that they each make the phone give off a short, sharp-burst vibration, almost like a "shock" which at first I wondered: "wtf was that?" Until a few minutes later I realized it was the phone doing it. While this may be more of an "experience" feature, it was nice and satisfying to know when I hit the button I got a response from it. It's cool, if you get your hands on one, try it, it can become addicting, BZZ!

On the outside edges of the phone exists a USB port (not some proprietary connection), Volume Control, Quick Camera, and the usual Power/Lock button. Also included is a standard audio jack, (normal sized 3.5mm) unlike the MotoQ which had a smaller port--very annoying.

The camera comes with a Dual-LED flash lamp (can alternatively be used as a flashlight, no App needed for that) and a 5MP lens with auto-focus and 4x Zoom. See that Apple? All built-in, all standard. Additionally it also comes with built-in photo editing software, (also built-in is the bar-code reader). There are a ton of specs that are listed here, but I will not cover them all, for specs are specs, I am here to cover most on what I actually liked from the phone or didn't.



Another thing I did enjoy was the fact that they got rid of the big bulky bump on the right hand side of the phone that made the previous Google phone look ugly and almost made the keyboard useless. They also made it much slimmer and flat, again unlike the previous version that was thick and also had an angle (wtf?).

The speakers are nice and loud as well, which I appreciated even from the previous version, you can hear anything on it, again unlike the iPhone which in my opinion was only really loud with stock ringtones--everything else was meh.

There are plenty of things I really liked about the phone that could take me the rest of the day to cover but let me now discuss some of the things I found annoying.

The Droid's keyboard is a nicer feature now since it is even more slimmer, it can hide or slide out when you need it. However the buttons look a bit small and close together that it almost felt as if I had to be more careful on the keyboard than on the touch screen, imagine that. It also did not look as sturdy as the rest of the phone, it looked more plastic than plastic, but it worked fine.

I also didn't like the location of the microSD card, where on one hand it is nicely protected under the battery, swapping cards will take an extra couple of steps instead of just popping out the old and putting in the new. Small annoyance.

The screen wasn't as smudge proof as other phones I've used, it is very smudge prone--but maybe it was just my fingers? Either way, it is nothing a nice screen protection cover can't remedy, which also provide anti smudge protection.

However I think the biggest problem I had with Droid was the fact that it does not support (or come with any software to do so) Syncing with Outlook! Seriously? Why the heck not? Most PDAs and Smart phones have this as a standard. Granted, the Droid is new and has its own unique OS, so it cannot use ActiveSync but a solution should have been made available just for this. There are many Outlook users that don't use a Gmail account. The only way to sync your Outlook data is by having an Exchange server, 2003+. If you don't have Exchange your only option is to import all your contacts into Gmail and import all your calender events the same way. Interestingly there is an application that will sync your Outlook calender to Gmail Calender by Google, but not one for your contacts. It is free and it is here.

I came up with a theory though to why this is so at this time, Google wants all your base, I'm going with that. They probably want to encourage consumers to use Gmail if they aren't already, which will then encourage them to use Google Docs, calender, contacts etc nearly making a standard Microsoft Office install useless--cloud computing anyone? However this has a neat trick up its sleeve. Theoretically, Droid doesn't need to "sync."  Sure even Google calls it "syncing" and so do a bunch of other people, but if you look at it in practice, it isn't syncing in the sense that most people are used to with their Windows Mobile, Palms and iPhone solutions. What I mean is, Droid doesn't need to connect to your computer physically nor through a network to "sync." Let us say all  your data (contacts, events, email etc) is in Gmail, Droid simply pulls that data in real time (or damn near) and updates your phone seamlessly without ever having to hit "sync" or connect it to any computer. So in that sense, completely using Gmail for your basic Outlook needs is actually a much cooler solution; it's completely wireless, real time and accessible from any device that has access to the Internet! Alas though, people do use Outlook and my user here needs to use it--therefore having to manually update both Outlook and Gmail of contact changes is pretty freakin' stupid. Even if you're using the Google Calender sync which I mentioned earlier, it still leaves out the Contacts and other Notes that you may want synced. So if  you don't want to make around 40$ for a third party application, you are currently stuck import/exporting contacts between Outlook and Gmail if you need to update them. Fortunately, 40$ isn't a lot of money in my opinion and I am currently evaluating a solution for this problem, if it works out I'll purchase it for this particular user.

Basically all the program does (and by extension Droid too) is the data is "synced" between Outlook and Gmail through the Internet, but all that Droid is doing is actively pulling data from the Gmail account that is setup and configured on the phone already. On the surface it looks like magic, but underneath it is doing nothing more than pulling data. Simple yes, but I don't know anyone else doing this. If you really want it broken down, all the Droid is doing is in theory, accessing the Google website and viewing the data through your phone. That's why it's "real time" and "wireless" but it is all routed to the appropriate applications: contacts, gmail, docs, calender.

Here is the application for syncing both Contacts and Calender: Outlook to Gmail to Droid. CompanionLink

So far that is the only real downside to the Droid, anything else was implemented well, of course this is only a few days into its usage and I will definitely post any further annoyances regarding Google's new Droid.

UPDATE: I eventually configured it to work with out new Exchange Server. That works great. Management features are a little on the low side though.

Behind Every Good Admin, Should Be a Good Woman

Because we'd probably starve otherwise--well I would.

Spicey Lemon Chicken, con White Rice con Green Beans, and it's freakin' good. Yeah it's almost two and I am barely eating my "lunch," go figure. Thanks for my tasty dish dear, when I get home I'm going to Scout you though.

The Mickey Mouse by Apple!

Warning: This is probably a rant.

I hardly ever keep up with new things Apple spits out because I don't care. My network consists of all PC machines and servers, as do most companies. But when I do come across stuff that Apple puts out, I sometimes feel inclined to say something about it. Not so much because the technology sucks totally, but because I just don't like the Apple user attitude and I enjoy chopping them down to size. These mostly consist of people that still think there aren't any viruses for Mac OS X. Those that don't think any of their cats can't get mange or the rabies, sorry snow leopard, you can get AIDs.

What's the next Apple product to discuss? It is the "Magic Mouse." I've come to term it the Mickey Mouse, since the name "Magic Mouse" makes me think of Disneyland and Mickey. I so bet Mickey was a "Mac" and the mop was a "PC", you can tell because he's doing all the work and Mickey is prancing around acting like a moron, also he's on the Right.

I won't go into what the mouse is here because their website explains it all. However I will go into what it looks like for comic relief. It looks like a Maxi pad, or maybe an Always pad, I am not sure yet, it depends how much protection this mouse offers, but I doubt it doesn't offer much overnight protection.

Let us compare:

In the above images I was able to have the official Apple hand model demonstrate what the Maxi Pad would look like, of course we had to find an appropriate hand model to hold that big pad to make it look smaller to the public. Can you tell the difference? I couldn't either, not without labeling it, so I labeled it so you don't get confused either. I mean really, I'm married, what if I get sent to buy some pads (again ._. ) and I come back with a Magic Mouse and my wife gets mad at me? It will be all Apple's fault. That's enough of the non ergonomic design flaws I've pointed out, let's talk about the basic "intuitive" flaws now.

Apple states: "Now we’ve reached another milestone by bringing gestures to the desktop [...] that’s unlike anything ever before."

Lies! Let us introduce Apple to touch pads. What's really so different from touch pads? They too use "gestures" (a fancy way of saying, moving around your finger) and some even let you scroll left and right too. You can click by tapping or click by using the convenient buttons, look:

There's even detachable ones that you can still move around. Not to mention the Tablets that have nice pressure sensitive features and mice to use as well that require no batteries or power at all. All Apple is doing is reinventing the wheel, the touchscreen on the iPhone existed prior, the touch anything existed prior to Apple's latest trends. Even the color white existed before Apple.

Fail.

Macware for Mac Security!

It is interesting that more and more recently--well hold that thought, maybe now I am caring more about what is going on with Macs than before? Anyway, more "security" focus is being given to Macs, why? We know why, experts have been saying why for a long time.

"Macware for Mac Security"

"We hope Mac users across the globe enjoy the variety and value being offered in this bundle."

The Mac Security Bundle contains the following programs:
* Macware WebGhost5
* Intego VirusBarrier X5
* Micromat TechTool Pro 5
* Absolute Software Computrace LoJack5
* Intego ContentBarrier X5
* Intego NetBarrier X5
* Smith Micro Spring Cleaning
* JoeSoft Klix
* Intego Personal Antispam X5
* Intego FileGuard X5
* Intego Personal Backup X5
* MOApp MyWallet

I guess Justin Long on Mac vs PC commercials just gained a little more weight with "Bloatware." I just find it annoying how Apple just won't come out and state the obvious, "we're sorry people, our commercials and mass marketing campaign were very misleading."

On Computer Security Concepts & Practices

[Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert on IS or IA. All information provided are for informational purposes and as a foundation to an opinion rather than any form of academic reference. Please use the references that are provided to make further use of the information contained therein. However experiences in the field of networking and computer security in my specific environments have prompted me to document the information in this post.]

Security. It's on people's minds when surfing the web, using a network or concerned about privacy. It permeates our communication, transmissions, and even some daily routines. On the computer spectrum, since in most cases the end-user is running a Windows Operating System it is reasonable to conclude, that it at least crosses every computer user's mind at one time or another, "am I safe?"

I think there are common misconceptions thrown around on forums, social networks and among PC/Mac flame wars. Often the terms security, exploits, vulnerabilities etc. are thrown around often with loose meanings. I've often seen, 'if the PC users would switch to Mac, there would be a lot less problems with [insert exploit here]." Now this is not to say these comments are coming from security experts and those that should know better, at least I hope not. But judging by the comments I've witnessed, they seem to be misinformed people speaking to a misinformed audience.

First of all, why are there so many vulnerabilities constantly being found on a Windows OS? Well instead of simply looking at the way Windows operates, let's examine why a vulnerability exists in the first place. But if we're going to talk about vulnerabilities we will definitely need to talk about exploits right? And if we're going to talk about exploits, there would be reason to speak about payloads! We know vulnerabilities exist. We know exploits take advantage of those vulnerabilities. We know that the payloads determine how severe the vulnerability eventually becomes. So instead of talking about Windows containing "buggy or flawed" code or that it has a large market share or whatever other reason is often given, let us talk about more of the principles of security than the results of vulnerabilities, and perhaps it would give us a better understanding of why they exist anyway.

From my personal research and observance, there are three main divisions that in one form or another involve security; Computer Security, Information Security, and  IA (Information Assurance). Of course we as computer users are primarily concerned about computer security, though it is not unwise to also gain a little bit of knowledge on the other two. For two reasons: the first, computer security is actually a branch of IS, and second, the other two existed before or at the birth of computer security. So even though they are not the same thing, some fundamental things are shared among them either slightly modified or for a different purpose.


Let us first look at Information Security. Information security has existed for as long as any sense of "privacy" in humans has existed. Whenever it was that the first human breached trust, violated someone's privacy and exploited the information, you can bet that people began to worry about security. This really became apparent when the mechanism of writing became a common tool to use in  communication. Then when a mechanism for transmitting these messages were used (smoke signals, runners, coaches, letters, electronics etc.,) the need for security was obvious. It was much more evident throughout history of its importance when wars began. Intercepting information, breaching physical locations, and interrogation only magnified the need for security measures.In order to avoid some obscure history lesson, the point is, "security" has existed a long time and from the beginning there has also existed "vulnerabilities" and "exploits" for such measures. People that implemented their forms of communication, information sharing and security did not take sides in flame wars, "my smoke signal pattern is more secure than yours!" Rather as computer security enthusiasts should be, they focused on the truth, all security is penetrable.

An example, would be the well known Caesar cipher. I say well known because I think at one time or another, as children we've all seen "decoder" items or toys in cereal boxes or a box of Cracker Jacks, those were based on that particular cipher. However given its simplicity, this way of protecting information in that environment was possibly very effective. The reason I say "environment" is because of the type of people he was trying to keep out of his information. Did they know the cipher? Probably not. Was it a highly common thing among those he was protecting information from? Not really. Some scrambled letters could have easily looked as a different language and have been unusable to his enemies.

Even though it is a primitive form of "encryption" an equally primitive form of Brute Force attacks were its exploit to the vulnerability even back in 50 B.C.! Technically speaking, if you came across such an encrypted message in our day, you'd understand it was encrypted. You wouldn't know immediately though what encryption nor what algorithm was implemented, but you could guess. In this modern age, we have a wide range of access to free information, it would take a relatively short time to figure out what sort of encryption is used on a message. Really then, the principle has not changed. It is not a matter of how but when. Given enough time, anything can be cracked, but fortunately for most modern encryption, time is something humans do not have. So is the vulnerability gone? No it is not, but instead it has been made very difficult. So do any other vulnerabilities exist with modern encryption? Yes. One need to look no further than the software that makes use of the encryption, or better yet, the users. It has been proven often that social engineering is a formidable foe and it will continue to be so until humans are no longer prone to make mistakes, ever.

[For further insight on the discussed subjects see the following links: Encryption, Introduction to IS, and Software Security Engineering by Microsoft ]

There of course is much more to the workings of IS (e.g. hardware, physical, software) but is well beyond the scope of the point in this post.

Note: Information Security is modeled on three main components, which are discussed under the next heading because of their close relationship.

Now let's look at Information Assurance. With IS, we were a lot closer to the security of information, but with IA we are actually a bit higher and further from operation. This is because IA takes in a broader sense of risks that not only involve security, but availability, privacy, integrity and authenticity. There are actually a few more areas in which IA's scope manages but for this article, we do not really need to touch on them. Since it is closely related to IS, I will use the CIA model of IS (not the government agency) to display a common core of components.

The "CIA" model consists of Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. These are the main principles adopted by IS but also instituted within the IA model of principles, as I said, we are further back from the picture looking at a broader sense of information.

The basic functions of IA is to assess the object that is being protected. Remember, not only protected in a security format, but also from disaster, manipulation and availability. (Privacy, Integrity, Availability.)

Once it is decided which assets are to be protected, it is next determined what possible risks exist, ultimately worst case scenario.

When such an evaluation is done, the IA personnel will provide not a solution simply to "proof" the information from any of the above already existing vulnerabilities, but to manage how to best protect the information with the least TCO. Not only financially, but legally (broad sense) and effectively keeping availability.

If you notice however, why isn't an effort to "100% proof" a system performed? Because quite frankly it would be unreasonable to do such a thing. Not only would it be unreasonable, but consider the resources it would take at the expense of TCO; and yet the system would still prove to be penetrable. Furthermore, have you observed a system that is vulnerability proof? It then seems logical to conclude that based on these two core principles, our argument should not be on who has the most "vulnerabilities" or "exploits" but rather on providing and making use of the security and other resources immediately available!

For further reading, the following links may be of interest: Department of Defense IA Implementation, DoD Intructions, Bella-La Padula model, more on Computer Security models. Here is a paper on general security models, including the previously mentioned at crazylinux.net

And then there was Windows. After these two brief non-exhaustive presentations, it would be foolish to sit on a particular Operating System because you think it is "more secure." You are lying to yourself. Rather you should be sitting on an Operating System because of your observance of how closely the above principles are applied, but first of all with yourself. Whether at the developer level, or at the end-user level, security measures can be implemented to a respectable degree that would make even the would-be hacker nod their head in respect. Even though still penetrable, respect for security as a whole would protect you in most cases. After all, it was respect for security that moved the above principles to be developed and implemented.

Though, back on the subject of the Windows Operating Systems, again, why do they have vulnerabilities? Is it simply because the code is "bad" or because another OS does a much better job? Or could it possibly be because it is well known? Is it because it is a target? Is it because the weakest links are easier to predict than are the encryption schemes? I believe these questions should provoke objective thinking on the subject on an individual basis rather than uninformed generalizations.

The fact and theme of this post remains the same, from the ancient days of security, though it has evolved over time into different forms, the reason it has had to change has never changed itself, vulnerabilities exist in all of them and unless people cease to look for them, they will always exist. The more services are accessible, the more risks open up for breaching. The more exposure, the more chance there is. The more we think we are "safe" the more insecure we become.So again, it is not a matter of if or how, but a matter of when.

Charlie Miller on Mac's Security

Here is a couple of more sources to further show my point's validity. Don't be fooled by their marketing, Mac OS is setting itself to get owned further as their share increases.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941 Charlie Miller explains exploits in Mac OS

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html Charlie Miller convinced

Interesting how this supports what I said in the previous post:

"they are indeed setting up to crash and burn when they jump into the lake with the Big Fish who have been swimming with sharks for over two decades."

The question we should ask is, why were these exploits so easy to use? It's a good question, because the answer reveals Apple's pretense and attitude toward security flawed in principle.

Project Natal & Xbox 360 Security

Microsoft recently, well not so recently anymore, June 1, 2009 @ E3 2009, announced their new project, "Project Natal" and their new "controller-free gaming experience." Even though it was announced a few months ago I just now found out about it whilst looking at Wii motion enhancing add-ons.

If you have not yet heard about it or seen the demo then check out the multiple demos on Youtube here:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qlHoxPioM (demonstrates general beta usage, a bit cheesy)
  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPIbGnBQcJY (demonstrates insane AI + awareness + recognition)
• http://gizmodo.com/5277954/testing-project-natal-we-touched-the-intangible (3rd party tries it out)

Anyway, in all the articles discussing Project Natal and the videos showing the capabilities of this device Microsoft is working on, they are all discussing how "immersive" it is. It is true, as proof look at how well Wii has done for itself in sales because of its relative immersion quality and plain fun factor--the kids love it!

I mean when you have a "game" that "recognizes" you by either your face or your voice as soon as you walk by, and can greet you by name and "interact" with you. Furthermore, when it can also detect your tone (according to the Lionhead demo,) and even make 'eye contact' one has to wonder about security. However from what I have seen, no one is worried, yet. I've searched for articles thinking that perhaps someone may be a little concerned about security with this technology in your living room and surprisingly found none. Granted it was only recently unveiled so perhaps it's still too new or no one wants to jump the gun just yet until more details are released from Microsoft. But I am such a person willing to speculate and perhaps even predict a few security risks that may present themselves through this new toy.

First of all let us look at what this device consists of:

• Microphone (multi-array, to detect multiple voices/persons with noise canceling)
• RGB camera
• Depth sensor (obviously to get a better "image" of you 3 dimensionally)
  
• IR + CMOS sensor (for those dynamic lighting conditions, even in the dark)
• Feature extraction (with 48 skeletal human body points)
• And network ready (presumably from the demo of conference chats through Xbox Live)

 I don't want to drag this post too long (we've heard that before) but I apologize now if I do, I tend to write with train of thought, but these things need to be considered even if you don't care. Having this in your living room is no different than having a webcam installed on your computer, either built-in or not. The potential privacy risk involves the obvious, someone hijacking your webcam to snap pictures of you and perhaps using the common built-in microphone to eavesdrop as well. Report 1, Report 2

Even though those two reports are basically over someone taking video or pictures of you without permission, imagine how much more a device like the Project Natal device could do. We're not just talking about some fuzzy out of focused pictures here. We're talking about being able to detect who is who by sound or video and facial recognition--even in the dark! Other than the potential risk of invasion of privacy to eavesdrop visually or audibly, what other security risk could exist? That is up for speculation, we already know it could possibly be done on a regular Xbox camera if it could be done on a PC--after all, the Xbox is essentially a PC. It has software (the weak link here after users), hardware, GUI, Kernal and other critical "components."

 As further reason to not take these ideas so lightly right away, take a look at the first Xbox, and how bad it did in the security realm. Not only did they use a Windows Kernal and a similar bootup process, but the circuit board's actual bus from the famous "south bridge" was hacked to sniff the code being passed over. This was and is a hardware exploit. There was also the software exploits, where the saved games were not checked, nor was the data on the dashboard checked--which would result in possible buffer exploits. These are just two of the many exploits. Xbox 360 corrected many of the easier exploits but some remained, for example the DMA attacks due to it not being encrypted and the infamous Hypervisor exploit.

It must be acknowledged however that Microsoft has taken good measures to keep these gaming console/PCs secure from remote hacking, in fact most of these "exploits" are in forms of piracy and home brews and OS changes, not virus/trojan/code types. As regards their security measures, for example, the network it communicates with online is encrypted, with what? I don't know, maybe some custom SSL? I really don't know. Also, the network is obviously private. Another thing, the Xbox 360 basically has to authenticate itself before it's let onto this network, if it fails, you most likely will be banned due to modding etc.

Really, on a technical level, the only real ways to do any remote hacking like we do on computers is by first either finding a way into their network--which I believe would be damn near improbable; or find a way to impersonate and be authenticated as a 360 on their network; or formulate some sort of MITM attack allowing the real 360 authenticate you; or modify the 360 to let you use it for your hacking needs but then you also have to pass the mod checks; or somehow make use of the 'PC to Xbox 360' network capabilities. Then comes the problem of software to execute. Unless physically hacked, 360s will not execute software that is not approved, especially software that is not approved by Microsoft's Xbox Live market place.

Pointing out those few security measures that do protect your consoles may make us feel warm and fuzzy. However, we can start crapping bricks when they make a web browser available to the Xbox 360. It is not unreasonable to conclude that security itself is a reason the 360 does not have a browser. Once it does, it will become very vulnerable to malicious 3rd party applications, enumerations and hacks. Maybe then it will be time for a new sub-market? Norton Anti-Virus 2009, Xbox 360 edition?

In conclusion, while Project Natal may not go all Skynet on us all because of the security measures and more fundamental--the improbability of it, I believe it is shrewd not to dismiss such possibilities. When your Natal device is snapping Infra-Red-48 jointed-3D Rendered images whilst taking vocal samples and retina scans of you detecting your emotions through facial recognition, don't come crying to me I didn't tell you. ;-)

Apple's Security Pretense

Sure I may be on a roll here about Apple, I swear I don't hate their products, I hate their misdirection. Their products are "fun" as I recently described them to a fellow admin. But would I use them because Apple says they are more secure, immune to viruses, etc.? No.

Simply because there are far less cases on a Mac does not make it more secure. No more than me being a minority make me any less vulnerable to H1N1. When there is less of something, you are going to observe less things occur with that something. When there is more of something, well . . . you get the opposite. It's common sense, or so you would hope.

Quick example, there was a point in time in the last century when people very rarely ever heard of crimes as regularly as we do today. In most cases they had to observe it first-hand. Now, we observe it daily on the news and other media formats. However did it mean these crimes that were rarely heard of didn't occur? Of course not because they did occur. Granted, crime has gone up on a world-wide scale in general and the types of crimes have also increased into the technology realm, a "market" that did not exist a few hundred years ago on a binary level.

But this is the pretense that Apple is playing and has been playing for quite some time now. "We are immune to the viruses that PCs become infected with," or "OSX is far more secure than Windows--it's UNIX based!" and so forth. How long will Apple be able to use that as a crutch though? And is it true? Again, yes and no. Yes they are less affected by the common security problems plaguing Windows and perhaps Linux operating systems, but is it because they are less secure? Well according to the following report, it doesn't seem that is the case. Marketshare.hitslink.com shows the shares each OS has for the past two years, since November 2007. Statowl.com shows another pie chart with similar results. I think it is a bit easy to understand why Macs may seem "more secure" don't you agree? They don't have much market!

Why is this small point of any use to us though? I'll tell you. The question begs to be asked, how many average Mac users have spyware software installed, updated and running? How many perform the checks on a regular basis? How many actually have any anti-virus software installed, updated and running regularly? It would be a tough call to guess on these questions. But if I had to place my money on a bet to see which user has either of these things installed meeting the above conditions, either a Mac or PC user--you bet your lucky stars I'd put my money on the PC user. See here lies the future problem of Mac. As they continue to gather a following of "Hi I'm a Mac!" consumers, they are possibly also setting them up for a future of failure due to being unprepared. After all, why do Mac users need to be fearful of being on the internet when they are "immune" to all the problems a PC has? After all, wasn't it Apple that says, "so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything"?

So while Apple's Macs begin to no doubt gain market share increases and a bunch of loyal customers, they are indeed setting up to crash and burn when they jump into the lake with the Big Fish who have been swimming with sharks for over two decades. Mac users in general are still green when it comes to having to worry about security, hackers, spyware and viruses.


Proof of this is here in this article at SecurityFocus: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/864 All of a sudden Apple "encourages" their users to look into using virus software, and you know why. The interesting thing is how they removed the article as mentioned elsewhere at SecurityFocus as well: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/866

Of course there are plenty of people that will dismiss the "Market share theory" and call it a myth or speculative ideas. One forum on Apple's website had a poster say, 'this myth cannot be proven until Macs have 96% of the market share to compare to Windows.' It may sound reasonable, but it still does not negate the equally reasonable suggestion that Mac is in knee deep prospects of plenty of security problems of their own in the future. Consider the latest article as further evidence of these things being the case and the exact reason security experts and PC users have been saying what they have been saying:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3202856/russian-hackers-target-macs/

It seems all that is needed is some incentive, and Macs finds itself in the same boat as Windows, except with a lot less experience and awareness among their users. In the distant future, to me it seems the "security" pretense that Apple currently uses as a crutch will soon catch up to them. If you are a Mac user, take the expert's advice, do not ignore security just because Apple makes you feel warm & fuzzy for now. Good luck.

Apple's Mac FAQ & Marketing

"Macs don't have problems like PCs do."

Now most of us know how such a statement is based on uninformative Mac commercials and large scale marketing tactics on the part of Apple. Literally brain washing the average consumer that Macs a) "don't get viruses" b) "More secure" "Immune to Spyware" c) "It just effin works."

Most computer savvy folks though will understand these commercials for what they really are, just commercials, marketing tactics--not commercials being informative of their product. So you would guess Apple's website would at least have good  information to not mislead the consumer. Well let's look at a few of the "FAQs" at the Apple website.


"Is Mac safe from PC viruses?"

One does not need much thinking power to realize this question has been legally and strategically devised to include the specific form of viruses, "PC viruses." But Apple takes it further, under the question it says:

"Yes, a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs."

Can anyone say "DUH"? It's like saying, "Is a PC safe from Mac viruses?" And then replying with, "Yes, a PC is 100% safe from viruses designed to attack Macs." One can only correctly assume the nice play of words done here, by using legally protecting sentence structures and the positive sounding "100 percent" catches the consumer off guard and buys into the whole BS that Apple is trying to sell you. Yes I am talking to you. It's okay, it happens. Under the same question Apple goes on and haphazardly "explains" (it's really legally protecting themselves) how all computers on the internet are not immune to viruses or spyware, but that it is based on a "UNIX foundation with security in mind." So if it is UNIX that is at its foundation, why is that relevant to the gist of their point? If anything, saying it is based on UNIX foundation, it makes it all the more so plain to see how vulnerable it can be to many of the same exploits and viruses. After all, in theory, hacking Mac is hacking (an already often exploited UNIX) right? It gets worse, Apple goes on to further add to this apparent disclaimer saying how it has built-in software that "alerts" you when you are downloading applications and how Apple makes "free security updates" for their users. Wow, how revolutionary, don't all Operating Systems do that? My Windows does, and I'm sure that guy's Linux distro over there does too.

The FAQ goes on.


"Will my PC devices (cameras, printers, hard drives) work with a Mac?"

 Mac says an emphatic Yes! But wait, that is not all:

"Mac is smart enough to know what to do when you plug in your digital camera. . ."

What does it do that makes it so smart you might ask? Apple provides the answer, "it opens iPhoto to import your pictures." Can I get a face palm anyone?


"Is Mac Reliable?"

 Apples doesn't really answer the question on that one, rather it makes use of the ad hominem argument in a form of a genetic fallacy (as in most cases). It starts off with, "When you buy a PC. . ." and explains how the hardware may be manufactured from a different company than the software and Mac isn't this way, (this is also a half-truth). It ends the side-stepping with:

"Occasionally an application might quit, but it won’t affect the rest of your system. And Mac OS X resists most viruses, so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything."

Of course let us call it "quit" and not "crash" or "freeze" as you have just described the process a PC would do with an unresponsive application. However, most Windows PCs do not completely crash your Operating System because of one failed application. In fact, it does the same exact thing Apple is claiming Mac does, it will quit the faulty application and not affect the rest of your system. The last sentence is laughable, no counter argument needed.


"Why should I spend more money on a Mac?"

Good question! In my personal opinion, the only reason you should have to pay more is because it is pretty. I admit, most products from Apple, come out their orifice looking like a gem. But that's just the outside casing only, seriously, if you've seen one hard drive, you've seen them all. I think the word we are looking for here is, aesthetics. But I don't believe you are paying more for the reasons that Apple claims in their FAQ:

"When you compare the cost of a PC and factor in the additional software, memory, and other extras you have to buy to go along with it, the difference in price between a Mac and PC isn’t as great."

False. It is a huge damn difference in price even after I choose supposed "extras" on a new PC. But then again, we are comparing Apple & oranges, (I'm not sure if I intended pun.) Here is what I mean, the hardware is not comparable to begin with! I took some time to investigate their claim and surfed around their website and looked at what products they have available. The only one that didn't look like a flattened toaster (sorry Macmini) and provided scalability and somewhat of a workstation looking case was the Mac Pro. The specs on these beasts are amazing to say the least! We're talking about Quad Xeon cores, tons of memory (6GB+), tons of storage and so on. Well no wonder it is so damn expensive! It has nothing to do with what Apple claims at all. You are getting Workstation-Class power in these machines, power power power. However Apple is not telling the consumer that they don't need all this power. Seriously, a guy at home that checks his email, surfs the internet on Safari, downloads pictures, porn, burns CD/DVDs, watches movies, listens to music and uses Microsoft Office for Mac all on the same computer and even at the same time does not need all the hardware the Mac Pro sells you, period.

Back to the claim that Apple made though about the price difference not being that great after you supposedly add much of the features the Mac has already. I put this claim to the test. I opened up a Dell Workstation page (which I think was a somewhat comparable computer to the Mac Pro) and I opened up the Mac Pro configuration page as well. I based the Dell workstation off the default Mac Pro "8 Core" configuration. By the time I was finished, I saved almost $1,000.00 with the Dell workstation for the same specifications if not better. The Dell workstation has a bigger hard drive, it has a better nVidia video card, 64-bit OS. Additionally, if I wanted to match the Mac Pro price, I could easily include Microsoft Office 2007 Professional, a RAID controller, a second HDD and possibly a second LCD monitor and still be at the same price range as the default configuration of the Mac Pro.

I don't want to drag this particular point on, but we also need to talk about the software. Further under the same question Apple states that the price is also due to the already built-in software that lets you do so much. What applications? It doesn't say, but if it is implying the applications that are often advertised to lure people, those aren't free. They are in fact, add-ons, the very thing Apple attacked the PCs for. So really you aren't getting crap other than an overly powerful computer that you probably don't need as an average consumer.


This brings me to my last point on this portion of the FAQ. There is no variety of desktops or workstations to choose from at Apple. It does allow you to "customize" the configuration as do other PC manufacturers do, however based only off their one model (Mac Pro), where as with PC manufacturers you have a wide selection of PCs to choose from. I already hear Mac lovers saying, "Apple doesn't need to make a bunch of computers, because the Mac Pro can do it all!" Well that's a yes and no statement and equally a catch-22. Let me briefly explain.

You can have a computer that can "do it all" and be stuck with a huge price for something you will be utilizing about very little of. Or you can have a PC that can do what you need for a fraction of the price while you utilize most of its resources. If you later decide you need more power, you can upgrade. Need more memory? No problem, it's cheap nowadays. Need more storage? No problem, hard drives are cheap too, and so are external portable hard drives. Yes they are cheap, not expensive like Mac wants you to believe. The point is, it is an unnecessary waste to have such an extremely powerful computer--it's overkill for most consumers. And remember, CPUs and RAM perform dynamic volatile functions, they don't "fill up." They are used on how much work you are actually doing at any given time.

So why are you paying more? Because someone has to pay Justin Long to act witty and cool in their mass scale marketing. Someone has to pay the design department for their cool looking cases and colorful gadgets. Someone has to pay their adapter department to invent new proprietary connections and cables. Finally, someone is going to pay that much for a Mac. 

Stay tuned for my next post, it will be much shorter, I promise.

Work: Hard Drive Recovery

Today I have been working on recovering some data from this failed hard drive. I took the usual steps before ruling out basic software corruption, CHKDSK (within RC), attempted enumeration of DIR etc. The results continued to point to a hardware failure. In most cases that I have personally seen, if the OS or some driver is not allowing you to boot, Windows will still let you go into Safe Mode. In this case it wasn't. Another thing, if it's mere OS corruption, you can "see" the directories and files via RC. In this instance, I was not able to do either, and CHKDSK continued to report errors, in fact it was not even able to complete the diagnostic, it failed around 38%.

Fortunately (mostly for convenience) I purchased the VANTEC CB-ISATAU2 SATA/IDE to USB 2.0 Adapter. This useful adapter of course allowed you to connect SATA/IDE drives via USB. This usefulness of this inexpensive product is transparent to any admin that has had to diagnose, troubleshoot, format, recover data etc. from a "bad" hard drive. Hard drives that go bad isn't an uncommon thing, and it especially isn't an uncommon thing when you have more than a few computers in your network. You're bound to see one, the question is just when.

So I removed the HDD and hooked it up to the adapter and heard XP's dong-ding! Now this drive had two partitions, it was the first one that was inaccessible--the partition that had the data that was needed--of course.

Now since the past several failed drives I've had to recover data from, I've tried a few tools. I've tried "Recover My Files" which had a very nice interface and many options and configuration settings to play with. It also has a feature that will attempt to give you a preview of the file it has found (useful for those times when files lose their names!

However, even though I have used it, I have a fondness at the moment for D.A.R.T. XP by DTI Data. I've used it a few times now and have been successful and not only recovering the data (from bad HDDs) but also doing it in a quick manner. Now I have not tried many other programs you may use, but I have tried DART XP, and so far I like it.

One of the reasons I prefer it to Recover My Files, is it is a small, low-overhead semi-self contained program. Unlike RMF, it doesn't need to be installed. You simply run it. Also unlike RMF, there is no need to screw around with a ton of configuration settings (which at times can be cumbersome.) You simply tell it which Logical or Physical drive you wish to scan and hit NEXT. Once it is done (relatively short while, depends on size, speed etc.,) you choose which files you wish to recover. Now of course it has its cons. It doesn't have most of the nice features programs like Recover My Files have, such as previewing the file you wish to recover and the filter isn't as strong either if you wish to scan for more specific files. Another thing which I actually find annoying is there doesn't seem to be no apparent way to move the program window around! It pops up in the middle of your screen (not "always on top" mode though) and cannot be minimized or expanded. If you found out how let me know, this is freaking annoying, then again, it's not that big of a deal.


Once you have selected the directories or files you wish to recover you select Next and it will allow you to choose a directory to place the recovered files. After that it will keep you posted on its progress in MB, time, folders and files. Ultimately I find this program to be a nice little tool in my "Admin Tools" arsenal, on my USB drive. The program is also not very expensive in my opinion, especially now, $49.00 at the moment, it is on sale, normally goes for $99. http://www.dtidata.com/file-recovery-programs.html

 Anyway, I am still working on this machine's recovery, and DART XP has done its job, again. (As I look through this post, it totally seems like a marketing post, I swear it's not, >_<.