Why do I need WBEM?

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
40 answers Last reply
More about wbem
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

    WMI and WBEM
    http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/w98ddk/hh/w98ddk/wmi_wp_6g19.asp

    --
    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/default.aspx
    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
  2. 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?url=/library/en-us/w98ddk/hh/w98ddk/wmi_wp_6g19.asp

    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
  3. 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?url=/library/en-us/w98ddk/hh/w98ddk/wmi_wp_6g19.asp
    >>
    >
    >
    > 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?
    >
  4. 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?url=/library/en-us/w98ddk/hh/w98ddk/wmi_wp_6g19.asp
    >>
    >> 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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/netdiag.mspx

    WMI and WBEM
    http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/w98ddk/hh/w98ddk/wmi_wp_6g19.asp

    Microsoft Windows Management Instrumentation: Background and Overview
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwmi/html/msdn_wmiwp.asp

    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.
  9. 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
  10. 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/netdiag.mspx
    >
    > WMI and WBEM
    > http://whidbey.msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/w98ddk/hh/w98ddk/wmi_wp_6g19.asp
    >
    >
    > Microsoft Windows Management Instrumentation: Background and Overview
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwmi/html/msdn_wmiwp.asp
    >
    >
    > 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
  11. 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! :)
  12. 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! :)
  13. 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-intro.mspx

    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=%2Fservicedesks%2Fwebcasts%2Fen%2Fwc052300%2Fwct052300.asp
    (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=/library/en-us/wmisdk/wmi/logging_wmi_activity.asp
    (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
  14. 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.
    >
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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:OkB5r7DDFHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > <lol> He's a computer repairman Richard <vbg>
    > Joan
  19. 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:Ojlo3qFDFHA.3132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

    <snipped>
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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>
    >
  23. 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
  24. 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
    >
    >
    >
  25. 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/default.aspx
    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>
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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/default.aspx
    Your cooperation is very appreciated.
    ------
    "John Corliss" <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote in message
    news:O4ipqwdDFHA.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
  31. 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)>
  32. 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-intro.mspx

    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=%2Fservicedesks%2Fwebcasts%2Fen%2Fwc052300%2Fwct052300.asp
    (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=/library/en-us/wmisdk/wmi/logging_wmi_activity.asp
    (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
  33. 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.
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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:OD28%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
  38. 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?
  39. 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
  40. 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=en&pageid=1)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
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows