(iBoyd)

Super Talent Pico Drive

For deploying Windows XP to computers in our lab environment, we use 2GB 200x USB drives manufactured by Apacer. The reason for using these drives is simple: They are much faster and more reliable than DVD media. For Vista, we need to upgrade to 8GB drives (4GB would probably work for now, but having some padding is nice). The 8GB version of thet Apacer drive is very expensive (some retailers have it listed at over $100). Since we will eventually need to buy a lot of 8GB drives, I decided to look for some chreaper alternatives that have similar performance. I came across the Super Talent Pico Drive, which has fairly good performance reviews when compared to the Apacer drive. At $26, it’s a bargain. I decided to order one for testing.

I was shocked at how small this drive was. I would be reluctant to put most USB drives on my keyring because they are too bulky but this drive is really perfect accessory to your keys. The USB connector folds out of the casing. The one thing I dislike about the connector is that it allows you to put the key in to a USB slot backwards, so you have to pay attention when plugging it in.

In terms of performance, it is plenty fast for what we need. It is definitely faster than DVD media and may even have faster reads than the Apacer models we have used. If I have time someday I will do a side-by-side comparison. Writes to drive, while not blazing, are definitely fast enough for our needs since we only need to read data from the drive during our build process.

The verdict is still out for the sturdiness of this device. The USB connector is constructed of plastic that seems to scratch easily. I’m not sure if this will cause problems down the road. When the connector is folded into its case it seems to be fairly safe from unintentional damage.

Overall, I am really impressed with this USB drive. Having a USB drive with both gobs of space and great performance is spectacular, especially at this price. Super Talent has several other models that we may look at in the future.

Art 203: Assignment 5

Assignment 5 for ART203 can be found here. I must admit that this is my first time using Adobe Illustrator and I am not very good at drawing! I included a description of each image in the captions.

How do I know if I am registered to vote?

It may sound like a silly question, but I found myself wondering this evening if I was actually registered to vote. I couldn’t remember any confirmation for my registration and I had no idea how to find out. It turns out that if you live in Pennsylvania you can verify that you are in fact eligible to vote for this election using the Voter Registration Status web page. You can also find your polling location. Fortunately, I will be headed to the polls next week.

Art 203: Assignment 4

The fourth assignment for ART 203 can be found here

SCCM 2007

At work I have been assigned the task of creating an automated Windows Vista deployment using Microsoft System Center Configuration Manger 2007. With Windows XP, we manually created an automated deployment using BartPE and batch files. After the operating system was installed and the machine was joined to the domain, group policy would handle software deployment via MSI files.

Why are we looking to use SCCM when there is an additional per-machine cost? Well, we see several advantages that we need in order to be able to continue to expand out Computer Management project:

• No MSIs required - SCCM will hopefully allow us to deploy software without needing an expensive packaging application such as WISE. Not to mention, there are a lot of applications that work very poorly when packaged with MSIs, such as Office 2007 and Adobe Creative Suite). Furthermore, there are some MSI packages that conflict with others and can inevitably make a machine build fail.
• Better software deployment management - Hopefully, SCCM will allow us to be more granular when it comes to choosing which computers get what software.
• Machine Inventory/Queries - Currently, we use applications developed in-house to perform WMI queries against machines for Inventory purposes. Inventory is stored in a SQL database and queries can be performed using a web page. Quite frankly, this is code we would rather not maintain in the future. The SCCM Configmgr interface should allow us to inventory machines while also to grant access to are partners to that they can query their machines. In other words, we no longer have to reinvent the wheel. Inventory should also be more reliable.
• Offsite deployment - Currently, any machines in CLM must be connected to the Penn State network in order to be managed and receive software. This makes managing offsite devices, such as laptops, impossible. SCCM has functionality that could allow us to manage and deploy software to offsite systems through HTTPS.
• Streamlined Operating System Deployments - Thanks to the Operating System Deployment (OSD) portion of SCCM, we will hopefully be able to rapidly create, configure, and deploy Windows to machines using a variety of distribution mechanisms including PXE, USB Drives, and DVD Media. We hope to incorporate all of the features of our current imaging process into this. SCCM OSD also uses ImageX to create images similar in the way that Symantec Ghost does. This should eliminate our dependency on Ghost licensing.

We’re still investigating SCCM and there are several experiments under way. One thing that I have found is SCCM does not support OS deployments via a restore partition on the physical disk. This is a requirement for us because we have a lab environmment where an entire lab of 50+ machines may need rebuilt over. Pushing out the OS over the network could eat up a lot more bandwidth than is necessary. We will have to find a way to work around this, which probably means throwing out the native SCCM boot shell (TSBootShell.exe) and writing a simple one that meets our needs.

Art 203: Assignment 3 Part 2

The second part of the third assignment is linked below:

Images

Text

Art 203: Assignment 3 Part 1

The first part of the third assignment for my art 203 course is linked below:

Images

Text

ART 203: Assignment 2

My second assignment for Art 203 is available here. This is a fictional narrative which I wrote myself. Writing fictional narratives is not something I am very good at.

Art 203: Assignment 1

I have posted the first assignment for Art 203 here. To clarify, I didn’t write this story. I just applied styles to it.

The Penn State Student Facilities Fee

In case you missed it, Penn State’s board of Trustees approved a new Student Facilities Fee two weeks ago. This fee will be in addition to other fees, including the Information Technology Fee and Student Activity Fee.  The fee is designed to be used to fund student-centered facilities since Penn State needs more student facilities across all of its locations. However, I believe this fee and how it was brought about are a perfect example of how University Administrators have once again failed to address student concerns and have been unwilling to negotiate with students in order to reach an appropriate solution.

Lacking Receptiveness to Student Input

Despite claiming to be student-centered, administrators really failed to listen to student leaders and work with them to address concerns. While Student Affairs was very willing to market the fee and woo students with beautiful facilities that other Universities have, they apparently had no genuine concern for student opinion. When the University Park Undergraduate Association chose not to support the implementation of this fee both Student Affairs and the President moved forward with it anyway.

Misleading Information

One of the key problems with the way University Administrators handled this fee is how compared the fees we pay with that of other Universities. Administrators argued that non-tuition fees are much lower than other Universities. However, they “forgot” to mention that many of these state Universities have much lower tuition rates.  In addition to bias in facts and statistics, Administrators were very vague about how the fee would be controlled and how building projects would be determined.  If students are paying a fee that directly impacts them, they ought to be included in the decision-making process.

Uncertain Future

Now that certain University Administrators have pushed their agenda forward, it is unclear how this fee will be implemented, governed, and used. My advice is that students continue to fight for a voice on this fee.  My biggest fear is that this will become an under-examined fee much like the Information Technology Fee. Administrators should be held accountable for how money is spent to ensure it gets used in the best ways possible while meeting the needs of those it is intended for. After all, it is obvious that the rates of both tuition and student fees will only continue to balloon in the future.