Slashdot Mirror
Programs Cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista?
Corson writes "I am surprised that nobody seems to have mentioned this here yet. Possibly after one of the latest updates in Windows Vista, two strange things happened: first, the Uninstall option is no longer available in the Control Panel when you right-click on older programs (most likely, those installed prior to the update in question, because uninstall works fine for recently installed programs — the Uninstall button is also missing on the toolbar at the top); second, some programs are no longer shown on the applications list in Control Panel (e.g., Yahoo Messenger). A Google search returns quite a few hits on this issue (e.g., one, two, three, and four) but everybody seems to be waiting patiently for a sign from Microsoft. But the company seems to have no clue or they would have fixed it already. I am just curious how many of you are experiencing this nuisance."
Me thinks you need to call technical support instead of writing articles on Slashdot and your blog. Reason? I use Vista and I have an uninstall button for all the programs I have installed - and I've installed all the latest patches.
I recently bought a laptop with Vista, and I've already uninstalled stuff after the last patch Tuesday. So, what the hell is the submitter talking about? P.S.: Before the flamewars start, first thing I did was install Ubuntu so I could dual boot. I use Vista only for: a) the occasional game and b) my university's wireless network, since, as of this time, I couldn't get the box to connect (authentication issues). I'll elaborate on this if someone wants me to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not annoying and I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, but for this to be on the front page of slashdot seems a bit over the top. Why?
- There is a known workaround (re-run the installation of the application you want to uninstall - the vast majority of the time you will be propted to select from adding features, repairing features or uninstalling the application)
- It's a pretty trivial bug which doesn't affect any critical systems or features
- It doesn't affect that many systems - I'm running 3 Vista x64 systems and none of them have this problem
This all seems a bit knee-jerk.Could be some older programs are incompatible with the newer UAC security model. I've seen something similar in Windows XP whereby certain applications that required Power User or Administrator rights to uninstall had the button missing. Quicktime was a good example.
Best answer I can give; try logging in as Administrator (proper system administrator on Vista) and seeing if the uninstall buttons are there. Remember, if a program was written pre-UAC, chances are that it might misbehave and need full admin privs to remove. The other option is just to disable UAC for the duration of the uninstall, then re-enable it. I'm assuming you've researched and tried these simple fixes already though. Right?
One thing that really bothered me on OS X was its complete and total lack of an uninstall feature. This was especially annoying, as I'd hoped that the "drag to trash" was really a fancy GUI for some sort of real package manager.
I mean, sure, if your app is entirely self-contained, you can just drag it from Applications to Trash and be done with it -- at least that's no worse than Linux, where per-user preferences are left alone, but nobody really cares, since it's only a few K of disk space and doesn't affect anything else.
But what do you do about the random app that installs kernel extensions, browser extensions, and generally insinuates itself among all your stuff? You know, the cool stuff like Insomnia, the SMS-to-HID driver, or the force-any-window-to-fullscreen extension? Or even multi-desktops, or something as simple as a VPN?
Often, the uninstall instructions for these are at least as complicated and unnecessary as anything you hear people complaining about for installing software on Linux.
Oh wait, I forgot -- there's a proud Mac tradition of making you pay $20, $50, or $100 for random bits of third-party software to implement stuff that should have been in the OS to begin with. In the past, it was things like dynamic RAM allocation and swap space, and now, it's an uninstaller.
(You could complain that Windows is the same way, needing third-party stuff like anti-virus, but most of what you need on Windows is either bundled with the OS or available for free, often open source. And you don't really need anti-virus. On the Mac, it's always this truly basic functionality that I guess isn't needed by people who want it to "just work".)
In any case, mod me offtopic if you will, but maybe this proves that Apple was right not to include an uninstaller. Maybe most people just don't need to uninstall anything, ever, so it's too much work to include yet another feature that may confuse grandma, even if it makes us geeks grind our teeth at the mere thought...
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"everybody seems to be waiting patiently for a sign from Microsoft."
This is one of the major problems with proprietary software. You're entirely dependent on the copyright holder and need to wait for them to find and fix any bugs. If you run Windows, you don't even have control over the basic functionality of your software.
Free software empowers users. We all know that if you're a coder, you can fix free software yourself, but more importantly, if you run an organization that depends on the software, you can pay someone to fix it. When university department heads and corporate IT managers start realizing how they can get what they need done, when they need it, they'll make the switch. Waiting for a monopoly to get it's shit together means billions in lost revenue. Letting several companies bid and compete to find the fastest, cheapest, and most effective solutions means a more efficient IT industry as a whole.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
No problems here. I installed all of the available updates last night. I'm using Vista Ultimate 32-bit edition (on a 64-bit processor).
I keep automatic updates turned off ever since an update for Win2k corrupted my installation and forced a full re-install.
Me since Windows NT 4. I had a friend of mine who worked for large company call me and say, "don't install the latest fixes! One of them will trash your drive!" Apparently, their IT people were checking the latest hotfixes on their test system, prior to deployment, and discovered the problem. Of course, he tells me this right as I was trying to reboot after having installed them on my goddamn server and was wondering why I was getting a BSOD.
Yeah, I was pissed, and when automatic updates came around, it just seemed like a good idea to let everyone else test them first.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
No worse than OS X, huh?
/Library/Receipts for the two and a half years I've been using OS X. You know that you can select 'File->Show Files' from an OS X installer packages to view all files contained within the package, right? Another feature I wish Windows had.
I recently went through my old PC to remove the unused software it has collected over the years. Not only was this a long and painful process involving questions about shared DLLs that no end-user is even remotely qualified to answer, but nearly half of the uninstallers failed out-right. On top of that, my PC was still littered with registry settings, program files, and cache files from applications that were supposedly uninstalled successfully.
Do you think the App-Zapper people will develop a version for Windows? I'd pay $20 for that!
The reality is that most Windows uninstallers do little more than what is accomplished from dragging an application bundle to the trash. The reason it works on OS X (and NEXTSTEP) is because the program files and system configuration settings are contained entirely within the application bundle, as opposed to being scattered throughout the file system and registry. That is why Windows needs an uninstaller.
The reason the situation is better on OS X is because OS X doesn't obfuscate the file system the way Windows does. For people who are paranoid about a clean computer it's relatively trivial to go into ~/Library/Caches, ~/Library/Application Support, and ~/Library/Preferences and clear out stuff. Average users do this, and it's this simplicity that allows programs like App-zapper to exist. Writing such a tool for Windows would be practically impossible.
Given the choice between Application/Framework Bundles vs. requiring an installer/uninstaller program for even the simplest application, I'll choose bundles every time. It's a valid point that OS X could include a catalog of legitimate uninstallers for applications that do provide them, but on the other hand, I've been getting along just fine with
But if that's all too much for Grandma then perhaps she should stick with Windows.
(By the way AppTrap does what App-Zapper does, and it's free and open source.)
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
Secondly, Windows Update contains three "kinds" of updates, Important, Recommended, and Optional. Unfortunately almost all of them are titled "Update for Windows Vista (KB991234)", leaving you with no idea what they do and forcing you to individually decide whether or not to risk the patch. (In fact, it's probably an optional patch that broke the Programs control panel, given that not everyone who's "fully patched" is encountering the problem.)
Then go read the Knowledge Base article on X patch. That's what the KB number means. There's a description of the bug it targets, what files it changes, etc etc. In any case, other OSes make updating a simple process which includes other software. Not so with Vista: it's only Windows software, and you have to individually select updates which aren't "important" but may be required to run Vista without it constantly crashing.
You just need to download the ColdMetal(tm) Uninstall Tool:
. gif
http://www.tindlescomputerrepair.com/dont%20shoot
Table-ized A.I.
There's also the fact that tests have shown that using Aero actually increases CPU usage by 3%. Using the Aero compositor should increase performance, but unfortunately using it also wastes CPU time with excessive eye candy. Animations will always require more CPU than not having animations, since the CPU has to wake up more often to send redraw commands to the GPU. So while in theory you might be right that it'd increase performance to use Aero, in reality you're wrong. You don't need AV software on Windows either. Use common sense (run non-admin, don't install warez-crackz-pr0n.exe, and don't be a general moron). You can't avoid running AV software on Windows Vista, since it now comes standard. In any case, your suggestion not to run AV doesn't help when the original suggestion was to use a free AV product. Then go read the Knowledge Base article on X patch. That's what the KB number means. There's a description of the bug it targets, what files it changes, etc etc. Yes, you can do that for each patch. It's long and annoying if you're doing that for each of the 30 current "recommended" and "optional" patches. Fortunately you can pull up this information, one at a time, by double clicking on the patch name (complete with a link to the KB article) but you're still talking about a ridiculous amount of extra effort to discover that a recommended patch fixes an issue with a part of the OS you never intend to use.
Working around an issue does not mean the issue doesn't exist.
I can make an install for ANY windows machine that has no uninstall -- this has been trivial since the days of Win95.
Just because a program has an installer is NO guarantee that it will have an uninstaller. And frankly, this is not Microsoft's fault. Some programs have a legitimate reason to not be uninstallable (DirectX is a good example of a program NOT to uninstall) because it would destabilize the machine.
Bad User. No biscuit!
the person is running a "user" account and the Uninstall option is disabled. Only an "Administrator" account can see the Uninstall button. Switch to an Administrator account, or if on a corporate network ask your System Administrator for access to Uninstall your software or for someone to help you uninstall them.
Vista has a lot of security features that can be turned on and off. This whole Slashdot story is a waste of time, written by a Luddite that doesn't know how security in Vista works. I think they should have been using OS/2 or eComStation instead, which are easier to use and configure than Vista will ever be.
Actually this isn't just specific to Vista. This has happened several times in the past. Usually When and update to the installer or instalshied I forget what it's actual name is, has an incompatability with older versions and the install process removes registry entried so it no longer shows up in the add remeove programs dialog boxes.
I think I seen this happen on windows 98 and with ME when the installer stuff was updated. I'm suspecting that this is the same and it only effects people who used the older versions of the programs with the older installer that are seeing the effect. I was told once and I don't remember were, that the incompatabilities have to do with the uninstall.ini which is generated during the instal process. It either calls something that is no longer present or the formating of it no longer works corectly. If you have been around MS computers long enough, you will eventually see it. Sometimes it crops up as cannot find uninstall.ini or something simular with it in the corect folder and there when you check. It isn't a conspiracy, probably just an old problem creeping back.
Bad analogy.
A Speak and Spell is an educational device designed for an extremely young demographic.
It only seems like a toy once you've outgrown the need for it.
I did manage to get this problem to happen on a system, but it was only when the system had a lot of applications in its original XP form and was upgraded to Vista. Most of the applications could be removed. There were a few, however, that couldn't. In fact, running the installer for those programs would either crash or would simply re-install it.
I killed the install, reinstalled only vista and haven't seen it happen since.
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
To add to that, there's often articles about Firefox vulnerabilities on Slashdot, and many posts saying 'everything works fine here' regularly modded up to +5
How many alleged Firefox vulnerabilities affect the integrity of non-Windows systems? For that matter how many serious problems of any sort have you, personally, ever experienced with Firefox that weren't directly related to certain Web sites that were written specifically for IE, rather than generally accepted WC3 standards? The only major problem I've noticed with Firefox that actually bothered me much was when several earlier versions suffered a significant memory leak over time under heavy use. I won't even try to list the dozens of critical issues that have existed with various versions of IE since it was first foisted upon the largely unsuspecting marketplace. I simply avoid using IE -- I don't even use MS Update, but I can get all the patches (and there are a *lot* of them...hehehe) from other sources that I trust most than I do using IE to access MS's Web site. Firefox isn't perfect, but it isn't the open invitation to malicious hackers that IE is, especially when ActiveX is enabled on the latter. If you want to give your computer away, just use IE on it to access a few pr0n or warez sites -- someone else will own it soon enough!
"You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have knives; shit happens." -- Angelina Jolie
Just use the tools you have. Using WSUS 2 or 3, you can create groups. Set all of your updates to auto-approve for your testing group. Make a group of computers that are members of the testing group, and only put a few (depending on your size, this might be 1 or 50) from EACH functional area of your company. For example, if you have 20 accounting computers, put 2 in there. 5 marketing computers? Put one in there. Make sure the systems in each group have the same software, but make the testing computer one that is less critical. This way, if you wake up Wednesday morning and find that MS-XXX conflicts with the software that Joe Redneck did for accouting, you only have two computers to repair. Those two staff can share computers with others to make sure business gets done. Much better than having ALL OF ACCOUTING down becuase Joe's software uses some backdoor that MS just fixed. If, after a couple days you have no issues, then go and approve the updates in WSUS for everyone else. You DON'T NEED A DEDICATED TESTING LAB OR STAFF in MOST envrioments.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
End users on production networks should be the LAST to see the patches. First, they should go through a quarantined test lab. We use VMWare for that. If that passes, we release via WSUS to our development environment. Every application has an "owner," a person ultimately responsible for the support and maintenance of a particular program, even if it is "off-the-shelf." App owners are also responsible for developing and maintaining a test script that exercises all areas of the app, and running through that script as part of the patch testing process.
After quarantine (24hrs) and app test, (target 48 hrs), we release to pilot networks using WSUS. After two days with the Pilot users without problems, we release to our production WSUS for general roll-out.
If your a publicly-traded company in the USA subject to SOX, or ISO-27002/BS7799(Part 2) or PCI-complaint, or if you deal with personally identifiable information related to financial transactions or healthcare, your generally expected to have documented test processes with evidence of control and review that the processes are being followed. Many large, multinational companies require the same standards of all their partners (consultants, development houses, outsourcing Other businesses might not be legally compelled to do this, but depending on your size and the complexity of your environment, you would be foolish to simply throw out patches to "a few 100 PC's" without a bit of due diligence.
The insanity is to make sweeping changes to the fundamental foundation of your entire technology infrastructure without so much as even reading the technical notes for possible counter-indications or caveats. Zero-day attacks are mostly due to poor network security at the border. With perimeter and internal firewalls, transparent proxies, email security gateways, antivirus/antispyware, limited user rights and proper administration, the risks associated with virtually any unpatched vulnerability can be reduced to acceptable levels.
As far as I'm concerned, you are a trainwreck looking for a place to happen. I hope that your not one of my company's partners in India.--- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
A handy tool for sorting out Dell PC's can be found on this website. It even has a cool name. Sorted a colleague of mine's laptop real good.
First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He made Jack Thompson.
IPSec/L2TP vpn support was broken in Vista until about February or March, accounted for a lot of calls we got at our support desk. Either a patch fixed it or our admins updated our network VPN boxes to accommodate Vista, not sure which. OWA has always worked fine (counting our blessings there).
The main problem now with VPN is the damn Norton Internet Security or McAfee Personal Firewall that comes with most new laptops. Gateway has a custom version of McAfee that, for the life of me, I cannot find a sane way to turn off (probably could if I ever actually got my hands on it).
Thankfully we have a PPTP VPN server that still does ok.
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.