Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do I need WBEM?

Tags:
  • Windows
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host and I
also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody tell me
if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this computer
at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable connection. Frankly,
I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my system, but it's
always a good idea to check here first.

TIA

--
Regards from John Corliss

More about : wbem

Anonymous
February 3, 2005 11:34:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

WMI and WBEM
http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u...

--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:uYY4xihCFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
> unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host and I
> also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody tell me
> if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this computer
> at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable connection. Frankly,
> I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my system, but it's
> always a good idea to check here first.
>
> TIA
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 9:19:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jack E Martinelli wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>> I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
>> unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host and I
>> also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody tell me
>> if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this computer
>> at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable connection. Frankly,
>> I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my system, but it's
>> always a good idea to check here first.
>
> WMI and WBEM
> http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u...

Thanks very much for replying, but that article only explains what WBEM
is and doesn't really answer my question; i.e. it's a start, but
definitely not an answer.

Like most individuals who come to this group seeking help, I'm *not* a
programmer or IT specialist, so most of the article at the link you
provided means nothing to me. This is because (like most such documents)
it's rife with undefined terminology. So I tried to look up the terms
and acronyms used there as best as possible:

1. WMI - Windows Management Instrumentation (W2K). Improves
administrative control by allowing administrators to correlate data and
events from multiple sources and vendors on a local or enterprise basis.
(there IS no "System Administrator" for my computer other than me, and
since I'm using Millennium Edition, there's not really even any SA tools)

2. Win32 - An API for running 32-bit Windows applications under Windows
NT and Windows 95. The Win32 APIs of Windows NT and Windows 95 vary. To
use Microsoft's "Designed for Windows NT" logo, applications must run
under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95.

3. DMI - Desktop Management Interface. A framework created by the
Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF). DMTF specifications define
interfaces that are industry standards for providing hardware
instrumentation and management applications. (Who's "managing my
desktop" other than me? It had BETTER NOT be anybody I'm not aware of.)

4. SNMP - Simple Network Management Protocol is the Internet standard
protocol for network management software. It monitors devices on the
network, and gathers device performance data for management information
(data)bases (“MIB”). (there IS no "nework management" of my system going
on because I'm using it at home, I'm the only user and I'm not on a
network.)

5. CIM - Common Information Model. Describes the Web-based Enterprise
Management (WBEM) data representation that is now a standard. This
standard is sponsored by the Distributed Management Task Force. (this
definition is not very helpful because it's circular. Not only that, but
I'm not an "enterprise" and I absolutely DON'T allow anybody else to
manage my system via the Web. If any such activity is going on and I
find out about it, I will take measures to put an end to it immediately.)

but none or very little of THIS makes much sense to me, so my question
remains:

Why do I need WBEM if I'm running this system at home, unnetworked and
(to add to the info) I'm the only user of this system?

To my way of thinking, WBEM is simply unnecessary bloat that I can do
without. Am I wrong in thinking this for some reason?

--
Thanks and regards from John Corliss
Related resources
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:05:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

The folder is so small that it hardly matters. It doesn't sap up any
resources and as far as I know it is hardly used by anything but if you
remove it you may get Winmgmt errors.

John

John Corliss wrote:

> Jack E Martinelli wrote:
> > John Corliss wrote:
> >> I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
>
>>> unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host and I
>>> also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody tell me
>>> if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this computer
>>> at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable connection. Frankly,
>>> I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my system, but it's
>>> always a good idea to check here first.
>
> >
>
>> WMI and WBEM
>> http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u...
>>
>
>
> Thanks very much for replying, but that article only explains what WBEM
> is and doesn't really answer my question; i.e. it's a start, but
> definitely not an answer.
>
> Like most individuals who come to this group seeking help, I'm *not* a
> programmer or IT specialist, so most of the article at the link you
> provided means nothing to me. This is because (like most such documents)
> it's rife with undefined terminology. So I tried to look up the terms
> and acronyms used there as best as possible:
>
> 1. WMI - Windows Management Instrumentation (W2K). Improves
> administrative control by allowing administrators to correlate data and
> events from multiple sources and vendors on a local or enterprise basis.
> (there IS no "System Administrator" for my computer other than me, and
> since I'm using Millennium Edition, there's not really even any SA tools)
>
> 2. Win32 - An API for running 32-bit Windows applications under Windows
> NT and Windows 95. The Win32 APIs of Windows NT and Windows 95 vary. To
> use Microsoft's "Designed for Windows NT" logo, applications must run
> under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95.
>
> 3. DMI - Desktop Management Interface. A framework created by the
> Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF). DMTF specifications define
> interfaces that are industry standards for providing hardware
> instrumentation and management applications. (Who's "managing my
> desktop" other than me? It had BETTER NOT be anybody I'm not aware of.)
>
> 4. SNMP - Simple Network Management Protocol is the Internet standard
> protocol for network management software. It monitors devices on the
> network, and gathers device performance data for management information
> (data)bases (“MIB”). (there IS no "nework management" of my system going
> on because I'm using it at home, I'm the only user and I'm not on a
> network.)
>
> 5. CIM - Common Information Model. Describes the Web-based Enterprise
> Management (WBEM) data representation that is now a standard. This
> standard is sponsored by the Distributed Management Task Force. (this
> definition is not very helpful because it's circular. Not only that, but
> I'm not an "enterprise" and I absolutely DON'T allow anybody else to
> manage my system via the Web. If any such activity is going on and I
> find out about it, I will take measures to put an end to it immediately.)
>
> but none or very little of THIS makes much sense to me, so my question
> remains:
>
> Why do I need WBEM if I'm running this system at home, unnetworked and
> (to add to the info) I'm the only user of this system?
>
> To my way of thinking, WBEM is simply unnecessary bloat that I can do
> without. Am I wrong in thinking this for some reason?
>
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:48:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John John wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>> Jack E Martinelli wrote:
>>> John Corliss wrote:
>>>> I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
>>>> unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host
>>>> and I
>>>> also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody
>>>> tell me
>>>> if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this computer
>>>> at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable connection.
>>>> Frankly,
>>>> I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my system, but it's
>>>> always a good idea to check here first.
>>
>>> WMI and WBEM
>>> http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u...
>>
>> Thanks very much for replying, but that article only explains what
>> WBEM is and doesn't really answer my question; i.e. it's a start, but
>> definitely not an answer.
>>
>> Like most individuals who come to this group seeking help, I'm *not* a
>> programmer or IT specialist, so most of the article at the link you
>> provided means nothing to me. This is because (like most such
>> documents) it's rife with undefined terminology. So I tried to look up
>> the terms and acronyms used there as best as possible:
>>
>> 1. WMI - Windows Management Instrumentation (W2K). Improves
>> administrative control by allowing administrators to correlate data
>> and events from multiple sources and vendors on a local or enterprise
>> basis. (there IS no "System Administrator" for my computer other than
>> me, and since I'm using Millennium Edition, there's not really even
>> any SA tools)
>>
>> 2. Win32 - An API for running 32-bit Windows applications under
>> Windows NT and Windows 95. The Win32 APIs of Windows NT and Windows 95
>> vary. To use Microsoft's "Designed for Windows NT" logo, applications
>> must run under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95.
>>
>> 3. DMI - Desktop Management Interface. A framework created by the
>> Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF). DMTF specifications define
>> interfaces that are industry standards for providing hardware
>> instrumentation and management applications. (Who's "managing my
>> desktop" other than me? It had BETTER NOT be anybody I'm not aware of.)
>>
>> 4. SNMP - Simple Network Management Protocol is the Internet standard
>> protocol for network management software. It monitors devices on the
>> network, and gathers device performance data for management
>> information (data)bases (“MIB”). (there IS no "nework management" of
>> my system going on because I'm using it at home, I'm the only user and
>> I'm not on a network.)
>>
>> 5. CIM - Common Information Model. Describes the Web-based Enterprise
>> Management (WBEM) data representation that is now a standard. This
>> standard is sponsored by the Distributed Management Task Force. (this
>> definition is not very helpful because it's circular. Not only that,
>> but I'm not an "enterprise" and I absolutely DON'T allow anybody else
>> to manage my system via the Web. If any such activity is going on and
>> I find out about it, I will take measures to put an end to it
>> immediately.)
>>
>> but none or very little of THIS makes much sense to me, so my question
>> remains:
>>
>> Why do I need WBEM if I'm running this system at home, unnetworked and
>> (to add to the info) I'm the only user of this system?
>>
>> To my way of thinking, WBEM is simply unnecessary bloat that I can do
>> without. Am I wrong in thinking this for some reason?
>>
> The folder is so small that it hardly matters. It doesn't sap up any
> resources and as far as I know it is hardly used by anything but if
> you remove it you may get Winmgmt errors.

First, thanks for replying!

Now onward....
Not sure why I would get Winmgmt errors, since as I say, I'm not on a
personal or business network or any kind. This means that nobody would
or should be attempting to "manage" my system. And since Winmgmt.exe
resides in my WBEM folder, it would of course disappear along with
everything else. And since Winmgmt doesn't run automatically in ME, I
dont know why there would ever be any errors with it.

My concern is privacy, first and foremost. If this "Web Based
Management" allows somebody else to remotely control my computer in any
way, or is another unneeded part of Windows that makes the system
vulnerable to hackers, Trojans and virii, then I don't want it on my
system. If WEBM is in any way related to RCP, then there's even more
reason to remove it. I also notice this folder:
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\WBEM\Logs
contains files that are fairly recent.

Hey, I even run a startup batch file that deletes ALL of my index.dat
files every time I restart Windows. But as I said, I'm not a programmer
and am simply looking for information about why WEBM is necessary.

I don't have any idea why Microsoft puts stuff on computers that don't
need it rather than simply making the item optional.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:01:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John Corliss wrote:
> I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
> unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host and I
> also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody tell me
> if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this computer
> at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable connection. Frankly,
> I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my system, but it's
> always a good idea to check here first.

umm, if you have "a fiber optic cable connection" that you're using then
you *are* networked (the internet *is* a network).

But, WBEM doesn't sound like something that's necessary... kill it and
if it causes problems put it back.


Rick
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 4:01:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Rick T wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>
>> I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to remove such
>> unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows Scripting host and
>> I also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can anybody
>> tell me if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use this
>> computer at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable
>> connection. Frankly, I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on
>> my system, but it's always a good idea to check here first.
>
> umm, if you have "a fiber optic cable connection" that you're using then
> you *are* networked (the internet *is* a network).

*sigh* I knew somebody would say that. Yes, it's true that one could
look at the internet as a big network of course, but what I mean is that
I'm not on a *business or private* network. Sorry I didn't make that
clearer.

> But, WBEM doesn't sound like something that's necessary... kill it and
> if it causes problems put it back.

Sounds like a plan to me.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:57:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> Not sure why I would get Winmgmt errors, since as I say, I'm not on a
> personal or business network or any kind.

Could be because you are using Win Me of which winmgmnt.exe and WBEM form
part. If you don't want these why not move to an operating system that
doesn't include these as an integral part? Neither have any implications
for privacy but instead are about the well being of your system.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> First, thanks for replying!
>
> Now onward....
> Not sure why I would get Winmgmt errors, since as I say, I'm not on a
> personal or business network or any kind. This means that nobody would
> or should be attempting to "manage" my system. And since Winmgmt.exe
> resides in my WBEM folder, it would of course disappear along with
> everything else. And since Winmgmt doesn't run automatically in ME, I
> dont know why there would ever be any errors with it.
>
> My concern is privacy, first and foremost. If this "Web Based
> Management" allows somebody else to remotely control my computer in
> any way, or is another unneeded part of Windows that makes the system
> vulnerable to hackers, Trojans and virii, then I don't want it on my
> system. If WEBM is in any way related to RCP, then there's even more
> reason to remove it. I also notice this folder:
> C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\WBEM\Logs
> contains files that are fairly recent.
>
> Hey, I even run a startup batch file that deletes ALL of my index.dat
> files every time I restart Windows. But as I said, I'm not a
> programmer and am simply looking for information about why WEBM is
> necessary.
> I don't have any idea why Microsoft puts stuff on computers that don't
> need it rather than simply making the item optional.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

And at that it would have to be an ixnix system or other, WBEM is also
used on NT systems and if removed on these systems you may get event ids
and errors concerning WMI. As for ME it is sort of there for PCHealth
reporting amongst others. Other software can and may and does use it.
It probably wouldn't hurt much to remove it if you disable these "call
home" when there is an error option in your software. But then every
once in a blue moon you may get a winmgmt or WMI error and a year after
the fact you'll be scratching your head wondering why the error occurs.
These article and white papers explain a bit. White papers often end
up as ash in the bottom of the wood stove when programmers decide that
the feature is useless :-)

MS Windows Millennium Edition: Network Diagnostics Tool
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/WinME/maintain...

WMI and WBEM
http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u...

Microsoft Windows Management Instrumentation: Background and Overview
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr...

John

Mike M wrote:

>> Not sure why I would get Winmgmt errors, since as I say, I'm not on a
>> personal or business network or any kind.
>
>
> Could be because you are using Win Me of which winmgmnt.exe and WBEM
> form part. If you don't want these why not move to an operating system
> that doesn't include these as an integral part? Neither have any
> implications for privacy but instead are about the well being of your
> system.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:57:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
>> Not sure why I would get Winmgmt errors, since as I say, I'm not on a
>> personal or business network or any kind.
>
>
> Could be because you are using Win Me of which winmgmnt.exe and WBEM
> form part. If you don't want these why not move to an operating system
> that doesn't include these as an integral part? Neither have any
> implications for privacy but instead are about the well being of your
> system.

That's kind of an extreme solution, Mike. I'm dealing with what I have.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 11:57:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Thanks John John. I think you answered my question for the most part.
I'll check out your links now. Thanks.

John John wrote:

> And at that it would have to be an ixnix system or other, WBEM is also
> used on NT systems and if removed on these systems you may get event ids
> and errors concerning WMI. As for ME it is sort of there for PCHealth
> reporting amongst others. Other software can and may and does use it.
> It probably wouldn't hurt much to remove it if you disable these "call
> home" when there is an error option in your software. But then every
> once in a blue moon you may get a winmgmt or WMI error and a year after
> the fact you'll be scratching your head wondering why the error occurs.
> These article and white papers explain a bit. White papers often end
> up as ash in the bottom of the wood stove when programmers decide that
> the feature is useless :-)
>
> MS Windows Millennium Edition: Network Diagnostics Tool
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/WinME/maintain...
>
> WMI and WBEM
> http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?u...
>
>
> Microsoft Windows Management Instrumentation: Background and Overview
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr...
>
>
> John
>
> Mike M wrote:
>
>>> Not sure why I would get Winmgmt errors, since as I say, I'm not on a
>>> personal or business network or any kind.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could be because you are using Win Me of which winmgmnt.exe and WBEM
>> form part. If you don't want these why not move to an operating
>> system that doesn't include these as an integral part? Neither have
>> any implications for privacy but instead are about the well being of
>> your system.


--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:54:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

>-----Original Message-----
>I have a freeware program named Beta 10 that allows me to
remove such
>unneeded modules as Windows Media Player 6, Windows
Scripting host and I
>also notice, WBEM (Web Based Enterprise Management.) Can
anybody tell me
>if there's a reason I shouldn't remove that module? I use
this computer
>at home and unnetworked. I have a fiber optic cable
connection. Frankly,
>I'm unaware of any reason I should have this on my
system, but it's
>always a good idea to check here first.
>
>TIA
>
>--
>Regards from John Corliss
>.
>Ok after studying WBEM software on net it is basically
described as "software tools that make one type of
Operating system work better with another operating system
when using the net.
You say your computer isn't "networked" but if your
computer is using the INTERNET it is NETWORKED!
Though you probably meant "network as in same office
networking".
I would keep the WBEM, I am comp repairman so I have
learned that its better not to delete to many files.
Sometimes extra files can be handy when using some new
software! :) 
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:02:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the topic a
bit more.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:277d01c50c31$de8e0f70$a601280a@phx.gbl...

>Ok after studying WBEM software on net it is basically
> described as "software tools that make one type of
> Operating system work better with another operating system
> when using the net.
> You say your computer isn't "networked" but if your
> computer is using the INTERNET it is NETWORKED!
> Though you probably meant "network as in same office
> networking".
> I would keep the WBEM, I am comp repairman so I have
> learned that its better not to delete to many files.
> Sometimes extra files can be handy when using some new
> software! :) 
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:46:43 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:

> WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the topic a
> bit more.

First of all (after noting the way you responded to
anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com), understand that *I'm* not a
programmer or MVP. I do the best I can to figure things out. I do
however, work on all of my friends' and relatives' computers and so far
I'm batting 1000 as far as dealing with all problems thrown at me. The
following is a summarization of my experiences and what I've found after
a lot of looking around on the internet. I welcome constructive criticism...

My assertion still stands that WBEM is *primarily* a tool used by system
administrators to manage networked computers. This is born out by
Microsoft itself at this page:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pnppwr/wmi/WMI-int...

Note that also according to that site, "Windows Management
Instrumentation" (WMI) *is* an implementation of WBEM for Microsoft
Windows operating systems; when you talk about WMI, you are referring to
MS's implementation of WBEM for Windows.

*HOWEVER*..... WBEM is also used by at least one PC Health module for
providing system information, the individual components of PC Health in
Windows Millennium being:

1. Help and Support (which includes Assisted Support)
2. Automatic Update
3. System File Protection
4. System Restore.

According to this (found, I forget where):

"Microsoft plans to include CIM (note from John Corliss: CIM is an
acronym for 'Common Information Model' - see the definition of WBEM
further on down in this post for more information about CIM) in the
upcoming consumer release of Windows, the Millennium Edition, for
customer support. When a user contacts a technician with a problem, the
technician can get information about that user's computer and
applications through CIM."

information via WBEM supplements the Remote Call Procedure (RCP) used by
MS's support technicians when you call them through "Assisted Support"
(the first component listed above.)

As an aside, an interesting transcript of an MS webcast overview of PC
Health in Millennium Edition is here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2Fservi...
(link may wrap)

One can see that the original goals were noble. However, experience has
shown the whole concept to be rife with security holes. Historically,
pretty much every aspect of PC Health has been attacked or exploited by
virus or Trojan writers, or other hackers.

But back to the main topic of my post:

I don't know if WBEM is used by any of the remaining PC Health
components and would appreciate some clarification about whether or not
this is the case. I would also be very interested in knowing what other
uses MS possibly had in mind for having the module installed by default.
Along those lines, check out this page:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr...
(link may wrap)

If there's no system administrator for a free standing computer running
Millennium Edition, then are there any logs created? Does Microsoft
consider all of its customers to be merely workstations on some huge
fictional network of its own design and control? If this is the case,
then you can count me out! I can and do run Windows Update manually.

On the other hand it appears that Help and Support's System Information
wouldn't work if I remove WBEM, so _there is the reason_ I was looking
for not to do so. In fact now that I think of it, somebody once told me
that I shouldn't remove Wmiexe.exe because this would be the case. Since
Beta 10 lists both WBEM and Wmiexe.exe as being separately removable via
its useage, I mistakenly thought that they were two entirely different
items.

Now I know differently.

As for the definition of WBEM itself, here are a couple of descriptions
of what it is from various internet sites:
_____________________________
What is WBEM?

Web Based Enterprise Management is an Industry initiative to provide
management of systems, networks, users and applications across multiple
vendor environments. WBEM simplifies system management, providing better
access to both software and hardware data that is readable by WBEM
compliant applications.
WBEM has been designed to be compatible with all the major existing
management protocols, including SNMP, DMI, and CMIP. WBEM is a DMTF
standard. Industry standards used in the WBEM initiative include:
_____________________________
What Is WBEM?

In 1996, BMC Software, Cisco Systems, Compaq Computer, Intel, and
Microsoft sponsored the Web-Based Enterprise Management (WBEM)
initiative, an effort to provide a unifying mechanism for describing and
sharing management information. Now more than 70 companies publicly
support WBEM, including Computer Associates, IBM/Tivoli, and HP.
Administrators of systems running on multiple platforms currently
have no easy way to obtain management data from their different
platforms. They must use individual APIs or a separate console for each
management application. However, WBEM can provide one interface to
multiple platforms because it's independent of the different languages,
execution environments, and user interfaces (UIs) those platforms use to
host management applications. WBEM defines a common mechanism for
sharing management information, but it doesn't dictate how vendors
implement management solutions. WBEM does not require the use of a
runtime environment or programming language model, nor does it mandate
the use of any particular management application, console, operating
system (OS), or graphical environment. WBEM provides a consistent view
of managed environments without locking customers in to one management
framework, protocol, or platform.
Two main goals motivated WBEM's founders to create this
cross-platform management technology. First, they needed to standardize
the publishing of management data. To achieve this goal, the Desktop
Management Task Force (DMTF) adopted a standardized data model called
the Common Information Model (CIM) in 1997. CIM is an object-oriented
schema for describing a system's management objects. It offers one
extensible data description mechanism for all enterprise systems,
network devices, and other management tools such as applications,
peripherals, and databases. CIM supports data inheritance and
associations and is independent of any execution environment or
programming language model. You can use CIM to describe objects that you
implement in Java, distributed component object model (DCOM), Common
Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA), or any other object environment.
Second, WBEM's founders needed a standard method for accessing
management information. Previously, administrators had to use customized
API calls and software designed specifically for each environment that
they wanted to access management data from. WBEM provides one method for
accessing management data that originates from disparate sources.
Figure A (http://www.win2000mag.com/Files/3568/Figure_01.html) shows
the general WBEM architecture. The bottom of Figure A shows various
sources of management data that WBEM can use, including Windows
Management Interface (WMI), Desktop Management Interface (DMI), and
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). The next level shows the CIM
Object Provider, which acts as a translation layer for the CIM Object
Manager (CIMOM). The CIMOM handles the interactions between CIM,
management applications, and the CIM Object Provider. In addition, the
CIMOM handles security, event registration, and notification services.
At the top of Figure A, Management Application includes any application
that uses management data to provide value to users, such as a central
management console or a central management data repository.
The original WBEM specification proposed that HyperMedia Management
Protocol (HMMP) serve as the standard protocol for publishing and
accessing data. Although HMMP is part of the WBEM specification at press
time, I expect WBEM organizers to get rid of HMMP in the near future and
adopt Extensible Markup Language (XML) instead. (For the latest
information about WBEM, visit http://wbem.freerange.com.)
_____________________________

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:28:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

<lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
Joan

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the topic a
> bit more.
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 2:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Joan Archer wrote:
> <lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
> Joan
>
> Richard G. Harper wrote:
>
>> WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the
>> topic a bit more.

Joan,
I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster. He or
she was just trying to help. It's hardly productive to look down your
nose at somebody in that fashion.

--
Regards from John Corliss
February 6, 2005 5:47:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

He's not trying to be helpful, John, he's trying to get people to follow his
braindead advice by telling them he's a computer repairman. If he is, he's a
poor one.

Good people don't brag about their *expertise* in order to get people to do
what they say. Only sh*theads do that. This guy doesn't even know enough to
use a newsreader.


Shane


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:eU91SgFDFHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Joan Archer wrote:
> > <lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
> > Joan
> >
> > Richard G. Harper wrote:
> >
> >> WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the
> >> topic a bit more.
>
> Joan,
> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster. He or
> she was just trying to help. It's hardly productive to look down your
> nose at somebody in that fashion.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:47:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I dunno. Guess I'm just a (sometimes) kinda tolerant guy. 80)>

Shane wrote:

> He's not trying to be helpful, John, he's trying to get people to follow his
> braindead advice by telling them he's a computer repairman. If he is, he's a
> poor one.
>
> Good people don't brag about their *expertise* in order to get people to do
> what they say. Only sh*theads do that. This guy doesn't even know enough to
> use a newsreader.
>
>
> Shane
>
>
> "John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eU91SgFDFHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>>Joan Archer wrote:
>>
>>><lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
>>>Joan
>>>
>>>Richard G. Harper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the
>>>>topic a bit more.
>>
>>Joan,
>> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster. He or
>>she was just trying to help. It's hardly productive to look down your
>>nose at somebody in that fashion.
>>
>>--
>>Regards from John Corliss
>
>
>


--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 5:52:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Oh ... my ... don't get me started. <VBG>

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Joan Archer" <Joan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o kB5r7DDFHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> <lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
> Joan
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 6:03:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does not.

I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other couple
dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I am talking
about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with network
interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other threads is
equally laughable.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:o jlo3qFDFHA.3132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

<snipped>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 6:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster.

Primarily because what he is posting is not just wrong but dangerous and
will cause far more problems to the user than any it might purport to
solve.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster. He or
> she was just trying to help. It's hardly productive to look down your
> nose at somebody in that fashion.
February 6, 2005 8:06:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

<g> Yes. I am too, sometimes!


Shane


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:%232gIuxFDFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I dunno. Guess I'm just a (sometimes) kinda tolerant guy. 80)>
>
> Shane wrote:
>
>> He's not trying to be helpful, John, he's trying to get people to follow
>> his
>> braindead advice by telling them he's a computer repairman. If he is,
>> he's a
>> poor one.
>>
>> Good people don't brag about their *expertise* in order to get people to
>> do
>> what they say. Only sh*theads do that. This guy doesn't even know enough
>> to
>> use a newsreader.
>>
>>
>> Shane
>>
>>
>> "John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:eU91SgFDFHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Joan Archer wrote:
>>>
>>>><lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
>>>>Joan
>>>>
>>>>Richard G. Harper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>WBEM is not any such thing. I'd suggest that you need to study the
>>>>>topic a bit more.
>>>
>>>Joan,
>>> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster. He or
>>>she was just trying to help. It's hardly productive to look down your
>>>nose at somebody in that fashion.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Regards from John Corliss
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

<lol> Say no more <g>
Joan

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> Oh ... my ... don't get me started. <VBG>
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:29:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper <rgharper@email.com> wrote:

> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman"
> does not.
>
> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other
> couple dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what
> I am talking about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do
> with network interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice
> in other threads is equally laughable.

In other words - complete tripe. :-)
--
Mike
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:29:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Hey, is it time for dinner again already? ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:ebe4VqIDFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Richard G. Harper <rgharper@email.com> wrote:
>
>> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman"
>> does not. I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the
>> other
>> couple dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what
>> I am talking about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do
>> with network interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice
>> in other threads is equally laughable.
>
> In other words - complete tripe. :-)
> --
> Mike
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 12:16:27 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Is anyone beginning to understand why I haven't commented again after my
initial attempt to help?
I suspect Mike and Richard know all too well ...

IMO, Mr. Corliss would be well advised to let well enough alone, and turn
his attention to his other computing issues.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:uiz%23jHKDFHA.3888@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hey, is it time for dinner again already? ;-)
>
<SNIP>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 6:41:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
>> I don't understand why you're ridiculing the anonymous poster.
>
> Primarily because what he is posting is not just wrong but dangerous and
> will cause far more problems to the user than any it might purport to
> solve.

Dangerous? All he said was to leave WBEM alone. You *are* talking about
"anonymous" aren't you? Am I missing something? 80)>

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 7:09:16 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does not.

Yes... yes.... great. Since you're an MVP, I have no doubt that you do.
That's not the issue.

> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other couple
> dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I am talking
> about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with network
> interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other threads is
> equally laughable.

Sure, but Richard, not only did you completely clip out my laboriously
composed effort to steer the thread back to its original topic (which I
was very much hoping you would discuss and critique), you've also
converted the intent of this thread from solving my problem into being
basically a discussion of whether or not "anonymous" had a right to post
a reply.

In fact, the conservative advice he gave (basically to leave WBEM alone)
ultimately turned out to be correct as far as I can tell (since doing so
would remove System Information functionality.) On the other hand, he
may be wrong but nobody so far has discussed the merits of *removing* WBEM.

I know that I could simply remove it and if it doesn't work out,
reinstall it, BUT I personally don't know if that process might cause
any unforseen problems based on whether or not modification of WBEM by
one of the many system updates has occurred. Thus, there are actually
*two* reasons for me not to remove WBEM.

Let's get this straight: I have absolutely NO interest in any flame
wars. I came here looking for advice and I welcome replies from
*anybody* - not just from MVPs. The whole idea of usenet is to openly
*and courteously* discuss ideas, so let's allow that to happen. I don't
have time for parlor games or turf wars.

Now, can we PLEASE get back to my original question?

--
Thanks and regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 7:45:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jack E Martinelli wrote:

> Is anyone beginning to understand why I haven't commented again after my
> initial attempt to help?

Jack,
Don't get me wrong. I did very much appreciate your replying to my
post. The link you provided was a start. However, it really didn't
answer the question in my OP. Or did I miss something?

> I suspect Mike and Richard know all too well ...

Hmmmm..... a snide inside joke, eh? Is that supposed to put me in my
place as a "non MVP"? 80)>

> IMO, Mr. Corliss would be well advised to let well enough alone, and turn
> his attention to his other computing issues.

Thanks, but I'm focused on *this* issue right now, and I intend to
pursue it. If you prefer not to participate in this thread then....
simply *don't*.

But thanks again for replying the first time.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:16:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:

> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does not.
>
> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other couple
> dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I am talking
> about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with network
> interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other threads is
> equally laughable.
>

Richard my apologies for my other reply to this post. I didn't
understand that "anonymous" has been a problem in this group.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:37:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I will attempt to remain polite to you, disregarding what I interpret to be
your personal attacks, and suggest that you repost your question (issue?) in
a Microsoft programmer or developer ng, where you will find commenters far
more qualified than me to explain the working of WBEM and WMI to you.
My previous intent was to lead you to the beginning of information which
would briefly explain how these management tools are woven into the core of
the modern Windows. Killing them can (may?) have many unexpected
consequences. Therefore, my comment regarding you to "let well enough
alone", esp. as you were not reporting any problems with the OS.
IMO, even if you successfully terminate WBEM under WinME, it will not
improve performance enough to merit the risk.
I did not intend to imply anything else about you in particular.

Nothing counts in the WinME NG's except the correctness and merit of the
answers, and the courtesy of the commenters.
There is no "MVP clique".

Personally, I find your text style here to be somewhat argumentative and
combative, where neither is needed. IOW, you have taken offense rather too
easily. Your overly active imagination is misleading you about perceived
slights. But it is not nearly the worst failing we have seen here. And
you have retained a modicum of courtesy, for which I thank you.

I do think you can be helped better elsewhere. Thank you for your
understanding. Good luck with your future research efforts.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:o 4ipqwdDFHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Jack E Martinelli wrote:
>
> > Is anyone beginning to understand why I haven't commented again after my
> > initial attempt to help?
>
> Jack,
> Don't get me wrong. I did very much appreciate your replying to my
> post. The link you provided was a start. However, it really didn't
> answer the question in my OP. Or did I miss something?
>
> > I suspect Mike and Richard know all too well ...
>
> Hmmmm..... a snide inside joke, eh? Is that supposed to put me in my
> place as a "non MVP"? 80)>
>
> > IMO, Mr. Corliss would be well advised to let well enough alone, and
turn
> > his attention to his other computing issues.
>
> Thanks, but I'm focused on *this* issue right now, and I intend to
> pursue it. If you prefer not to participate in this thread then....
> simply *don't*.
>
> But thanks again for replying the first time.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:03:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> Am I missing something? 80)>

Yes. You quite clearly haven't read any of his posts.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Dangerous? All he said was to leave WBEM alone. You *are* talking
> about "anonymous" aren't you? Am I missing something? 80)>
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:03:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:

>> Am I missing something? 80)>
>
> Yes. You quite clearly haven't read any of his posts.

No, I HAVE read the post he made to this thread. That's all that's
important to me. I couldn't care about his posting history. As I
mentioned in another post, I'm only interested in getting information
and advice from this group, not in engaging in ego wars.

Now, to get this thread back on topic I will reinsert my summary of the
issue to this point and HOPE that somebody will read it and offer
discussion.
________________________________________________________________

The following is a summarization of my experiences and what I've found
after a lot of looking around on the internet. I welcome constructive
criticism...

My assertion still stands that WBEM is *primarily* a tool used by system
administrators to manage networked computers. This is born out by
Microsoft itself at this page:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pnppwr/wmi/WMI-int...

Note that also according to that site, "Windows Management
Instrumentation" (WMI) *is* an implementation of WBEM for Microsoft
Windows operating systems; when you talk about WMI, you are referring to
MS's implementation of WBEM for Windows.

*HOWEVER*..... WBEM is also used by at least one PC Health module for
providing system information, the individual components of PC Health in
Windows Millennium being:

1. Help and Support (which includes Assisted Support)
2. Automatic Update
3. System File Protection
4. System Restore.

According to this (found, I forget where):

"Microsoft plans to include CIM (note from John Corliss: CIM is an
acronym for 'Common Information Model' - see the definition of WBEM
further on down in this post for more information about CIM) in the
upcoming consumer release of Windows, the Millennium Edition, for
customer support. When a user contacts a technician with a problem, the
technician can get information about that user's computer and
applications through CIM."

information via WBEM supplements the Remote Call Procedure (RCP) used by
MS's support technicians when you call them through "Assisted Support"
(the first component listed above.)

As an aside, an interesting transcript of an MS webcast overview of PC
Health in Millennium Edition is here:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2Fservi...
(link may wrap)

One can see that the original goals were noble. However, experience has
shown the whole concept to be rife with security holes. Historically,
pretty much every aspect of PC Health has been attacked or exploited by
virus or Trojan writers, or other hackers.

But back to the main topic of my post:

I don't know if WBEM is used by any of the remaining PC Health
components and would appreciate some clarification about whether or not
this is the case. I would also be very interested in knowing what other
uses MS possibly had in mind for having the module installed by default.
Along those lines, check out this page:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/libr...
(link may wrap)

If there's no system administrator for a free standing computer running
Millennium Edition, then are there any logs created? Does Microsoft
consider all of its customers to be merely workstations on some huge
fictional network of its own design and control? If this is the case,
then you can count me out! I can and do run Windows Update manually.

On the other hand it appears that Help and Support's System Information
wouldn't work if I remove WBEM, so _there is the reason_ I was looking
for not to do so. In fact now that I think of it, somebody once told me
that I shouldn't remove Wmiexe.exe because this would be the case. Since
Beta 10 lists both WBEM and Wmiexe.exe as being separately removable via
its useage, I mistakenly thought that they were two entirely different
items.

Now I know differently.

As for the definition of WBEM itself, here are a couple of descriptions
of what it is from various internet sites:
_____________________________
What is WBEM?

Web Based Enterprise Management is an Industry initiative to provide
management of systems, networks, users and applications across multiple
vendor environments. WBEM simplifies system management, providing better
access to both software and hardware data that is readable by WBEM
compliant applications.
WBEM has been designed to be compatible with all the major existing
management protocols, including SNMP, DMI, and CMIP. WBEM is a DMTF
standard. Industry standards used in the WBEM initiative include:
_____________________________
What Is WBEM?

In 1996, BMC Software, Cisco Systems, Compaq Computer, Intel, and
Microsoft sponsored the Web-Based Enterprise Management (WBEM)
initiative, an effort to provide a unifying mechanism for describing and
sharing management information. Now more than 70 companies publicly
support WBEM, including Computer Associates, IBM/Tivoli, and HP.
Administrators of systems running on multiple platforms currently
have no easy way to obtain management data from their different
platforms. They must use individual APIs or a separate console for each
management application. However, WBEM can provide one interface to
multiple platforms because it's independent of the different languages,
execution environments, and user interfaces (UIs) those platforms use to
host management applications. WBEM defines a common mechanism for
sharing management information, but it doesn't dictate how vendors
implement management solutions. WBEM does not require the use of a
runtime environment or programming language model, nor does it mandate
the use of any particular management application, console, operating
system (OS), or graphical environment. WBEM provides a consistent view
of managed environments without locking customers in to one management
framework, protocol, or platform.
Two main goals motivated WBEM's founders to create this
cross-platform management technology. First, they needed to standardize
the publishing of management data. To achieve this goal, the Desktop
Management Task Force (DMTF) adopted a standardized data model called
the Common Information Model (CIM) in 1997. CIM is an object-oriented
schema for describing a system's management objects. It offers one
extensible data description mechanism for all enterprise systems,
network devices, and other management tools such as applications,
peripherals, and databases. CIM supports data inheritance and
associations and is independent of any execution environment or
programming language model. You can use CIM to describe objects that you
implement in Java, distributed component object model (DCOM), Common
Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA), or any other object environment.
Second, WBEM's founders needed a standard method for accessing
management information. Previously, administrators had to use customized
API calls and software designed specifically for each environment that
they wanted to access management data from. WBEM provides one method for
accessing management data that originates from disparate sources.
Figure A (http://www.win2000mag.com/Files/3568/Figure_01.html) shows
the general WBEM architecture. The bottom of Figure A shows various
sources of management data that WBEM can use, including Windows
Management Interface (WMI), Desktop Management Interface (DMI), and
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). The next level shows the CIM
Object Provider, which acts as a translation layer for the CIM Object
Manager (CIMOM). The CIMOM handles the interactions between CIM,
management applications, and the CIM Object Provider. In addition, the
CIMOM handles security, event registration, and notification services.
At the top of Figure A, Management Application includes any application
that uses management data to provide value to users, such as a central
management console or a central management data repository.
The original WBEM specification proposed that HyperMedia Management
Protocol (HMMP) serve as the standard protocol for publishing and
accessing data. Although HMMP is part of the WBEM specification at press
time, I expect WBEM organizers to get rid of HMMP in the near future and
adopt Extensible Markup Language (XML) instead. (For the latest
information about WBEM, visit http://wbem.freerange.com.)



--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:46:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> I'm only interested in getting information
> and advice from this group.

Something which I now have no intention of supplying. IMO from reading
this thread it would appear that you could be the one with the ego
problem.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>
>>> Am I missing something? 80)>
>>
>> Yes. You quite clearly haven't read any of his posts.
>
> No, I HAVE read the post he made to this thread. That's all that's
> important to me. I couldn't care about his posting history. As I
> mentioned in another post, I'm only interested in getting information
> and advice from this group, not in engaging in ego wars.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:

>> I'm only interested in getting information
>> and advice from this group.
>
> Something which I now have no intention of supplying.

Well, I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, but that's your right of course.
Life will go on for me though.

> IMO from reading this thread it would appear that
> you could be the one with the ego problem.

Hey Mike, I said (and I cut and paste) "I'm only interested in getting
information and advice from this group, *not in engaging in ego wars.*"

On the other hand, I didn't realize that the individual who posted under
"anonymous" has been a problem in this group. Shane has now pointed this
out to me.

Still, the main problem I'm having at this point is that I can't seem to
get any discussion of the original topic going.

--
Regards from John Corliss
February 8, 2005 3:57:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John, you may not be interested in any of his other posts, but there's a
good chance that, if those who do know what they're talking about here, let
him get away with his blitz of dreadful advice unopposed, many of the less
savvy users here will believe that he is *a computer repairman* and
therefore he does know what he's talking about. There isn't any point
challenging him as he appears to know so little as to not expand the threads
to which he is replying and therefore does not even know there are replies.

The people ridiculing him (what does that mean anyway: pointing out that he
is ridiculous? He is) have been posting good and expert advice here on an
almost daily basis for several years and it's probably safe to say they care
that those who come here for help are not misled by someone who is either a
mischievous and inexpert child, a dishonest fool, or mentally ill.

Experience supports the conclusion that, if this person ever sees the
replies, he will defend his bilge regardless. In almost every post he adds
*I am comp repairman* or variation thereon. Have you ever heard the Firesign
Theatre's parody of a political advertisement in which the politcian ends
with *....and you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always
right.......*? This guy is of a breed we've seen here over and over. He's
not welcome.


Shane


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:eRkFOcdDFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Richard G. Harper wrote:
>> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does
>> not.
>
> Yes... yes.... great. Since you're an MVP, I have no doubt that you do.
> That's not the issue.
>
>> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other
>> couple dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I
>> am talking about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with
>> network interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other
>> threads is equally laughable.
>
> Sure, but Richard, not only did you completely clip out my laboriously
> composed effort to steer the thread back to its original topic (which I
> was very much hoping you would discuss and critique), you've also
> converted the intent of this thread from solving my problem into being
> basically a discussion of whether or not "anonymous" had a right to post a
> reply.
>
> In fact, the conservative advice he gave (basically to leave WBEM alone)
> ultimately turned out to be correct as far as I can tell (since doing so
> would remove System Information functionality.) On the other hand, he may
> be wrong but nobody so far has discussed the merits of *removing* WBEM.
>
> I know that I could simply remove it and if it doesn't work out, reinstall
> it, BUT I personally don't know if that process might cause any unforseen
> problems based on whether or not modification of WBEM by one of the many
> system updates has occurred. Thus, there are actually *two* reasons for me
> not to remove WBEM.
>
> Let's get this straight: I have absolutely NO interest in any flame wars.
> I came here looking for advice and I welcome replies from *anybody* - not
> just from MVPs. The whole idea of usenet is to openly *and courteously*
> discuss ideas, so let's allow that to happen. I don't have time for parlor
> games or turf wars.
>
> Now, can we PLEASE get back to my original question?
>
> --
> Thanks and regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:57:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Shane wrote:

> John, you may not be interested in any of his other posts, but there's a
> good chance that, if those who do know what they're talking about here, let
> him get away with his blitz of dreadful advice unopposed, many of the less
> savvy users here will believe that he is *a computer repairman* and
> therefore he does know what he's talking about. There isn't any point
> challenging him as he appears to know so little as to not expand the threads
> to which he is replying and therefore does not even know there are replies.

Well, that makes sense to me. However, of course I usually don't review
a person's posting history before replying so I had no idea.

> The people ridiculing him (what does that mean anyway: pointing out that he
> is ridiculous? He is) have been posting good and expert advice here on an
> almost daily basis for several years and it's probably safe to say they care
> that those who come here for help are not misled by someone who is either a
> mischievous and inexpert child, a dishonest fool, or mentally ill.
>
> Experience supports the conclusion that, if this person ever sees the
> replies, he will defend his bilge regardless. In almost every post he adds
> *I am comp repairman* or variation thereon. Have you ever heard the Firesign
> Theatre's parody of a political advertisement in which the politcian ends
> with *....and you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always
> right.......*?

Heh. Yes, I have.

> This guy is of a breed we've seen here over and over. He's
> not welcome.

All right. Point made.

--
Regards from John Corliss
February 8, 2005 5:04:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John,

Don't misunderstand me, this particular anonymous may never have posted here
before the last few days. Although the style is reminiscent. This person
appears to have chanced upon Microsoft's <appalling> web-based access to
these newsgroups, started new threads <as opposed to replying to> in
response to a no. of posts and it remains to be seen whether we'll ever hear
from him again.

I would forgive his bad advice and credit him with trying to help, were it
not for the claiming expertise when he gives the appearance of someone who's
been using computers for about two weeks.

You, otoh, seem like an honest man who's prepared to stand up for the little
guy and for that I salute you.

Now I'm going to take off my shoes and learn to play the flute.


Shane


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:o D28%235dDFHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Shane wrote:
>
>> John, you may not be interested in any of his other posts, but there's a
>> good chance that, if those who do know what they're talking about here,
>> let him get away with his blitz of dreadful advice unopposed, many of the
>> less savvy users here will believe that he is *a computer repairman* and
>> therefore he does know what he's talking about. There isn't any point
>> challenging him as he appears to know so little as to not expand the
>> threads to which he is replying and therefore does not even know there
>> are replies.
>
> Well, that makes sense to me. However, of course I usually don't review a
> person's posting history before replying so I had no idea.
>
>> The people ridiculing him (what does that mean anyway: pointing out that
>> he is ridiculous? He is) have been posting good and expert advice here on
>> an almost daily basis for several years and it's probably safe to say
>> they care that those who come here for help are not misled by someone who
>> is either a mischievous and inexpert child, a dishonest fool, or mentally
>> ill.
>>
>> Experience supports the conclusion that, if this person ever sees the
>> replies, he will defend his bilge regardless. In almost every post he
>> adds *I am comp repairman* or variation thereon. Have you ever heard the
>> Firesign Theatre's parody of a political advertisement in which the
>> politcian ends with *....and you can believe me, because I never lie, and
>> I'm always right.......*?
>
> Heh. Yes, I have.
>
>> This guy is of a breed we've seen here over and over. He's not welcome.
>
> All right. Point made.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:31:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Yeah - I agree with everyone else. Leave it the heck alone.

Happy? :-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:eRkFOcdDFHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> Now, can we PLEASE get back to my original question?
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 11:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Apology accepted, and thank you for offering it.

But I still say leave well enough alone. <VBG>

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23G6UuBeDFHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Richard G. Harper wrote:
>
>> I know what WBEM is ... it's obvious that the "computer repairman" does
>> not.
>>
>> I personally do not offer advice in this forum (or any of the other
>> couple dozen that I frequent) unless I am reasonably sure I know what I
>> am talking about. For the poster to suggest that WBEM has to do with
>> network interoperability is completely ludicrous, and his advice in other
>> threads is equally laughable.
>>
>
> Richard my apologies for my other reply to this post. I didn't understand
> that "anonymous" has been a problem in this group.
>
> --
> Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 7:08:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Richard G. Harper wrote:
> Apology accepted, and thank you for offering it.
>
> But I still say leave well enough alone. <VBG>

In the end, that's what I've chosen to do.

I've run without WBEM before (in fact on the current install of my OS)
and depended on the excellent freeware program AIDA (now called
"Everest" -
http://www.lavalys.com/products/overview.php?pid=1&lang...)to
provide me with system information. In those days, I never installed
system updates, but since then I reinstalled WBEM and have gotten my
computer up to date with all the system updates for ME that are
available. As a result, there is a slight chance that removing WBEM at
this point would cause unpredictable problems.

I guess after looking over my long posts I just wanted to know if WBEM
was used by Automatic Update, System File Protection or System Restore
because I rely on the latter two and perhaps the first one, even if I do
update manually. But if I'm not going to get the answer in this group,
then that's simply the way it is. That doesn't reflect in any negative
way on this group by any means since the answer is probably very
difficult to arrive at. Regardless, guess I'll keep looking elsewhere.

Thanks anyway.

--
Regards from John Corliss
!