On Dec 6, 1:50 pm, "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikeh...@xxxxxx> wrote:
> You said it yourself. It is just a folder name, so why change it? What
> possible difference could it make changing the name of the folder, other
> than to satisfy some arcane desire to be different?
> The Vista install is a preset image with a driver install routine. It allows
> for a fast and reliable install, just 25 mins or so depending upon the
> performance of the hardware. This is no step backwards, and as long as the
> hardware is compliant, leads to a far more reliable working system.
> There probably is something somewhere which explains it all, but I do not
> have access to it. I can only tell you what I have been told.
> Just for the record, why have you elected to change the folder name in the
> Mike Hall - MVPhttp://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
It was a recommendation from a consulting company - back in the old
days of NT 4.0. As far as I remember the reason behind it was that for
some viruses it is more difficult to attack the system when the system
does not reside in C:\WINDOWS (not every virus was smart enough to
check for the %SYSTEMROOT% setting). Since then we've created many
scripts that are run from outside the Windwows machine (so it is not
so easy for them to check for %Systemroot%) and have hardcoded our new
Systemroot name (e.g. C:\OS).
By the way, do you know what would happen if I would upgrade in-place
my XP installation that had SYSTEMROOT different from C:\WINDOWS?
Would Vista retain the old name? If so, perhaps that is the possible
workaround (first to install a fresh copy of XP with modified system
name, and then upgrade it in-place)?
Of course, the other option is to modify the scripts and all the
environment, but I am just curious if I can make Vista sit where I