Programs Cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista?

This is why you turn off updates.... by Fallen+Kell · 2007-07-15 04:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Problems like this happen all the time. This is why companies usually have a vetting process for any updates that are released and why no person should download an update for a week or more for these issues to be brought up and found/fixed. I keep automatic updates turned off ever since an update for Win2k corrupted my installation and forced a full re-install.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"

Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by jkrise · 2007-07-15 05:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

companies usually have a vetting process for any updates that are released and why no person should download an update for a week or more for these issues to be brought up and found/fixed. I keep automatic updates turned off ever since an update for Win2k corrupted my installation and forced a full re-install. I'm a bit confused here. Let's say I'm a sysadmin and I have a few 100 PCs in my network, 90% of them running some flavour of Windows - mostly Win2K and WinXP, 6 new Vista PCs for testing and the rest Linux. (actually I'm no longer a sysadmin but the rest of the above scenario applies in my firm).

Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch? Every patch Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks? How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves? Does it add to their 'experience' or job value? I don't think so, and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.

End result - we have a WSUS server which handles all the updates, and that server is set to automatic, sothe sysads get back to their task of configuring new PCs, setting up changed environments based on changing project needs etc.

A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates. The other problem here in India is that there is no direct support from Microsoft even for Corporates who are willing to pay - support issues get routed to some VAR, the engineers there know little better than the sysadmins, and often merely pretend to help out. In reality they couldn't be bothered less.

Poor Vista adoption will actually accentuate his problem I guess - the smaller userbase will mean lesser bugs reported until it's too late.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by rbochan · 2007-07-15 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch?

Absolutely... just as you would with any other vendor patch to a production system.
Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks?

That's not an end user's job. That's the IT staff's job. End users shouldn't be applying patches. Period. End of story. That's what the IT staff is there for.
...and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.

Those sysads should be retrained or fired.
...we have a WSUS server which handles all the updates, and that server is set to automatic...

If you allow things like that to happen automatically, you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
...The other problem here in India is that there is no direct support from Microsoft even for Corporates who are willing to pay

Find another vendor then. No one forces Microsoft's products on you.

--
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by ScrewMaster · 2007-07-15 05:55 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by UncleTogie · 2007-07-15 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates.
Not to criticize, but when was the last time Microsoft successfully responded to a 0-day within 24, 48, or 72 hours?

--
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by MindStalker · 2007-07-15 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course this all assumes you have enough staff to have someones primary job being testing updates. Most places unfortunately have just enough IT staff to keep things running. Sure things will occasionally break but and someone will have to work overtime. Sure a good sysadmin should delay patch releases for a few days in case any big news comes out. But thats the about the most you can expect for the average business.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by HiThere · 2007-07-15 07:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't know just how often MS goofs royally, but you are presuming a kind of overhead that many companies can't afford (or won't).

I'll grant you that your scenario would be preferable for everything but short-notice attacks...and even for those if a good firewall could keep them out. It would also be more expensive most of the time. Managers notice things like that. Most are willing to tolerate "emergency action", but many of those won't tolerate normal "wasted time", even if the "wasted time" would prevent the need for "emergency action". For one thing, because the need for emergency action was prevented, it never became necessary, and thus, to the manager, was unreal.

And it's also true that sometimes applying the patch QUICKLY is important. When Debian found that someone had gotten improper access to their repositories they shut-down updating INSTANTLY. Later they examined machine by machine to see which were good, and which had to be recovered from backup. It took a week for them to get fully back to normal. Security patches were among the first repositories back on line. Sometimes quick action is necessary. AFAIK they never found that any of their repositories had actually been corrupted, but they did "the right thing". And that involved two fast actions.
1) Take down anything that might have become corrupt
2) Get the security updates back up as quickly as is safe

Usually a security update doesn't have strong urgency, merely strong importance. Sometimes it also has strong urgency. With MS updates, you only know what they're telling you, and they're only telling you what will benefit them. So you never know which updates are important, which are urgent, and which are both. And from whose point of view.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by vertinox · 2007-07-15 07:59 · Score: 1

Absolutely... just as you would with any other vendor patch to a production system. So are you going to tell the CIO that the vendor he choose is a liar when he asks you why are you spending all this time reviewing patches?
That's not an end user's job. That's the IT staff's job. End users shouldn't be applying patches. Period. End of story. That's what the IT staff is there for. What if the VP directly issues cuts and layoffs to IT in which you are so understaffed, it is the only way to do it.
Those sysads should be retrained or fired. Unfortunately, its the CEO's nephew. Even if you could fire him, there is no money to hire or train anyone.
If you allow things like that to happen automatically, you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Like shareholder meetings and employee moral campaigns.
Find another vendor then. No one forces Microsoft's products on you. Unfortunately, the last CIO (which has left the company) chose the current vendor because they paid for his lunch and some free swag, but yet allowed a 5 year binding lock-in in which the company can't change vendors.

I know my jaded response is a bit over in the worse case scenario of corporate incompetence and nepotism but more seriously, most companies management doesn't care about IT nor want to put any money towards it than they have to. Most operations are simply guys they hired off the street with minimal knowledge to program Access Databases when they should be using SQL servers. So the truth of the matter is most persons in IT would not have the ability nor the authority to complete your suggestions.

It sucks, but thats how the corporate world is most of the time.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Fallen+Kell · 2007-07-15 08:26 · Score: 1

And that is the reason why you need to explain to the upper management what happens when the next patch that is installed automatically which happens to break the backup system for a few weeks and then the following patch corrupts the main work database, which doesn't have a backup because no staff was available to check what happens when you have those updates installed. Now you not only have to re-install, but you don't have a recent backup, and have lost several weeks of work which now has to be explained to the share holders that there was no backup because the current CIO cut the budget to save an extra $100,000 and give himself a bonus of said cash savings.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2007-07-15 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Most places unfortunately have just enough IT staff to keep things running."

And there are two reasons for that:

1) First, companies won't pay for proactive support and organization of their systems so they fail less. They pay for "damage control" only.

2) The IT industry produces stuff that is incredibly easy to break due to poor engineering.

Although, as to the latter, I'd say if we produced bridges that were intended to accept connections from any other device on the planet (like cameras, printers, modems, phones, blah blah), and do five million different things other than stand there and carry traffic, we'd probably have bridge collapses every day.

Humans simply aren't good at producing complex devices with multiple purposes. They can produce simple devices with multiple purposes - like a knife - and they can produce a complex device with ONE purpose - like a car (and look at how often cars break) - but they cannot produce a complex device with multiple purposes.

They could if they'd realize their limitations (the Dirty Harry Principle) and start applying computer-aided design technology to engineering computer systems themselves.

But admitting their limitations is something else humans aren't good at. That would make them "inferior" to the next guy over - and that isn't allowed by their primate brains.

Having said all that, Microsoft producing a patch that turns off program uninstallation is clearly one of the dumber things they've done lately - even if it only affects 5% of systems. What next? 5% of systems simply go BSOD on the next patch?

Whoever said that if 5% of any other device failed it would be recalled is correct. Vista was rushed out the door to meet a corporate contract deadline - after it was late by, what, three years? - and clearly it shows.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by HangingChad · 2007-07-15 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

..and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.
Those sysads should be retrained or fired.
Agh! Easy for you to say. I'm not sure what experience leads you to so callously dismiss a group of people who are usually understaffed to start with, dealing with seemingly endless stupid user tricks and have to accommodate the buzzword-of-day in IT. I heard a management person say, and this a quote, "I think we should do that SOA thing, don't you?"
So, no, based on what I've seen working with companies across the size spectrum, unless you're willing to pony up for the staff resources, the poor people on the front lines have to cut corners where they can. And it would not seem unreasonable to me that MSFT should be able to get the patches right the first time.
Otherwise, what are we getting for our money? MSFT is one of the richest companies on the planet...rich from our $$$. Why don't they dip into those billions and provide those poor people in IT a little relief. Perhaps then they'd have enough time to go out at a decent hour and actually have a chance at reproducing.
Find another vendor then. No one forces Microsoft's products on you.
We agree on that. Unload your MSFT environment. Your costs will go down, your users will be happy. You will make money.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by SpaceLifeForm · 2007-07-15 08:52 · Score: 1

Yep. I've seen this specific problem with XP Pro with latest updates.

This makes sense, since Microsoft apparently is back-porting Vista
functionality to XP.

Microsoft has a serious QA problem, and it's no wonder that their
own employees don't want Vista on their desk.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Swiftouch · 2007-07-15 09:18 · Score: 1

I believe everything is possible with microsoft. First, they are a large corporation and large corporations lose any and all ability to respond because they are big, have no heart, and have about 3000 goals, the lowest on the totem being actually making their product better. They do however manage EVERY time they come out with a newer release to make everyones computer slower, make every user pissed off cause everything on it only works 85% of the time. They wont ever learn because updates only affect 3% of the users, yet everyone gets it just in case. What really needs to happen is a longer beta period and to switch to something that works everytime. Please just give me something that works! What a novelty!
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by mcsuper5 · 2007-07-15 09:35 · Score: 1

Why didn't you just upgrade all of your Windows machines to Vista?

In a corporate environment, there is some software you must be able to run, or at least replace. The software will likely vary from dept to dept, and MS will not test all possible software for you.

MS decides that they want to remove a depreciated API with a patch. This API has been depreciated for years and is merely a footnote in new documentation. Your screen printing software is 5 years old, the company that made it is defunct, and the cost of converting to a new application is prohibative. The screen printing software uses this API. You patch all of the machines, and suddenly production grinds to a halt.

Whose fault is the mess you're now in?

MS gave ample warning that the API was depreciated and could be removed at any time. The software company may or may not have known what they were doing at the time, but aren't in business anymore. You're the dummy that installed a patch in a production environment without checking to see if it would affect production. Do you really expect your boss to happy that they've lost several hundred man-hours of work, when it should have cost them two man-hours.

You shouldn't need to rely on MS, or even an antivirus to prevent exploits. You also can't count of MS testing all software and network combinations, or caring if a patch breaks your system. If you counted on MS to make sure your system worked then you were in over your head.

JMTC
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Chris+Kamel · 2007-07-15 09:46 · Score: 1

and why no person should download an update for a week or more for these issues to be brought up and found/fixed.
And what if *everyone* took your advice and no person downloaded an update for a week?

--
The following statement is true
The preceding statement is false
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Tom · 2007-07-15 10:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Problems like this happen all the time. In some parts of the computing world.

You would not accept a problem like that with a shrug if it were in your car, or even your television set. Why do we accept computers as inherently faulty? My guess is that a big share of the blame for that goes to Redmond.

In beta software, in Free Software or in a student's freeware project, failures like that would be acceptable. In a commercial software that is being sold for several hundred bucks, they should not be. None of us would buy a car with several thousand known bugs, some of which just might affect the lights or brakes. Few of us would buy a TV that simply breaks down every now and then. None of us would accept "but it's a complicated technology and there are so many parts" as an excuse for a plane crash.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by timmarhy · 2007-07-15 10:07 · Score: 1

your right unfortunately. damage control is always more costly then doing it right the first time as well, the costs just aren't taken into account.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by jrumney · 2007-07-15 10:38 · Score: 1

This is why companies usually have a vetting process for any updates that are released and why no person should download an update for a week or more for these issues to be brought up and found/fixed.

The problem in this case is that those companies with good vetting processes won't be touching Vista with a bargepole until SP1 is out, so finding problems is left to Joe Sixpack who bought a new PC from Walmart without any clue of what was preloaded.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Trogre · 2007-07-15 10:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except if you're a small ma and pa shop then the end user is the IT staff.

The world isn't always as black and white as we might like it to be.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Kawahee · 2007-07-15 11:02 · Score: 2, Funny

The other problem here in India is that there is no direct support from Microsoft even for Corporates who are willing to pay
Dude, you're in India! We turn to you for support.

--
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Alien+Being · 2007-07-15 11:25 · Score: 1

Every business has enough IT talent to support an infinite number of MSWindows machines. All you need is this: http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:na76q-BJMYIJ: www.microsoft.com/Windows/zak/+microsoft+zero+admi n&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Ha ha fscking ha! MS lies about every piece of shit they sell. They've been doing it for 30 years and some morons still believe them.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Propaganda13 · 2007-07-15 12:01 · Score: 1

Besides delaying, you can patch a limited number of computers at a time so if a patch BSODs a computer at startup(yes, we've had this happen) or has problems with specific software on your systems. You have limited impact on the company. You don't need test systems that your company may not want to buy, you just need a limited number of guinea pigs. With the limited number, you can back out the changes or restore from a backup. Fixing 5-10 in the morning is better than fixing 100 with the whole company at a standstill.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by gatesvp · 2007-07-15 12:31 · Score: 1

Hey man, if you're too lazy to or budget-constrained to set up test boxes, then at the very least wait a week for the patches to be tested by others and keep your eyes out on the appropriate boards.
But let's face it, if you have 200+ PCs and you can't spring for like 4 Test boxes (2%) then your business has serious issues. A typical 200+ PC corporate environment can have a dozen different custom vendor apps (I'm sure some will say 50). You should be testing patches for *all* of these in a closed Test environment.
If you're not doing this, it's your professional responsibility to tell your boss what's happening and to ensure that he is aware of the risks. And do this in writing! When the system goes down due to an automatic vendor patch and 100 people are left surfing the web all morning, you must have this piece of paper explaining the situation. 'Cause I'm sick of hearing people describe how "their boss is a dick" when they can't even cover their own butts.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by finkployd · 2007-07-15 12:33 · Score: 1

Problems like this happen all the time.

To Windows. I just don't get why it is tolerated.

Finkployd
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by MindStalker · 2007-07-15 12:42 · Score: 1

While definately not Zero. That was the underpinning of domain policies, which defiantly reduce administrative effort (for windows systems that is).
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by gatesvp · 2007-07-15 12:47 · Score: 1

"I think we should do that SOA thing, don't you?"
Hey, cool, management knows what SOA is! Now is the time to explain the costs of implementing and running an SOA and to give the manager a good idea of the benefits in your environment. When your boss talks about stuff like this, they typically don't have enough information to make anything other than a passing "hey that's neat comment". If you can tell them that you've been reading about SOA for 3-4 years and that you've been investigating the options, he'll think that you're both pretty smart. If you go a step further and talk about the vendor support for the systems you're using and maybe some future expansions and even some dollar numbers then maybe that manager can use your information to make some positive system changes.
As to being understaffed and "The poor people on the front lines". That's just self-loathing BS. Either you're working with your company to be succesfful or you're moving on.
If your department is understaffed, then it's your job to be talking to the boss and increase the staff or to leave b/c you're paid one salary for doing two or three jobs. If the department is understaffed and can't find new staff then they're not paying enough, don't trust their staff or they have a big black mark in the industry. They're probably not making enough money to pay people well or they're run by people who don't understand the cost of paying people well. Don't complain about these companies, take leadership and make them better or just leave them.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by slackmaster2000 · 2007-07-15 13:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, having just enough staff to keep things running sounds very efficient to me.

Redundant testing of MS patches for the extremely unlikely event of having a patch cause real damage is wasteful. I have had MS patches screw up systems plenty, but the cost of fixing the problem after the fact has actually been considerably less than all the work that would be required putting tests through vague tests of my own design. Consider the bug in the topic post. I wouldn't have caught it, even if I did have time to verify every single patch. What would the procedure be?

4.3.4.594393 (c) Verify that programs still have uninstall button in Add/Remove programs.

Now what I've argued here doesn't apply universally. For desktops in what I consider a typical MS environment, however, the amount of time spent fixing problems caused by patches is so low that I could never, ever justify the cost of in-house testing. I read the patch synopsis and caveats, maybe hold off on scarier ones, do a minor amount of verification, and have very few problems.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by shlashdot · 2007-07-15 14:44 · Score: 1

"None of us would accept "but it's a complicated technology and there are so many parts" as an excuse for a plane crash."

Actually, I would accept that.

--
Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by oatworm · 2007-07-15 14:48 · Score: 1

Sure we accept this in cars. That's why there are recalls and TSBs. Heck, there are already recalls for 2007 Toyotas. Anytime you have a complicated system that's supposed to run continuously, you're going to have some bugs unless you either:

1. Create a truckload of redundant systems and have them check against each other.

2. Spend a lot of time and money on the problem, with the idea that you'd rather have reliability than state-of-the-art. Note that I said time AND money - money is no substitute for time here.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Phroggy · 2007-07-15 14:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Having said all that, Microsoft producing a patch that turns off program uninstallation is clearly one of the dumber things they've done lately - even if it only affects 5% of systems. What next? 5% of systems simply go BSOD on the next patch?

Whoever said that if 5% of any other device failed it would be recalled is correct. Vista was rushed out the door to meet a corporate contract deadline - after it was late by, what, three years? - and clearly it shows. The difference is that in a non-software product, if 5% of the units fail, it's often because 5% of the units are actually different than the other 95%, due to shoddy manufacturing. In Microsoft's case, the 95% of copies of Vista that work and the 5% that don't are exactly the same - only the rest of the computer is different, not Microsoft's product. For your average widget, if there's a 5% failure rate, the company needs to do better quality control and maybe test each individual unit for defects or something. For software, if there's a 5% failure rate, and everything in Microsoft's QA labs happen to fall into the 95%... what are they supposed to do?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by rtb61 · 2007-07-15 16:36 · Score: 1

When it is the end user's who yet again pay the real costs of M$ damage control, do you think M$ really cares, in fact M$ looks for way to charge the end users extra to fix M$'s failures.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Tacticus.v1 · 2007-07-15 17:08 · Score: 1

Then you need to explain to them that administrating something that is more complex than a car is going to be difficult and that they may wish to take it to someone with the capability to admin it.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by drsmithy · 2007-07-15 17:34 · Score: 1

The difference is that in a non-software product, if 5% of the units fail, it's often because 5% of the units are actually different than the other 95%, due to shoddy manufacturing. In Microsoft's case, the 95% of copies of Vista that work and the 5% that don't are exactly the same - only the rest of the computer is different, not Microsoft's product.
The vast amount of third-party software and, in particular, hardware drivers, disagree with your assumption.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Intrinsic · 2007-07-15 18:19 · Score: 1

Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch? Every patch Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks? How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves? Does it add to their 'experience' or job value? I don't think so, and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.

I don't see why you think this is so hard, just turn off automatic updates on all the client machines. Have someone apply updates manually from a server on the network to the client machines after you have verified nobody else in the world is having problems with the updates after a couple of weeks. You would want to also check to see what each update does and think about what kind of impact it would have if you decide to apply that update to one of your client systems. Or you would want to probably setup a test client system that emulates other client machines in that business and apply updates to that machine, test the applications just to make sure there are not any problems.
Failure to perform these actions could get you into a world of hurt you don't even want to think of being in, trust me, i have been there, learn from someone else who already made that mistake once. When it comes to making your job harder then it needs to be, never trust anyone but yourself.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by EtherMonkey · 2007-07-15 18:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch?
Yes, absolutely! How manual it needs to be depends on your environment. Do you think Microsoft tests patches against Peoplesoft? SAP? Oracle? Sybase? Java? Cognos? Citrix? Etc??? What about the other non-MS apps that keep your business running? The custom ActiveX modules needed for your proprietary order booking system?
how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks? How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves?

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.

A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates.

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]
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by TeraCo · 2007-07-15 19:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

At a minimum, I'd make sure that the patch you're installing isn't going to BSOD every PC in your enterprise. Because if you've got more than a handful of desktops (say 50,000 like my last job) you're going to end up having a very bad day.
At a minimum, -any- sysadmin who is doing their job should be setting up a wsus server with all the patches disabled by default. On patch day, the admin then comes in and reviews/installs all the patches on his own PC. Assuming his PC isn't a paperweight by the end of the day, then you could consider opening -specific patches- up to the company at large.
Anything else is just begging to be sacked.
PS: In said last job, the people who administer our centralised deployment server let some application (not a patch, some tiny app designed to monitor net usage) slip through without adequate testing and BSOD'd 2/3rds of those 50K workstations. Now, they -were- having a very bad day.

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by ocbwilg · 2007-07-15 22:40 · Score: 1

A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates.

Depends on what you mean about having a separate vetting process. In larger companies, it's a requirement that all patches get tested thoroughly before being deployed. In smaller companies they are usually tested, but less thoroughly.

For example, at the company where I work we don't always test every patch thoroughly. For our servers, we do have a test/development environment that is supposed to mirror production. So on patch Tuesday we apply the patches to all of the test servers and the app owners/developers are responsible for testing the application to make sure that the patch hasn't hosed anything. If it has, we restore from tape and find a workaround. If everything comes back clean, the systems are patched the next week.

For desktops it's a less strenuous process, mainly because there's no critical data being stored on them (at least there shouldn't be). Those are usually approved same day. At other companies I've worked at we have had a pilot group of desktop/laptop users (usually IT and "superuser" types) who would get the patches applied to their desktops on patch Tuesday, and then if they didn't discover any showstoppers they would be rolled out the next week.

Of course, in both cases if the patch were released to address an active exploit that we couldn't protect against any other way, the process was expedited. In all my years I have yet to get hit by a Microsoft patch that actually broke something that we were using. But since I know that other people have gotten burned that way, we're going to keep vetting patches before applying them anyway, just in case. And it's really best practice to do so.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Tom · 2007-07-15 23:18 · Score: 1

Sure we accept this in cars. That's why there are recalls and TSBs. The reason why there are recalls is that we don't accept this. If we would accept it, there would be no recalls.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Sabriel · 2007-07-16 00:03 · Score: 1

Actually, having just enough staff to keep things running sounds very efficient to me.

Me too. Trouble is, I think the OP really meant, "just enough staff to keep things lurching from one barely-missed disaster to the next."
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Phroggy · 2007-07-16 00:31 · Score: 1

The vast amount of third-party software and, in particular, hardware drivers, disagree with your assumption. When I said "only the rest of the computer is different", I was talking about third-party software, drivers, and hardware.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by drsmithy · 2007-07-16 00:43 · Score: 1

When I said "only the rest of the computer is different", I was talking about third-party software, drivers, and hardware.
Your incorrect assumption is that these third-party pieces of software do not modify how "Microsoft's product" behaves (or, more accurately, appears to behave).
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Phroggy · 2007-07-16 01:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your incorrect assumption is that these third-party pieces of software do not modify how "Microsoft's product" behaves (or, more accurately, appears to behave). I did not say that Windows doesn't behave differently on different PCs, only that it isn't different on different PCs. Windows itself, the product you buy in a weird little plastic box with the funny hinge in the corner, the data on the DVD in that box, is not different. If you do a clean install of Windows on your PC, and something doesn't work, exchanging the DVD for another identical one won't solve the problem. If you buy a toaster, drop in two slices of bread and push the lever, and it doesn't make toast, you can take the toaster back to the store to exchange it for exactly the same brand and model of toaster, and the new toaster will work fine.

With software, it's like you've bought a toaster that works fine unless you're trying to toast just a single slice of Franz honey wheat berry bread. Two slices works fine, Orowheat honey wheat berry works fine, Franz whole wheat works fine, etc. Nobody has this kind of problem with toasters. That's the difference.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Bert64 · 2007-07-16 01:31 · Score: 1

They need to publish a complete and standardised set of APIs, and then any third party software which complies with the published APIs will continue to work, *or* the change in API will be noted and it can be stated up front.
Instead, Microsoft documentation is often poor and incomplete, resulting in third party developers having to guess.

If Microsoft would be up front and transparent, they could legitimately pin any failures on third parties for not following the specs closely enough.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Gospodin · 2007-07-16 01:45 · Score: 1

Humans simply aren't good at producing complex devices with multiple purposes.

Well, at least we're better at it than kittens.

--
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Bert64 · 2007-07-16 01:59 · Score: 1

It's your fault for getting locked in to proprietary products in the first place.
You bought proprietary products over which you have no control, no guarantee that support will continue to be provided and no alternative supplier. The company providing it went bust, and now your screwed. You've nowhere to get fixes from, and because you didn't demand something interoperable and replaceable in the first place, you're now faced with a costly migration. And the fact your running this proprietary application on a proprietary os (windows) means that you've made this mistake more than once.

Face it, you shouldnt use any application without doing a proper risk assessment first.
You need to have multiple sources for the app and/or drop in replacements...
You need to have a continued avenue for support, even if you have to hire contract programmers to work on the code (and thus you should always get the source).

Getting locked in to something only available from one vendor is a huge risk, how long before businesses start doing proper risk assessments for things like this?

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by plague3106 · 2007-07-16 02:00 · Score: 1

Absolutely... just as you would with any other vendor patch to a production system.

Good policy. Delay patches to know issues because 1% of patches may cause other "problems." Nevermind that some of these problems are the result of application developers not following best practices, but hey, lets keep the vulnerablity open.

That's not an end user's job. That's the IT staff's job. End users shouldn't be applying patches. Period. End of story. That's what the IT staff is there for.

Applying patches is the IT depts. job yes, but testing software? Not sure I agree with that. Most IT people don't have a clue how to use end users software, let alone if its functioning correctly or not.

Those sysads should be retrained or fired.

Right, because if we had more people NOT applying patches, things like blaster wouldn't have happened right? Oh wait, the patch for that problem had been released a month earlier, but became a huge problem because nobody applied it.

If you allow things like that to happen automatically, you're going to have to deal with the consequences.

Like security holes being patched in a timely fashion? I think I can deal with that.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by smithcl8 · 2007-07-16 02:13 · Score: 2

In 8 years, I have had exactly 1 server crash due to a bad patch and maybe 5 PCs. The server required me to do the Windows installation with the repair option and the PCs had to be fully reinstalled. Not the best situation, but not the end of the world either.

On the other hand, my predecessor at one company decided to "test" everything first. He would get so bogged down in other tasks that he would be way late getting the patches installed. So when Blaster hit, just after I'd taken over his position, I had every computer infected. This WAS a big problem. That was the day that I came to the realization that patching blindly is safer than not patching at all.

Here are some questions for those of you who test every patch:

1. What criteria do you use to determine if the patch is safe?
2. Do you have every possible server and PC configuration available to you to test in a non-production environment?
3. How many systems do you patch before giving the green light?
4. Which department in your company becomes the guinea pig and gets the patches first, after your initial testing says everything is okay?
5. How many days per month do you allocate to simply patching systems?

Now, if you are in a large company, I would expect that patching is at least one person's entire job and all of these questions can get answered. In a small to medium company, however, you'd be hard pressed to get the hardware, people, and time to do the patching "safely".
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by MrJay · 2007-07-16 03:21 · Score: 1

It's your fault for getting locked in to proprietary products in the first place.

Nonsense. That decision could have been made years before the current Admin was hired. It's the fault of someone who is no longer accountable for their actions. I've been in this situation many times in my career. It's the nature of business; you're here now, therefore you do it. It doesn't matter what happened 5 years ago because the problem happening now is preventing people from getting their work done, which is burning money.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by cyber-vandal · 2007-07-16 04:44 · Score: 1

Because billions of dollars have been spent on Windows-only software. Provide a decent compatibility layer for a better OS and the sound of MS stock price tanking would deafen the world.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Shippy · 2007-07-16 04:52 · Score: 1

MSFT is one of the richest companies on the planet...rich from our $$$. Why don't they dip into those billions and provide those poor people in IT a little relief. That's why MSFT has provided WSUS for free instead of charging for it. Even if MSFT dips into their billions to provide those poor (self loathing much?) IT peeps some relief, it still doesn't guarantee that it'll be 100% perfect when it goes out the door. Windows is running on millions of systems with countless different configurations and existing patch states. The IT admin knows their environment and situation better than MSFT does... or at least they should.

--
-Shippy
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by The+Raven · 2007-07-16 06:08 · Score: 1

It simply depends on the number of systems affected. A 'test environment' is a fixed cost; whether you have 100 client computers, or 100,000, the test environment and staff cost the same. If a bad patch causes problems with 100 computers every few years, no big deal... it's cheaper to deal with that. If a bad patch causes problems with 100 THOUSAND computers every few years then you better have a goddamn testing environment before deployment.

It's all about size. For small and medium businesses a testing environment is a wasteful extravagance. For large businesses, NOT testing is the wasteful activity.

--
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Trogre · 2007-07-16 10:05 · Score: 1

And they'll promptly go buy a mac and forget about it. Is that what you were aiming for?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by Bert64 · 2007-07-16 21:42 · Score: 1

The guy 5 years ago should not have been permitted to make such a stupid mistake.
Similarly, you should not be permitted to make a serious mistake that will have repercussions 5 years after you've left.
Had there been a proper risk assessment process in place 5 years ago, you'd not be in trouble now. And it should be your job to clean up the mess, not just create a new one that your replacement will have to clean up in a few years time.
If it causes a lot of disruption, and costs a lot to fix, perhaps they will be more vigilant about preventing it happening again.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by defaria · 2007-07-17 05:30 · Score: 1

If everybody "delays patch releases for a few days in case any big news comes out" then how does the big news come out?
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... by mcsuper5 · 2007-07-19 05:33 · Score: 1

If management were capable of doing IT's job, they wouldn't need an IT dept. The decision to buy software is based on needs, availabilty, budget and approval. It doesn't make sense to hire a programmer to write software for a task, if the software exists and is established, the needs of the application won't change, IT is not your bread and butter, and the cost of recreating the wheel may be prohibative.
If you choose the only game in town, then risk assessment is meaningless, you had no choice. When you're updating things without testing first, you're not assessing the risk.
The business' need to be productive outweighs their need to be patched, up to date, and running the latest software/OS, especially when security can be maintained through alternative means. If you need to run an insecure service because the latest update will break it, then you make sure that that service isn't exposed to the net. At this time you go to management and tell them that running this software causes this risk, I did this to keep us up and running, but we should be looking at XYZ to replace this because ..., or we need to hire someone to ..., or we need to purchase the source so I can ...
A system administrator's job is to keep the system up and running. The job generally entails preventative maintenance, keeping things secure, up to date, etc, but keeping things running is foremost on your list.
JMTC

Nope by thornomad · 2007-07-15 04:49 · Score: 4, Funny

I used my uninstall button with Windows a long time ago. No problems since then.

Re:Nope by rubycodez · 2007-07-15 06:43 · Score: 1

the uninstall button a few screens into the GNU/Linux distro of your choice on the screen usually labeled "hard disk partitioning"
Re:Nope by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2007-07-15 07:38 · Score: 1

Where is it? I can't find an uninstall button, or even an 'x' in the top right corner to shut it off.
Pop in the (k)ubuntu cd and there it is, labeled "install"
Re:Nope by lordtoran · 2007-07-15 07:49 · Score: 1

It is a physical button located on your PC case labeled "reset". It will only work, however, if there is a GNU/Linux install media in your drive, in which case it will "reset" your PC to a permanently usable state.

--
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp

other tools by Original+Replica · 2007-07-15 04:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does C-Cleaner still work? It's one of many tools out there to help "fix" Windows.

--
We are all just people.

Re:other tools by antdude · 2007-07-15 06:59 · Score: 1

Uh, it supports Vista in the latest versions according to its changelog.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:other tools by Jugalator · 2007-07-15 08:12 · Score: 1

It works, and post-patch uninstalling works here too. I don't really understand what the article is about, but I'm patched and everything works here as it did before, and neither do I see missing uninstall entries.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:other tools by solcott · 2007-07-15 14:08 · Score: 1

Yes, CCleaner is still working fine. I've used that for a while for uninstalling things because of how much faster it builds the list of uninstallable items than the standard uninstallation tool.

Technical support by Skuld-Chan · 2007-07-15 04:50 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Technical support by TrancePhreak · 2007-07-15 04:56 · Score: 1

I too have all patches installed and have an uninstall button.

--

-]Phreak Out[-

Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Considering the article contains links to reports of other people encountering the same problem I wouldn't call this "bashing Vista". I suppose I could claim that you're a MS apologist (or maybe an MS employee) since you so quickly and blindly jumped to Vistas defense.

new microsoft user conversion program by MrShaggy · 2007-07-15 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

'All your base belong to us' No uninstall needed!

--
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.

Is this from last patch Tuesday? by JohnnyBGod · 2007-07-15 04:56 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Is this from last patch Tuesday? by node159 · 2007-07-15 05:29 · Score: 2

We, as the slashdot collective request a full inquiry and subsequent marching of to the gallows, in par with the US due process.

--
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
Re:Is this from last patch Tuesday? by node159 · 2007-07-15 05:34 · Score: 1

How the hell did that get past the spam filter, CmdrTaco?

--
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
Re:Is this from last patch Tuesday? by nschubach · 2007-07-15 06:06 · Score: 1

It's no use. Slashdot is still trying to get it's hearing back and they can't hear you.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Is this from last patch Tuesday? by deezilmsu · 2007-07-15 08:12 · Score: 1

Like the parent, I've installed and uninstalled things since Patch Tuesday. I don't see the issue here.

--
It's not that I'm asking the big questions, it's that I'm asking lots of small ones.
Re:Is this from last patch Tuesday? by Raideen · 2007-07-15 16:29 · Score: 1

I haven't seen this issue (yet) but very few users among my (150 or so) clients are using Vista. If the problem is legitimate, it probably only affects a small subset of systems. I've seen patches that caused some major problems in the past but the problems typically only occurred with some combination of software or drivers that were on the affected systems. If this particular problem happened every time with the latest set of patches, Microsoft would've caught it before the patches were released. I've actually seen similar issues with Windows XP, although I can't recall what the issue was (it wasn't a patch issue, I think it was an MSI issue). This isn't really news. If it was, it would be old news.

Bashing? by dunezone · 2007-07-15 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whats with all the comments about switching to another OS or some smart-ass comment about not using Windows?

When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical. Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.

Re:Bashing? by oztiks · 2007-07-15 05:15 · Score: 5, Funny

When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical. Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.

So on that train of thought switching from XP to Vista is considered impractical, you'll get no argument from me on that one.
Re:Bashing? by Lisandro · 2007-07-15 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical.

Yeah, i guess that's why products like this aren't popular at all with Windows users. Half of our office computers at work had Windows reinstalled atleast once, from scratch. This is all too common with Windows systems, in my experience.

I know that /. is renowed for it's anti-Windows slant, but sheeze, if it's broken, fix it. An OS that requires a full disc image to get working again every once in a while has a problem.
Re:Bashing? by OriginalSin · 2007-07-15 06:13 · Score: 1

With respect, I must disagree. I remember the old days as well, and reformatting was not always the best solution. Sometimes you just had to find something else to do the job, or just get another disk. The same is true of Microsoft's Vista. I could start to write a tome on the more 'interesting' features of Vista, such as the higher price, lack of drivers, lack of platform-specific applications, byzantine versioning and licensing requirements, increased hardware and the message that the product fundamentally sends customers - regardless of what the Redmond spin doctors say - about the lack of trust, and dealing with your customers the same way that you would deal with a criminal, but there is no need and these points have been covered in verbatim already. The situation is actually a good thing because it wakes people up, and makes them aware that Windows is not the only game in town. There are alternatives. What is required to make the jump, however, is time and a willingness to learn. Take a walk on the wild side. Give alternatives OS'es a try. You might like them.
Re:Bashing? by fermion · 2007-07-15 06:22 · Score: 1
Hello, doctor, I have a problem. Every tuesday i go out for ribs with my family and every Wedenesday I am late for to work because I was in so much pain overnight that I could not sleep.
Which of these does the doctor do
1. Prescribe a dosage of Nexium, Lunesta, and Tylenol with codeine
2. tell the patient not to eat ribs anymore
Clearly the former choice is the only rational one based on kickbacks from profitable drug companies. And while the later would be better for the patient's long term health, such a choice would not serve the interests of any relevant commercial enterprise or in fact be what the patient wanted, as the visit to the doctor implies that the patient is looking for a palliative rather than a cure.
But despite the pressures, it seems that an ethical doctor might at least suggest the cure before promoting the abuse of drugs.
--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:Bashing? by HiThere · 2007-07-15 08:14 · Score: 1

Interesting. When I was younger I considered the MS monopoly an improvement over the IBM monopoly.

Then I read the MS EULA. And thought about it. And began looking for alternatives. Now I still have one computer that I haven't managed to extract from MS. It sits running MSWind95, and disconnected from all networks. Because of one program that I haven't managed to replace.

Everything else runs either Linux or OS X. I'd like to move everything over to Linux, but there are still a few gaps in the application line. I have a lot less trouble with my computers these days.

FWIW, my reasons for wanting to move away from OS X are:
1) I don't really like many of the choices that the Windows Manager makes. I prefer native KDE.
2) Applications tend to come with proprietary file formats. I don't like being locked in.
3) I really despise the EULA screens that appear with every software update. They aren't a predefined license like GPL, so I don't understand what they mean without reading every word and then trying to think about it. Even then I'm likely to not understand. So I want AWAY!!!
OTOH, when I read the EULA I generally find it to be less abusive than the MS EULA...but that's ALL the praise I can give it. You don't get much fainter than "Not quite as bad as MS.".

The third reason is my real reason for wanting to ditch OS X nearly as much as I wanted to ditch MS. The second is what ought to be the main reason. And the first is just a contributory factor.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Bashing? by stonecypher · 2007-07-15 09:02 · Score: 1

Whats with all the comments about switching to another OS or some smart-ass comment about not using Windows?
What are you, new here?

--
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Re:Bashing? by bit01 · 2007-07-15 09:47 · Score: 1

Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.

What may be impractical in the short term may be very practical in the long term. Sort term pain for long term gain.

Planning ahead in other words. M$ would prefer that people not plan ahead e.g. Get out of the upgrade treadmill and reduce their recurring costs.

---

Monopolies = Industrial feudalism
Re:Bashing? by LuSiDe · 2007-07-15 10:58 · Score: 1

Whats with all the comments about switching to another OS or some smart-ass comment about not using Windows?
You'll notice that many people are not so much arguing "not using Windows" they're arguing "not using Windows Vista" or "keep using Windows XP". Subtle but important difference.
When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical. Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.
Bzzt. You and your vendor (Microsoft) learned how to (allow one to) fix a computer without having to format. Others have learned to cope with the (alleged) impractical aspects of switching to another OS. You however, clearly have not.

--
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
Re:Bashing? by LuSiDe · 2007-07-15 11:01 · Score: 1

Good point, but one could argue Windows Vista is merely a Windows NT version just like Ubuntu Linux 6.10 and 6.04 are Ubuntu Linux versions. Under the hood they share a lot of code. Other signs include NT version, and build number. Ofcourse, you can't have it both ways...

--
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.

Re:Bullshit by Gothic_Walrus · 2007-07-15 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

mine is OK. Another article bashing Vista, uh?

Yes, just because you're not having problems, that obviously means that nobody else with a different hardware configuration, different software installed, or a different version of Vista could possibly be having issues with it. That would just be silly.

--
Goo goo g'joob.

Re:Solution by binaryspiral · 2007-07-15 04:57 · Score: 1

I detected the humor in your post, but also you bring truth to the discussion.

Rarely, if ever, has a major OS upgrade over an older version (any OS, not just Microsoft's) resulted in a computer that was as stable and functional as a fresh install.

Re:Bullshit by Mundocani · 2007-07-15 04:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

It works both ways though -- some number of users experience a problem and they think that *everyone* must be having the problem. Other users aren't having the problem and don't understand how *anyone* could be having trouble. Despite what some may think, assholes are a two-way street :)

This is only a minority problem... by megla · 2007-07-15 04:59 · Score: 5, Informative

...and it's not exactly serious either.

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.

Re:This is only a minority problem... by empaler · 2007-07-15 05:22 · Score: 1

3. 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. Just to counterargue your third point: if the problem is in the x32 version of the OS, then you would of course not have the same problem. Kneejerk reaction?
Re:This is only a minority problem... by jkrise · 2007-07-15 05:33 · Score: 1

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 You seem to know so much about this particular issue -- so probably you do tech support for Microsoft. But how would the average sysadmin go about acquiring the info. you just typed above? Which Microsoft certification will ensure that a properly qualified sysadmin has been chosen for the job of administering a Windows network?

Reading Slashdot and going through every response to every issue can be ery tedious - and counter-productive as well.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Re:This is only a minority problem... by joe+155 · 2007-07-15 05:43 · Score: 1

actually if you actually look at link "two" above then you will see that the title of the forum post is

"Re: Cannot uninstall programs from Add/remove Programs in Vista Ultimate x64"

kneejerk reaction?

--
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Re:This is only a minority problem... by cdrguru · 2007-07-15 06:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

This isn't a Microsoft problem.

It is stupid application problem.

If the application screws up the uninstall - something that hasn't really changed since 1995 - then the publisher should be the one blamed and complained to.

Microsoft built a framework. If the application doesn't follow it and requires you to "reinstall to uninstall" or some such nonsense it is hardly a Microsoft problem.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 07:13 · Score: 1, Informative

Why would he work for Microsoft? This has been a "known thing to try" with apps that have screwed up uninstallers for years - worked under Windows 95, 98, whatever. It's also a fix if some other information (registry based, installation database, whatever) gets messed up. A lot of apps have really "iffy" installers/uninstallers, and don't quite do what they're supposed to do. So it's really hard to say where the problem is. For every boneheaded thing Microsoft does, there's a dozen app vendors doing stupid sh** with their software. Take a look at what Adobe does with installshield sometime - if you have access to adminstudio - and try to get it to verify the adobe installer. It can't make heads nor tails of half the stuff Adobe puts their installers.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by bit01 · 2007-07-15 09:51 · Score: 1

Microsoft built a framework. If the application doesn't follow it and requires you to "reinstall to uninstall" or some such nonsense it is hardly a Microsoft problem.

Ah, yes. The standard M$ washing of hands.

If it's a design fault causing the errors it could well be entirely M$'s fault.

---

WGA. Guilty until proven innocent. For millions. Again and again.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by megla · 2007-07-15 12:12 · Score: 1

Woah, dude, you like totally replaced the S with a dollar implying that you think Microsoft are greedy!
Man, you're so edgy and insightful.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by bit01 · 2007-07-15 13:35 · Score: 1

Woah, dude, you like totally replaced the S with a dollar implying that you think Microsoft are greedy! Man, you're so edgy and insightful.

Judging by the response I get M$ astroturfers seem to hate it.

It's just a useful reminder that they're still charging the world $40,000,000,000+ per year, mostly for software written decades ago with the most difficult bits, the device drivers, being written by third parties.

"M$" is a minor response to them putting their marketing keys on general purpose PC keyboards. They reap what they sow.

---

Astroturfers are liars, fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as objective third party opinion.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by QuietObserver · 2007-07-15 17:41 · Score: 1

I agree with you completely. Almost any single version of Windows costs more than other OS. The newest version of Mac OS X has consistently been about $130, and is an equivalent to the business versions of Windows, which typically cost $300+, via a pricing scale that is not even remotely consistent. Furthermore, I have never found the price tag on Microsoft Office, which is nearly twice that of the most expensive equivalent, reasonable; I've used WordPerfect Office until recently, and have only stopped because I can't get version 9 working on Linux, and I have never had a tenth of the problems with WordPerfect as I've had using Word {terrified shutter} at school.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by plague3106 · 2007-07-16 03:13 · Score: 1

Well, a good place to start would be MS' KB. I would think anyone that's been working with MS platforms for any length of time knows what happens if you re-run a setup program.
Re:This is only a minority problem... by zojas · 2007-07-16 03:51 · Score: 1

this just seems so backwards to me. each and every windows application has to create an installer for itself.

I guess I'm spoiled by linux, where there's a package manager which installs and uninstalls programs. most package managers only require a little bit of metadata to be written before a package can be created.

it's kind of like the dos shell vs. a unix shell. in dos, every program needed to implement stuff like handling the *. in unix, the shell handles stuff like that for the program.

why is everything in windows backwards?
Re:This is only a minority problem... by AK+Marc · 2007-07-16 06:38 · Score: 1

If the application screws up the uninstall - something that hasn't really changed since 1995 - then the publisher should be the one blamed and complained to.

This is a common problem. It happens many times for all sorts of programs. Why can't the OS track installs and know what it would take to clean it out? Why should I need an unstall from the 3rd party software to remove it from the OS? There have been 3rd party tools for years dealing with broken installers. Why hasn't the OS integrated such functionality? There are system snapshots in the OS, so why not take them before and after installs and see what changed? I know it takes a little more than that with shared files and all to make it work right, but you'd think that Microsoft could spare an engineer or two for such a problem.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:This is only a minority problem... by empaler · 2007-07-17 20:58 · Score: 1

*grumblemumble*stupidjoe_155forRTFA*grumble*

UAC is the cause... by Aphrika · 2007-07-15 04:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

Re:UAC is the cause... by One+Childish+N00b · 2007-07-16 02:09 · Score: 1

UAC were involved in the making of Vista? Holy shit, how long before demons start spewing forth from the temporal gateway manifesting inside my CRT? Someone call the Doomguy!

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.

No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 05:00 · Score: 4, Informative

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!

Re:No worse than OS X by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems. Apple clearly states that any app which is installed via pkg should come with an easy to use uninstaller or be able to be uninstalled via the original pkg. Given the choice between having the OS force a database for all applications or having two choices for application install, dmg (etc...) for self contained-drag and drop install/uninstall and pkg (for things that require elevated privs or scripts), I'd surely take the one with multiple options.
Re:No worse than OS X by resequenced · 2007-07-15 05:25 · Score: 1

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.. This might be exactly why something like this doesn't exist in Mas OS X. In my own case, I've never installed and then had to uninstall an application where this might matter. Ever application I've downloaded or found, I've kept, which is a pretty amazing crap considering how much crap I've installed and subsequently uninstalled while running Windows.

It's worth mentioning that I'm generally very leery about installing any application that isn't just a drag-and-drop into my Applications folder, and this might be the reason why. At least I know that if it doesn't work out, I can just trash it and no harm done.

--
rsdn
Re:No worse than OS X by el_chupanegre · 2007-07-15 05:29 · Score: 1

And you don't really need anti-virus
How can this be modded informative after a statement like that? Good luck with that...

But what do you do about the random app that installs kernel extensions, browser extensions, and generally insinuates itself among all your stuff?
All major apps that do this sort of thing on OSX come with an uninstaller script (Parallels, XCode). If you installed an app that does some major stuff to your OS that doesn't supply an uninstaller, I think I would blame the user rather than the OS
Re:No worse than OS X by DaleGlass · 2007-07-15 05:33 · Score: 1

The only thing more pathetic than a PC user is a PC user trying to be a Mac user. We have a name for you people: switcheurs.

We have a name for you as well :-)
Re:No worse than OS X by Aram+Fingal · 2007-07-15 05:47 · Score: 1

There's also OSXPM which is free GPL software and Desinstaller which is also freeware. Both use Apple's own package management system which leaves all the relevant information for uninstalls in /Libray/Receipts/. It is interesting that Apple has done everything but create a standard front end for uninstalls. Perhaps they have plans for a drag-and-drop uninstaller like you suggest but haven't gotten quite all the bugs out of it yet.
Re:No worse than OS X by TheSkyIsPurple · 2007-07-15 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. Download cool app
2. Install cool app
3. Use cool app... it works, cool
4. Guess I don't need that installer anymore
5. Ya know, I don't need this, how do I uninstall it?

Yeah, it's obvious from the OS that I should go re-download the original installer and hope that it has an uninstaller.

Pushing the problem to the developer is essentially pushing it to the end user, because the end user has to manage this stuff, and Apple doesn't even trust its users to organize their own Music folders, etc. They've got these amazing frameworks for implementing common parts of most programs, but not tracking which program does what?

I hope it's just because they're trying for a revolutionary way of tracking these dependencies, or its because of patent licensing or something... and not that they don't think it's necessary
Re:No worse than OS X by delire · 2007-07-15 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

In that case perhaps OS/X has a useability issue here.

We turn on and off services and administer other aspects of OS/X using OS provided tools in most other respects, so why not manage software in the same way? Even if a package should "come with an easy to use uninstaller" perhaps this uninstaller should be exposed to a central software management facility so it can be easily found. I say this as people typically delete the installer once the application has been installed, so the idea that users should look for the original package and use it to provide the service of uninstallation makes little sense, conceptually (why should an installer uninstall?) or practically.

I've never found Fink or MacPorts to be all that usable on OS/X else I'd certainly prefer to use these apt-like systems to manage software (especially after my recent failed attempt at upgrading to Python2.4 on OS/X 10.4 and later deciding to uninstall it ..).

In my experience the task of uninstalling software is simply easier on Windows and Linux (best of all an apt-based system) than on OS/X. While Windows tends to leave files scattered around and leaves scars in the registry at least I know there is one graphical tool that is supposed to take care of the job. On OS/X I never know quite how to approach the problem - especially when I'm uninstalling software of a newer version than found in /System/Libraries/Frameworks and want to roll back.
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 06:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems.

You sound like the type who, back before OS X, when a single app could bring down the whole system because there was no memory segmentation, would say "Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems." While meanwhile I'd be sitting over on Windows or Linux or even Solaris, watching the same "developer problems" simply result in a segfault or illegal operation, crashing that one app.

Apple clearly states that any app which is installed via pkg should come with an easy to use uninstaller or be able to be uninstalled via the original pkg.

Easy to use doesn't mean standard. On Windows or Linux, I can open up a central list of installed packages and uninstall from there. Apple's encouraging the old Windows way of doing this, which is to have a separate uninstall program -- hopefully somewhere near where the app is installed -- that's developed along with the app, or licensed from a third party (InstallShield)...

You know, maybe you should think about why the pkg format exists in the first place. Why have a standard format?

Well, it's simple: When I get any OS X app, in any form, unless it's some crazy custom script, I know that to install it, I either doubleclick on the .pkg, or open the .dmg/.zip/whatever and drag the .app to Applications.

But when I uninstall, if I can uninstall at all, I have to think about where I put the .pkg (if there is one), or hunt around for an uninstaller, or drag the .app to Trash and go hunting around for whatever crap it left behind.

Compare that to Linux, or even Windows -- add/remove programs, click "uninstall". Done.

Given the choice between having the OS force a database for all applications or having two choices for application install, dmg (etc...) for self contained-drag and drop install/uninstall and pkg (for things that require elevated privs or scripts), I'd surely take the one with multiple options.

Given that no OS I know of actually enforces one option over the other, I'd say you're talking out your ass.

I'd much rather have the choice of an OS-maintained, or at least common, database of installed apps and how to uninstall them -- without having to keep the original pkg around (how retarded is it that you have to pop in the original install disc in order to uninstall? Maybe the whole REASON you want to uninstall is that you lost the disc needed to run the app?)

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by juuri · 2007-07-15 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

So I take it you throw out media to any applications you actually purchase which come on such?

It's your fault for getting rid of the installer if that is the way the developer specifies for an uninstall. Your step 4 is a breakdown in the application cycle at the user level. What if you ever had to reinstall that app, you would download it again? What if that specific version didn't exist anymore? Or the entire app was pulled?

--
--- I do not moderate.
Re:No worse than OS X by juuri · 2007-07-15 06:36 · Score: 1

You sound like the type who, back before OS X, when a single app could bring down the whole system because there was no memory segmentation, would say "Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems."

I was going to write out a pointed reply to your post but I just can't get past the fact that you feel the need to open with a strawman. Maybe when you develop some sensible reasoning skills you will understand the post to which you were replying and why it is indeed, a developer issue.

--
--- I do not moderate.
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 06:43 · Score: 1

Still looking for the "maximize" button when your Mac has "zoom" instead?

Wow, way to miss the point AND look like a retard. No wonder you posted Anonymous, you coward.

No, I'm talking about the fullscreen extension. Since the Mac wasn't designed for one-track minds, you should have no problem figuring out what two words put together means. A compound word! *gasp*

Yes, I'm talking about FULL SCREEN. Not "maximized". Not "zoomed". Full fucking screen. Why is this difficult for you, oh Multi-Track-Mind?

And there is an extension which allows windows in OS X to be forced fullscreen and back, whether they have that capability natively or not. Obviously some apps already do this -- video players, of course. Obviously, others do not -- terminals, for example.

Take the hint, switcheurs: If you can't cope with multiple windows, GTFO. The Mac wasn't designed for one-track minds.

You're talking to someone who works on a 1600x1200 Linux machine, with four virtual desktops -- oh, I'm sorry, "spaces", that feature you're drooling over in Leopard, which probably won't be out yet for another year...

One of those virtual desktops typically has six terminal windows, three IM windows, and sometimes a browser open, not overlapping. Or four terminals, IM, browser, and an MMO, with my email on another desktop, and maybe a PDF or a package manager on a third... Yes, I know how to deal with multiple windows.

So one day, I decided to look for a way to make a window go fullscreen. Because, you know, unlike Linux or Windows, it's not enough for OS X to waste one side of the screen for its menu bar. It has to then waste another side of it for the Dock -- something you all orgasm over because it's so cool and new and different and... oh wait, it's been done in WindowMaker on Linux for years, and it wasn't even invented there.

And as it turned out, this extension was buggy and not as useful as I thought. I could even say you were right here -- I wanted to go back to piles of windows, instead of just the one fullscreen.

Only, there was no fucking uninstall. I had to do it manually -- a difficult process to even find a good walkthrough, and still quite a bit of messing in the commandline to get it done. And I'm comfortable with a Unix commandline -- if I say it's difficult, trust me, it is.

Remember that the Mac was designed by artists, for artists...

Yeah, I guess an artist would just love opening up a terminal and typing twenty cryptic commands just to get the same usable interface back.

Oh wait -- maybe it's because Apple assumes that such creative people would never want to install software. Because, you know, actually using your computer is such a square thing. You'd rather sit around in good taste and masturbate to your bouncy icons and your rounded corners.

And you'll be doing the rest of us a favor, too; you leave Macs to Mac users, and we'll leave beige to you.

Explain to me how it hurts you (other than your pathetic ego) that I have a Powerbook. Never mind that it won't work anymore, and Apple refuses to fix it -- I have one, and I probably know more about how to use and abuse it than you ever will.

But then, I guess I never will, since I'm not a fucking artist. Oh wait -- joke's on you, asshole. I'm a programmer. And I guess if the Mac isn't right for me, then you won't be getting any software from me.

And I don't know about you, but I use a computer to run software, not to stare at an OS and troll about how good my farts smell.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 07:03 · Score: 1

the cares and worries of real Mac users transcend implementation details

Yes, I can see that. It's not healthy.

Just a simple example: I share my Internet with a couple of Mac users. One actually seems to be afraid of me and all human contact -- it's a disorder, and it's very sad, but it means he's not a problem.

The other is just smart enough to know to bother me when his Internet is slow, because I might have a huge torrent open.

And just stupid enough to run something like 20-30 apps at once, with 50 or 100 windows, at least. I'm not kidding.

So, because he doesn't care or worry about implementation details, roughly half the time he bugs me about the Internet, I can actually throttle my torrent so his browsing is good. And the other half the time, I have to tell him to for God's sake close some programs, maybe reboot!

Perhaps the saddest case here was when he had some music playing, and could not, for the life of him, figure out what program was playing it. Eventually, he had to use the old Windows solution-to-everything: reboot.

You know, I'm a programmer, I run Linux, and I typically have maybe four or five programs open, maybe two of which are capable of playing music, none of which are capable of doing it without my consent.

The Mac programming culture is such that things generally play along without the user having to be such a fucking anal-retentive prick.

Oh, bullshit, on both counts.

The Mac programming culture is such that things generally play along with the user, until they don't. When they don't, there's nothing you can do about it, unless you are a Mac/Unix guru, in which case there's very little you can do about it.

And what's "fucking anal-retentive" is that this is exactly the sort of reaction I see from Mac users every time we suggest that there might be some slight flaw in their holy OS. (Never mind that some of the best new features in Leopard are things we already have in Linux and Solaris...)

Oh, true, it's not everyone, but so far, I can count one person who replied to me in this discussion with helpful information and without actually attacking me. A second person provided somewhat helpful information while attacking me, which is normal for the Linux community. I also have one or two replies agreeing with me, and even an anti-Mac troll. And two Mac trolls.

So, of those who actually appear to be Mac users, that's at least 25-50% trolls who replied to my post. People who have nothing better to do than post Anonymous Coward on Slashdot, attacking anyone who disses the Mac. I call that anal-retentive.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 07:10 · Score: 1

Maybe when you get past your hurt ego, you'll be willing to explain to me why a lack of memory segmentation is an OS issue, but a lack of a standard uninstaller is a developer issue. (Yes, standard. You mention two ways to uninstall, one of which is non-obvious and inconvenient as hell for the user.)

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by fermion · 2007-07-15 07:47 · Score: 1

You have two separate issues here. The first is Apple lack of an global uninstaller. Yes it would be nice if there were a global uninstaller, particlarly to get rid of iWorks. However, for whatever usability reasons, Apple did not supply an uninstaller and most applications do not include one either. SO, yes you can remove the application, but not the library files. One could argue that since the bast majority of the code is in the app directory, and removing that directory is tantamount to removing the directory is enough, except is cases like garage band that installs a great deal of ancillary files in the library. On the startup disk. Always. But the fact remains that no installer exists.
The second issue is a necessary piece of software, needed because most windows apps leaves little pieces of themselves in random directories, and often purposefully hides pieces of themselves so they can auto reinstall later, does not work. To be clear, the installer does not work. It is not a case of an uninstaller utility not existing. It is a case of the uninstaller not functioning. Therefore, we are not in the realm of a missing feature, but of a broken important utility.
In any case, the whole having to buy software for the Mac is a bit disingenuous. I know that one reason that the Mac has a small marketshare is that one is expected to buy software for the Mac, but can usually steal software for a MS Windows machine, but I never understood why it is bad to give money to software developers. Next you will be complaining that we have to pay for the coffee in the morning.
And, if one is a geek, it is not too difficult to install stuff. Do a search on the name, and drag the files the trash. That is what I do.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:No worse than OS X by alfredo · 2007-07-15 08:14 · Score: 1

Usually all that is left behind is the preferences. What is that 4k or something similar. Drag and drop it in the trash and be done with it. On rare occasions you will find an app that has a preference panel, but they usually have uninstall apps (example: Wacom). There are free drag and drop un-installers for OSX, but I don't see a pressing need for one.

--
photosMy Photostream
Re:No worse than OS X by trisweb · 2007-07-15 08:34 · Score: 1

Frankly I think of it as a compliment to the operating system that it can support a user who has 20-30 programs open and his biggest problem is finding out which one of them is playing the music....

If I remember correctly, when you have that many apps open in Windows the problem is finding out which one of them is making the music a) Skip, b) Freeze the entire system, or c) emanate from popup ads in spyware.

Even worse, most Windows users I know have about 50 icons in their taskbar that slow the system down incredibly. Frankly, the only reason my Windows system works as well as it does is because I AM anal retentive and I keep everything so damn clean. I am not a mac user, but if I were I imagine I'd do the same and it wouldn't be much different. From what I've used (and I have, extensively), OSX tends to lend itself to easier organization. YMMV.

But the Point is: the system works as well as the user lets it. If someone wants to have 50 programs open and disorganize everything to pieces, they can do that in any OS they want. The difference is that OSX generally lets them and the biggest consequence is drowning in their own confusion (well deserved), whilst Windows lets them and the consequence is an entirely unusable system (equally well deserved). You decide which OS you want to do that in. Yet, the root: PEBKAC.

--
"!"
Re:No worse than OS X by ashultz · 2007-07-15 09:00 · Score: 1

You're so correct: two wrongs do make a right!
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 11:40 · Score: 1

I know that one reason that the Mac has a small marketshare is that one is expected to buy software for the Mac, but can usually steal software for a MS Windows machine

Wrong. It's that I expect things like an uninstaller, virtual memory, dynamic memory allocation, and so on, to either be part of the OS, or to be free pieces of software.

There's tons of freeware for Windows, and just about all of the software on Linux is free. But on the Mac, every little thing that I usually get -- legally -- for free, is some little $10 or $20 piece of crap.

And, if one is a geek, it is not too difficult to install stuff. Do a search on the name, and drag the files the trash.

For a geek to confuse "install" with "uninstall" is a bit bizarre...

Anyway, that won't necessarily remove everything it installed, and it certainly won't tell you whether it'll break something else. That's what a package manager is for.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 11:54 · Score: 1

Frankly I think of it as a compliment to the operating system that it can support a user who has 20-30 programs open and his biggest problem is finding out which one of them is playing the music....

Well, he also has a brand-spanking-new MacBook (dual core and everything) that performs about as well as the old eMacs in the office, which are something like 700 mhz. Maybe a little worse, even.

Now, this is not a problem for him, but I do think he could save a little money on hardware if he would get in the habit of actually closing stuff when he's done with it.

If I remember correctly, when you have that many apps open in Windows the problem is finding out which one of them is making the music a) Skip, b) Freeze the entire system, or c) emanate from popup ads in spyware.

No, get rid of the spyware and it'll be about the same with any modern OS.

Even worse, most Windows users I know have about 50 icons in their taskbar that slow the system down incredibly.

Here, I'm a little skeptical. See, I have 10 icons in my KDE taskbar, and most of them do nothing but eat RAM. You could claim that slows the system down incredibly, but not only do I have 2 gigs of RAM, I have an OS that knows how to swap well.

Then again, Windows memory management tends to suck, so maybe it is faster with those removed. But then, I never installed much on my Windows system to begin with.

From what I've used (and I have, extensively), OSX tends to lend itself to easier organization.

Well, once you install virtual desktops. And with Beryl, I've got most of the OS X features I was missing.

But the Point is: the system works as well as the user lets it.... PEBKAC

Yet, the root: PEBKAC.

Agreed. But recall, I was replying to someone who was either a troll or a moron. The original quote was:

the cares and worries of real Mac users transcend implementation details

I'm sorry, but the only way you completely transcend implementation details is by buying a new computer when you have a problem, and hiring someone else to move your data over. That would tend to get expensive...

But then, I guess Mac users have money. That's why they bought a Mac.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by astrosmash · 2007-07-15 12:26 · Score: 1

sudo perl /Developer/Tools/uninstall-devtools.pl

You think developers can handle that?

--
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
Re:No worse than OS X by juuri · 2007-07-15 13:15 · Score: 1

I didn't mention anything about a way to uninstall.

Again if you had the ability to have rational discourse you wouldn't have confused me with someone else. Notice how instead of a straw man, this time you opened with a direct attack on me. Perhaps you felt attacked by my comment on your lack of reasoning skills; however this lack of reasoning was obvious from your post, it is a fact. My ego, isn't hurt in the least but even if it was... it surely wasn't born out by my previous post.

Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Here's a hint: Memory segmentation has absolutely nothing to do with installing/uninstalling applications. You bringing it in as an arguing point shows you really have little in the way of support for the point you *do* want to argue.

Hope this helps.

--
--- I do not moderate.
Re:No worse than OS X by VGPowerlord · 2007-07-15 14:59 · Score: 1

You sound like the type who, back before OS X, when a single app could bring down the whole system because there was no memory segmentation, would say "Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems." While meanwhile I'd be sitting over on Windows or Linux or even Solaris, watching the same "developer problems" simply result in a segfault or illegal operation, crashing that one app.
Nice try, but Windows 95/98/ME (you know, the versions in widespread use until a few years after OSX launched) would give you at best a General Protection Fault, which would often destabilize the system requiring a reboot before everything would work properly again, or give you the blue screen of death.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Re:No worse than OS X by TheSkyIsPurple · 2007-07-15 16:16 · Score: 1

>So I take it you throw out media to any applications you actually purchase which come on such?

Hehe, no. However, locating the media isn't my first instinct for uninstalling an app in any case.

>It's your fault for getting rid of the installer if that is the way the developer specifies for an uninstall.

I'm not saying it's not. I'm saying Apple could do a much better job of making uninstalls a thing which can't be my fault.
Is it my fault I threw a file away? yes. Can I take it out of the trashcan? yes
Is it my fault I overwrote a file I liked? yes. Will Time Machine help relieve me of this responsbility? yes
Is it my fault I run a trojan? yes. Does Mac OS X warn me before it does anything "interesting" to my system, helping to protect me? yes.

The OS's entire job is to act as intermediary between me and the hardware. It's already doing so much, why not this little bit more?

>Your step 4 is a breakdown in the application cycle at the user level.

I see no technical reason why it SHOULD be my problem.

>What if you ever had to reinstall that app, you would download it again? What if that specific version didn't exist anymore? Or the entire app was pulled?

That's why I back things up... in case the hardware fails. The OS isn't like to do to terribly much for me if the hardware its running on fails. So I plan for that eventuality.

Why should I have to manage uninstalls? There is no technical reason why I should HAVE to.
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 19:34 · Score: 1

Alright, I'll bite. (I'm going to regret this.)

Again if you had the ability to have rational discourse you wouldn't have confused me with someone else.
That's invalid. It implies that long-term memory of random strangers has anything at all to do with reasoning power, or the other way around.
There is a story about Newton: At one point, he hosted a party, had some friends over, left the room to get drinks for everyone... They found him, hours later, in his lab, working, having completely forgotten about the party -- the one he was hosting. No one questions his ability to reason, but certainly, he was a bit forgetful.

Notice how instead of a straw man, this time you opened with a direct attack on me.
Right, I am sorry for confusing you with someone else. I do believe it would have been an appropriate response to the anonymous coward I originally replied to.
Regardless...

Perhaps you felt attacked by my comment on your lack of reasoning skills
That is true. Perhaps you meant it as an attack. I honestly can't see how you couldn't, given the way in which it was delivered.
Let me translate it into five-year-old, to show you the emotional impact it might have: "Hi, you're too stupid to be my friend. Come back when you're smarter."
And, of course, the typical kindergarten-teacher lecture for you: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
Of course, we're not five years old anymore, and I won't run away crying from an attack like that. In fact, I can take constructive criticism without feeling threatened by it -- but that was not constructive.
I might have written a response more like this one -- calm, analytical, and more likely to be correct -- but when you opened with an attitude of such superiority that you couldn't be bothered to write a pointed reply, I didn't feel that I had any obligation to do the same.

however this lack of reasoning was obvious from your post, it is a fact.
Kindly demonstrate it, then.

Do you even know what a strawman argument is?
Yes, usually. Sometimes I have to go look it up to be absolutely sure. Now I'm sure, and it was not a strawman.

Memory segmentation has absolutely nothing to do with installing/uninstalling applications.
That is true. But it does make a convenient analogy. Analogies are not automatically strawmen. Quoting Wikipedia:

Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.
That is one type of strawman, and probably what you mean here. I believe it doesn't apply. Burden's on you to show that I am oversimplifying. Hint: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Interesting. You immediately follow that up with another fallacy, that I'm too lazy to look up the formal name for (well, quasi-official name for an informal fallacy):

You bringing it in as an arguing point shows you really have little in the way of support for the point you *do* want to argue.
It shows nothing of the kind. All it really shows, unless you can read minds, is that I brought it in as an arguing point. Anything beyond that is pure speculation on your part -- maybe it was convenient. Maybe I just wanted to incite this argument. Maybe I was possessed for a moment, or maybe I'm even lower than you think, and I copy-and-pasted the whole post.
But I don't have to speculate: The reason is that I didn't feel like putting a huge amount of time, energy, and thought into writing up solid, concrete points -- not when a single analogy will do.
You'll notice, it's done nicely. No one has yet convinced me that a lack of a standard uninstaller is a

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by Jesus_666 · 2007-07-16 02:56 · Score: 1

Compare that to Linux, or even Windows -- add/remove programs, click "uninstall". Done.

You forgot "and hunt around for whatever crap it left behind". Neither Windows' uninstall dialog nor any Linux package manager will clean up everything for you, especially not configuration settings. They usually don't even know that such settings exist as they just maintain a list of all installed files. So yes, using the uninstall dialog or the package manager's uninstall function is 100% equivalent to deleting the application bundle.

Add to that the fact that any changes made to third-party configuration files (like an X extension changing /etx/X11/xorg.conf) are likely to persist as well and you end up with a similar situation on all OSes. Clean uninstallation is not common, nowhere.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-16 11:04 · Score: 1

They usually don't even know that such settings exist as they just maintain a list of all installed files.

On Linux, global configuration settings are files. Usually they are treated specially, and are not cleaned up, but apt, at least, allows you to force a purge there.

What it doesn't clean up automatically (but should be able to) is per-user config settings, usually kept in dotfiles (~/.foo). But either those or the systemwide config files are usually only a few kilobytes.

So yes, using the uninstall dialog or the package manager's uninstall function is 100% equivalent to deleting the application bundle.

Assuming that the application bundle was all that was ever installed. Which, if it was, is often wasteful -- it means every application that uses a library not distributed with OS X must include that library in its own application bundle. That means wasted disk space and wasted RAM, but at least all of it is gone when you delete it.

Add to that the fact that any changes made to third-party configuration files (like an X extension changing /etx/X11/xorg.conf)

Not likely. The ONLY time I ever see anything changing xorg.conf these days is installing a video driver, so the only time you'd want to change it is when installing a new video card of a different brand. How often does that happen in the lifetime of an OS?

Where this starts to get problematic is stuff that actually does change the system -- for instance, something that adds a preference pane, a menu, a kernel extension, or maybe a framework or a codec for QuickTime to use. These are handled automatically on Linux via package managers, and on Windows via uninstallers (when they exist/work), but rarely on OS X -- I usually have to Google for how to uninstall that particular app.

The difference is between leaving around a few k of config files that don't hurt anyone, and leaving around actual configuration changes that break the system when you remove the software, assuming you even can.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by Jesus_666 · 2007-07-16 11:29 · Score: 1

As for global config settings being files: Same with OS X. OS X prefers property lists over dotfiles, but the end result is still the same.

As for app bundles being wasteful compared to Linux-style global dependencies: Agreed. However, that way native OS X apps can avoid some issues like two apps demanding specific versions of a library that can't be slotted (granted, that is less common these days). When I can choose between an app bundle and installing the same app via Portage/Fink, I choose the bundle; less issues that way and usually the bundled libraries don't eat up much space. Both Portage/OS X and Fink can be quite capricious, especially when you use both in order to overcome the holes in their package trees.
Also, global dependencies only work when the packages appear in the package tree. OS X being a platform with less open source stuff you'd either need to have every program come in its own package file that defines a new branch of the package tree (hello, RPM) or have every program registered with Apple. Both aren't nearly as convenient as drag-and-drop application bundles.

As for uninstallation being difficult: Yup, that could be improved. Making uninstallation routines mandatory for .pkgs (or providing an own standard uninstaller) would solve the problem, as .pkgs are "saved" to /Library/Receipts after installation.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-16 12:25 · Score: 1

two apps demanding specific versions of a library that can't be slotted (granted, that is less common these days).
I'd even go so far as to say that where it does happen, it's possible to work around. There are ways, in startup scripts, to force an app to use a specific library, or to force ld.so to search a specific folder for a library.
When using packages, it is possible to gain all of the advantages of an app bundle, by simply having the package install the equivalent of an app bundle. The converse is not true -- app bundles cannot reasonably do dependencies.

Both Portage/OS X and Fink can be quite capricious, especially when you use both in order to overcome the holes in their package trees.
Which is why I continue to blame Apple for this mess. Apple is, effectively, the OS X distro maintainer; they combine basic things like Darwin and Quartz with a few apps of their own (Finder, Quicktime, Safari) into something that is supposed to "just work" out of the box. They also provide Software Update, which maintains this distro very well. But they don't provide any way to support third-party apps, or uninstallation (and reverse dependencies) for the apps that they do manage.
If Apple were to, say, pick up Fink -- or Apt, or Portage, or anything -- and develop a nice, slick GUI for it, have Software Update use it, and make it possible to add third-party repositories, then this problem wouldn't exist. Fink and Portage would also not exist in any big way.

Also, global dependencies only work when the packages appear in the package tree.
True enough. Ubuntu makes this easy. I'm on Kubuntu right now, and while I usually prefer the commandline, I can go to Adept, click "Managed Repositories", go to "Third-Party Software", and manually type in the URL for a repository. I have several already, including a repository which provides Wine for 64-bit Linux, and they seem to work well together with the main ones.
It's true, that's not actually as convenient, but I'm convinced that's a limitation of the UI, not the system.
What's more, having software registered with Apple doesn't seem to be a big deal. Considering the above, it doesn't even have to be Apple. And considering that just about everything Mac is on VersionTracker somewhere, it seems people actually welcome registering their software with a third party if it means they might have more users.
As for being as convenient as a drag-and-drop bundle -- that only works for a local disk. Basically, if you pop in the CD, and the app is well-behaved, then you can simply drag the .app bundle off the CD and into Applications, and you're done. You can even run it off the CD.
But if you're downloading it from the Internet, you have to download some sort of archive, most commonly a dmg. That means you have to download the dmg, mount it, drag and drop, unmount it, and throw it away. Most people don't understand this process at all, and in fact, I often see people simply mounting the dmg and running it from there. Worse, some open source versions come in .dmg.gz, which adds a third step, and a third temporary file you have to delete on your own.
My humble suggestion is, when you pop in an install disc, prompt the user if they want to install. Then, have a standard set of steps, including setting up that vendor's repository for use in updates. Provide a standard place to uninstall packages, by default have it hide anything the user didn't manually install (libraries and reverse dependencies are hidden). You could even prompt the user to remove the repository, but I think it'd be better to simply remove unused repositories automatically, unless the user manually added them.
Installing apps from the Internet could be made similarly easy -- add a new protocol and handler for Safari, something like app://http://example.com/path/to/repo:nameofapp. You then prompt the user if

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by Jesus_666 · 2007-07-16 20:41 · Score: 1

If Apple were to, say, pick up Fink -- or Apt, or Portage, or anything -- and develop a nice, slick GUI for it, have Software Update use it, and make it possible to add third-party repositories, then this problem wouldn't exist.

Note that this is rather hard to get right. If Apple don't do it exactly right, they might end up with a RedHat-like system (ie. any system upgrade having a chance of completely hosing the system by breaking third- and even first-party packages).

What's more, having software registered with Apple doesn't seem to be a big deal. Considering the above, it doesn't even have to be Apple. And considering that just about everything Mac is on VersionTracker somewhere, it seems people actually welcome registering their software with a third party if it means they might have more users.

True, but some people don't trust big corporations to be impartial when it comes to software distribution.

Worse, some open source versions come in .dmg.gz, which adds a third step, and a third temporary file you have to delete on your own.

It's hardly Apple's fault that some people either don't understand that .dmg is already compressed or are not capable to tell their server to send .dmg as something other than text/plain. Putting AddType application/x-apple-diskimage dmg into an .htaccess file is not rocket science.

As for "prompting whether they want to install": Sure, that'd work. I still prefer the simplicity of app bundles, though. With self-updating capabilities becoming more and more pervasive in the Mac world (even though I agree that having a central API for that would be nice) the drawbacks are rather small, at least as far as I am concerned.

An official package manager for traditional *nix apps would be nice, but Fink (essentially Apt for OS X, btw) actually comes close there. Fink's big weakness is that they take their binary approach too serious - currently my Fink is unusable because I don't have the exact build of the GCC it requires and installing said version would require me to download a 900 MiB archive from Apple in order to do a downgrade. Portage is far superior to Fink, but unfortunately the Gentoo package maintainers don't give a shit about Prefixed Portage, which is the special version of Portage used for OSes that aren't Gentoo Linux; thus, Portage has only a handful of working packages. When I'll set up my Leopard box I'm going to see how good Mac Ports is. I tried it before and wasn't impressed, but I hear they have improved.

Yeah, an official package manager would be nice. Not Fink-based, though. Not everyone wants to join the Apple Developer Connection so they can install GnuCash. Maybe a Ports/Portage variant that defaults to using binary packages. That way semi-casual users get their shell apps and power users get the power of USE flags.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-17 05:17 · Score: 1

Note that this is rather hard to get right.
Maybe it's easy to get wrong, but I don't think it's hard to get right. Ubuntu does it well, and Gentoo does it decently.

True, but some people don't trust big corporations to be impartial when it comes to software distribution.
Would these be the same people who bought a Mac?

With self-updating capabilities becoming more and more pervasive in the Mac world (even though I agree that having a central API for that would be nice) the drawbacks are rather small, at least as far as I am concerned.
The drawbacks are no shared libraries, and no one-click to update. You have to trust the app to self-update, and you're hosed if it doesn't. You can't easily add auto-update to an app that doesn't have it already, or check everything for updates without running through every single app and clicking a "check for updates" button. It's also slightly less bandwidth-efficient when there are no updates, or only a few.

currently my Fink is unusable because I don't have the exact build of the GCC it requires and installing said version would require me to download a 900 MiB archive from Apple in order to do a downgrade.
I would suggest that this is because Fink is too slow with upgrades, not because there's something wrong with the design. (I do think there's something wrong with the design, though; the GUI is nowhere near simple enough to replace app bundles.)

Not everyone wants to join the Apple Developer Connection so they can install GnuCash.
True, it'd fall flat on its face unless it was installed and working by default, with no registration required -- just like Software Update.

Maybe a Ports/Portage variant that defaults to using binary packages. That way semi-casual users get their shell apps and power users get the power of USE flags.
USE flags are overrated, and I say this as a long-time Gentoo user. In fact, it was in discovering this and a few other facts that I decided to go with Ubuntu.
Let's take a few random examples:
matroska -- adds support for mkv files. Ok, you might save some tiny amount of space by disabling this. And then as soon as you download an mkv file, you'll have to recompile half your multimedia apps in order to play it.
nptl -- there's really no reason you'd ever want this disabled on a modern Linux system, unless you really want to go back to a 2.4 kernel. And on OS X, you probably can't use it anyway.
X -- Here's a perfect example of the difference between Gentoo and a good Debian system. On Gentoo, if you disable X, you don't get any X libraries at all. This saves a lot of space and time upgrading, with a slight loss of functionality -- even on a server box, I might want something to work with X forwarding. But it'll probably work pretty well -- until you find that one little program that needs X to compile, even if it's not needed once it's running. Back in the days of XFree, this meant game over -- it meant you now had to compile and install the entire X distribution, including an X server and a bunch of video drivers, for a headless box, even if you were only ever going to use that app in commandline mode.
Nowdays X isn't such a problem, because X.org is split into smaller pieces. But on Ubuntu, it can be chopped up by file, not by source package. This means if something needs a particular X lib, it can get just that one X lib, and nothing else. It also helps with plugin systems -- for example, suppose you don't want vorbis support in, say, xmms or something similar. On Gentoo, this means recompiling xmms to add or remove that support. But xmms uses a plugin system, which means that on Ubuntu, there's a single .so that can be packaged separately -- one package to be removed if you don't want Vorbis, one to be added ba

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:No worse than OS X by Jesus_666 · 2007-07-17 09:26 · Score: 1

I would suggest that this is because Fink is too slow with upgrades, not because there's something wrong with the design. (I do think there's something wrong with the design, though; the GUI is nowhere near simple enough to replace app bundles.)

Seeing that Fink allows the user to build all packages from source it's not quite easy to see why you can't tell it to get over the fact that you're not using its favourite GCC build and just compile itself. They can not-support systems without XCode 2.2.1 all they want, but there should at least be an option to force the installation, ABI issues be damned.

As for USE flags vs. tiny packages: Okay, one could have tiny packages for everything, but I rather like the fact that (e.g.) you can just globally define USE="-doc" and can avoid any documentation being built. Sure, you could do the same with tiny packages, but in the end it's just the difference between a setting defining which subpackage gets installed or a setting defining how a package is configured. A binary-default Portage could just use the USE flag as an instruction to download a certain binary patch and apply it to the package archive before installation.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:No worse than OS X by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-17 10:14 · Score: 1

...ABI issues be damned.

It may not actually be an ABI issue. I know that for awhile after the GCC upgrade, Gentoo had patches all over the place just to get standard stuff to compile. So sometimes it's that old code actually doesn't work.

I rather like the fact that (e.g.) you can just globally define USE="-doc" and can avoid any documentation being built.

True, that's a missing feature, but the difference is, it applies at compile time, even if it's something stupid like documentation, even if all it changes is a dependency.

That's often it -- for example, Thunderbird will depend on Enigmail if compiled with crypt support, but ultimately, Enigmail is a separate package, and Thunderbird will be built exactly the same way, crypt or not.

What I would prefer, really, is conditional dependencies -- if you install "HTML documentation", then all programs which can have HTML documentation now suggest their html-doc packages. I don't know if this kind of thing exists, though -- sure, you could do it with Portage, but there'd be no way to go back and re-check it later (install package foo, then install html-docs-all, then have it automatically go back and install foo-html-docs).

A binary-default Portage could just use the USE flag as an instruction to download a certain binary patch and apply it to the package archive before installation.

Maybe so, but I'm not sure I want the same format. USE flags have become huge, way too big to really work well as a single environment variable. They're also so often irrelevant -- does OpenOffice care about Matrox support, for example?

I also don't think it would be as flexible, but maybe it's already overkill.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Nope by bernywork · 2007-07-15 05:02 · Score: 1

I got an uninstall button

--
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by Toreo+asesino · 2007-07-15 05:05 · Score: 1

Christ, that's the most incomprehensible, flaming and irrelevant comment I've seen in a while. Welcome to Slashdot - you'll fit right in.

--
throw new NoSignatureException();

Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 05:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Then the Slashdot article needs to be reworded to not be so fucking stupid. The article claims that uninstall is no longer working in Vista due to recent patches. This is an obviously false statement.

Re:WHO CARES by Pharmboy · 2007-07-15 05:09 · Score: 1

For decades, we Mac users haven't really given a shit what was happening off in PC land.... ...
If you're some sort of tragic square who needs to run Windows, maybe you should have thought of that before you bought a Mac.

Well, at least you aren't a fanboy.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by sid0 · 2007-07-15 05:10 · Score: 1

At least five grammatical errors. Better get your own house in order before spreading FUD. The best FUD-spreaders have proper English skills, I can grant them that. :P

I do not have this issue by sqlguy33 · 2007-07-15 05:10 · Score: 2

I have all the latest patches, and mine works fine. Nothing to see here move along.... As a side note. I have been running Vista Ultimate since the day I could purchase it. I upgraded my primary computer from Windows XP and have yet to have it crash once. I leave it running almost 24 hours a day. I have never had an issue with Windows since I got away from the ME edition, which was the worst OS ever. My guess is most people who have computer issues also download every toolbar form the internet, and spend a lot of time trying to shoot the target, capture the monkey, and click on every pop-up that appears. Maybe I am one of the few people who have had no issues with Xp, or Vista. I also run a linux server for my home Domain, and file shares, as well as my firewall. Now I will go back to my humble cave, as I am sure I will be banned from /. for my pro windows view.

Re:I do not have this issue by beheaderaswp · 2007-07-15 07:15 · Score: 1

There's nothing anti Microsoft about this. It's a bug report and and an inferred request to confirm the bug.

Yeesh- everyone's an expert. How's that "running a file server on your firewall" thing working for ya?

Clark Connect (Or the like) is not "running Linux". Sorry.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Re:I do not have this issue by Umuri · 2007-07-15 09:17 · Score: 1

Well, for every story there is a contrary.

I don't doubt you may have had a wonderful vista experience. But i will point out that the major complaints against windows vista have nothing to do with your story.

1. The obscene hardware requirements. I'm sorry, when an os RECCOMENDS 10+ gigs of install space, that's trouble
2. The drm, the drm, the drm, did I mention the drm? My computer should not be phoning home to redmond, or anyone, nearly 40% of the time it is on.
3. Usability and Security for normal users. You are an exceptional user, who we assume knows what he 's doing. Most users click ok on dialogues because it's what they are supposed to do to make it close. Security has been sacrificed greatly by microsoft in the form of making everything require "approval" in an annoying way that quickly becomes habit and is so rendered harmful by giving false a sense of security.
4. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - Windows Vista, like windows xp before it, has several of the EEE principals built into it, making it not function with some older hardware/software due to forced api rewrites. I know some incompatability is expected, but some of the compatability errors are in there for no other reason than to force outdating, in the same manner as it's predecessors, such as the serial port "revamp" that was featured with windows xp that rendered most serial devices unusuable.

--
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
Re:I do not have this issue by Virgil+Tibbs · 2007-07-15 12:01 · Score: 1

must be strange having an account on /. & having opinions like you do...
truce from me today...
tomorrow - no mercy ;)

--
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
Re:I do not have this issue by plague3106 · 2007-07-16 03:54 · Score: 1

1. The obscene hardware requirements. I'm sorry, when an os RECCOMENDS 10+ gigs of install space, that's trouble

A 300GB hard drive can be had for $65. 10 gigs is nothing today.

2. The drm, the drm, the drm, did I mention the drm? My computer should not be phoning home to redmond, or anyone, nearly 40% of the time it is on.

It doesn't spend "nearly 40%" time phoning home, sorry to burst your bubble. If you don't like DRM, I suggest you avoid anything from Apple, HD-DVD and BluRay too.

3. Usability and Security for normal users. You are an exceptional user, who we assume knows what he 's doing. Most users click ok on dialogues because it's what they are supposed to do to make it close. Security has been sacrificed greatly by microsoft in the form of making everything require "approval" in an annoying way that quickly becomes habit and is so rendered harmful by giving false a sense of security.

So what do you propose as a solution? Home users expect to have computer do what it tells them. Also, many UAC prompts are caused by misbehaving applications. If a developer has been following best practices their application should not be triggering these dialogs. Vista is still new, in time I hope that develoeprs will fix their broken applications.

4. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - Windows Vista, like windows xp before it, has several of the EEE principals built into it, making it not function with some older hardware/software due to forced api rewrites. I know some incompatability is expected, but some of the compatability errors are in there for no other reason than to force outdating, in the same manner as it's predecessors, such as the serial port "revamp" that was featured with windows xp that rendered most serial devices unusuable.

At some point you need to break backward compatibility to move on to something better. Where did I hear that before? Oh yea, linux kernel developers that break driver APIs way more often than MS has. For reference, see the USB changes.
Re:I do not have this issue by Ash-Fox · 2007-07-16 13:25 · Score: 1

So what do you propose as a solution?
I think Vista could provide better details than this or this.

On Linux, if I get such a dialog, it's often quite clear why I need to enter my password (after clicking something, never randomly like what happened in the second link -- First link was the CDROM driver CD, but it wouldn't even show the path of the executable so I couldn't be sure it was D:\setup.exe and not c:\secrettrojanfolderwaitingforcd\setup.exe).

At least Linux is a bit better by giving the exact command it's doing, usually it's even self describing (in this case, embedding a control panel element that requires root access under the application I'm using), rather than spewing some random GUID at me that I cannot even copy/paste and google while that dialog is asking.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:I do not have this issue by plague3106 · 2007-07-17 01:10 · Score: 1

I think Vista could provide better details than this or this.

The first is an unsigned binary being executed. Once the publisher signs the binary, that prompt should disappear. Its doubtful that malware would sign the binary by a trusted cert authority. The second is to prevent changes while running as an administrator. If you run as a non-privledged user, you should get a password prompt. This is just a reminder, "hey you could really fuck things up."

On Linux, if I get such a dialog, it's often quite clear why I need to enter my password (after clicking something, never randomly like what happened in the second link -- First link was the CDROM driver CD, but it wouldn't even show the path of the executable so I couldn't be sure it was D:\setup.exe and not c:\secrettrojanfolderwaitingforcd\setup.exe).

Agreed, it could provide more information. However in both cases you initiated the action. You clearly were changing the settings, likely the prompt appeared when you clicked the OK button with the shield on it (which indicates that such a prompt will be presented if you click that button).

I'd like to point out though on Linux if you were running said tools as root, you'd get no such reminders or warnings. That's just because of the different paths; Windows users have been used to being admins always, and getting them to normal accounts will take some time.

At least Linux is a bit better by giving the exact command it's doing, usually it's even self describing (in this case, embedding a control panel element that requires root access under the application I'm using), rather than spewing some random GUID at me that I cannot even copy/paste and google while that dialog is asking.

I'm not sure that message is any better; do you really think your typical end user would even know what that command line would do? I think they'd just click "OK" to that as well. Which is perhaps why details are lacking... I don't know that end users would even understand the details given. I am not bothered by the prompts, as I know when and why they occur, so I don't need to know the details. An end user wouldn't care what the details are.
Re:I do not have this issue by Ash-Fox · 2007-07-17 02:46 · Score: 1

The first is an unsigned binary being executed. Once the publisher signs the binary, that prompt should disappear. Its doubtful that malware would sign the binary by a trusted cert authority. I am sure thee are others.
Wrong, the popular spyware, Gator did this.
The second is to prevent changes while running as an administrator. If you run as a non-privledged user, you should get a password prompt. This is just a reminder, "hey you could really fuck things up."
Except the message randomly appeared, I clicked nothing then after a few idle minutes that appears.
However in both cases you initiated the action.
I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that -- It could tell me it's a auto-run from the CD, it could give me a few options like opening the CD drive or executing the program etc. rather than just going "Hey setup.exe is unsigned!".
I'd like to point out though on Linux if you were running said tools as root, you'd get no such reminders or warnings.
Many distributions make it difficult for you to login as root. Especially on Ubuntu/Kubuntu since root has no login.
Windows users have been used to being admins always, and getting them to normal accounts will take some time.
I agree, but I really feel the dialogs in Vista were really poorly thought out.
I'm not sure that message is any better; do you really think your typical end user would even know what that command line would do?
If it's average Joe, he'll just do it anyway, but for more knowledgeable users this is a great help for security.
Which is perhaps why details are lacking...
But they provide some GUID in some dialogs, expecting the more knowledgable users to actually know what those GUIDs somehow?
An end user wouldn't care what the details are.
Still, providing details like this is better under "More details" than no details or random GUID gibberish. I think Microsoft did a really poor job with these dialogs, they could certainly of done something better than what's available on Linux/OS X.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:I do not have this issue by plague3106 · 2007-07-17 04:36 · Score: 1

Wrong, the popular spyware, Gator did this.

So you're saying Gator is a signed, trusted publisher? Didn't think so.

Except the message randomly appeared, I clicked nothing then after a few idle minutes that appears.

Its interesting then that you have the Windows Update control panel open. It just "happened" to be open when the popup "mysteriously" appeared. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that -- It could tell me it's a auto-run from the CD, it could give me a few options like opening the CD drive or executing the program etc. rather than just going "Hey setup.exe is unsigned!".

So you're saying that putting a cd or dvd into a drive isn't a user initiated action? With the CDs I've inserted, I do get the proper autorun prompt. I guess the cd you inserted immediately tries to launch the installer (which requires admin privledges).

Many distributions make it difficult for you to login as root. Especially on Ubuntu/Kubuntu since root has no login.

RedHat and Mandriva don't; you can easily login via X with root. I bet there are many more distros like those two than your examples. It would seem odd that ubuntu has no root logon whatsoever, given that many things require it.

I agree, but I really feel the dialogs in Vista were really poorly thought out.

Yet you've provided nothing except saying that some command line should be shown instead.. which doesn't help your typical user anyway.

If it's average Joe, he'll just do it anyway, but for more knowledgeable users this is a great help for security.

It may be that the average Joe will just click continue anyway, but I'm sure there will be some that take the time to think about it. I'd argue the more knowledgeable users don't need any further details; I've yet been unable to figure out why a popup has occurred, likely because, as I've said before, I know which actions caused the prompt.

But they provide some GUID in some dialogs, expecting the more knowledgable users to actually know what those GUIDs somehow?

The more knowledgeable users likely won't even bother opening the details. And I've already agreed that it is kinda useless.

Still, providing details like this is better under "More details" than no details or random GUID gibberish. I think Microsoft did a really poor job with these dialogs, they could certainly of done something better than what's available on Linux/OS X.

I agreed with that already, but I have a feeling most won't bother with the details. Typical users don't care, and advanced users already know why the prompt appeared.
Re:I do not have this issue by Ash-Fox · 2007-07-17 23:01 · Score: 1

Its interesting then that you have the Windows Update control panel open. It just "happened" to be open when the popup "mysteriously" appeared. Sorry, I don't buy it.
I had it open, I didn't actually attempt to apply the changes, and mysteriously a bit after I get this lovely dialog.
RedHat and Mandriva don't; you can easily login via X with root.
Try making a average of the top distros on DistroWatch.com, you will find the majority don't.
So you're saying that putting a cd or dvd into a drive isn't a user initiated action?
Nope, I didn't say that.
With the CDs I've inserted, I do get the proper autorun prompt.
With CDs that contain autorun.ini? It doesn't seem to prompt here at all if I want to browse the CD instead of running the default executable.
Yet you've provided nothing except saying that some command line should be shown instead.. which doesn't help your typical user anyway.
Are you sure? I can help troubleshoot a user if he can read the details off the screen to me. If there are no details, it's more difficult to provide support on certain issues. Additionally the dialogs in Vista don't help more computer literate users since they contain no details.
The more knowledgeable users likely won't even bother opening the details. And I've already agreed that it is kinda useless.
Of course they don't, there is no details available (you can see for yourself), so if they want to see the details, there isn't any, plain and simple.
I agreed with that already, but I have a feeling most won't bother with the details.
It still doesn't hurt.
Typical users don't care
Perhaps, but the information should still be there.
and advanced users already know why the prompt appeared.
Really? I don't know why that prompt appeared in my snapshot before even saving any settings after not interacting with the computer for a few minutes, I saw a GUID that lead to no results on Google at the time.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:I do not have this issue by plague3106 · 2007-07-18 00:30 · Score: 1

I had it open, I didn't actually attempt to apply the changes, and mysteriously a bit after I get this lovely dialog.

Bullshit.

Try making a average of the top distros on DistroWatch.com, you will find the majority don't.

Again, bullshit. You can logon as root in any linux distro. Otherwise you'd be kinda fucked trying to modify your system at all.

Nope, I didn't say that.

From your previous post: I didn't initiate the Second action, and the system detecting a CD/DVD suddenly does not mean the user actually initiated that

With CDs that contain autorun.ini? It doesn't seem to prompt here at all if I want to browse the CD instead of running the default executable.

Yup; they open the standard "run or browse" prompt.

Are you sure? I can help troubleshoot a user if he can read the details off the screen to me. If there are no details, it's more difficult to provide support on certain issues. Additionally the dialogs in Vista don't help more computer literate users since they contain no details.

Fair enough, but then you could ask the user what they just attempted to do and you could figure it out, I'd hope.

Of course they don't, there is no details available (you can see for yourself), so if they want to see the details, there isn't any, plain and simple.

I only ever hit the details button out of curosity, i already knew what caused the prompt. My point that a knowledgable user likely won't even need to click details anyway. That point still stands.

It still doesn't hurt.

It doesn't help either, so why spend time on it?

Perhaps, but the information should still be there.

Why? Because YOU want it to?

Really? I don't know why that prompt appeared in my snapshot before even saving any settings after not interacting with the computer for a few minutes, I saw a GUID that lead to no results on Google at the time.

Again, I'm calling bullshit. Sorry, I don't buy your explaination. The most reasonable interpretation of your screen shot is that you clicked the OK button, not that it "just happened" to show up when you were on that screen.
Re:I do not have this issue by Ash-Fox · 2007-07-18 05:15 · Score: 1

Again, bullshit. You can logon as root in any linux distro. Otherwise you'd be kinda fucked trying to modify your system at all.
I was talking of directly logging in via the default graphical login screen. You want to claim you can do that with certain default settings like root having no login password on Ubuntu, that's laughable. Of course, you can fix that by doing things like 'sudo passwd root' etc. But average Joe which you seem so keen on referring to is not going todo that.
Yup; they open the standard "run or browse" prompt.
Hm, wonder what's going on here then.
I only ever hit the details button out of curosity, i already knew what caused the prompt. My point that a knowledgable user likely won't even need to click details anyway. That point still stands.
You do realize it's not very difficult to write a trojan to just wait for a CD insert event and then run it's own 'setup.exe'?
Why? Because YOU want it to?
Because the information is still useful to some, and yes, I would happen to be one of those 'advanced users' that you seem to claim don't want to see details without any reference to research.
Again, I'm calling bullshit. Sorry, I don't buy your explaination. The most reasonable interpretation of your screen shot is that you clicked the OK button, not that it "just happened" to show up when you were on that screen.
Call bullshit all you like. What the hell it's doing is still not clear and Microsoft could of done better.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Re:WHO CARES by empaler · 2007-07-15 05:12 · Score: 1

Thanks for the link - that program looks interesting. I'll give it a spin, and I might buy it if it turns out to be worth the 16 dollars.

Re:why would by MSFanBoi2 · 2007-07-15 05:14 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Stop being a freaking troll.

1.) You can get full installs of Vista for less than full versions of MacOS X.
2.) You can run Vista (without Aero) just fine on older hardware.
3.) There are quite a few FREE AV's out there that work fine.
4.) Build the computer, run Windows update. No different than any other OS with patches for the OS and applications.

Maybe if you stopped trolling you would see for most people, it is worth it...

of course just for saying the truth about Vista, I'll be modded down because some Slashdot people just can't handle little things like the truth...

Re:a sign? by empaler · 2007-07-15 05:15 · Score: 1

but everybody seems to be waiting patiently for a sign from Microsoft.

There has been a sign, they stuck two fingers up at everyone. Did you just call everyone French?

Power by delirium+of+disorder · 2007-07-15 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative

"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.

Re:Power by cdrguru · 2007-07-15 06:26 · Score: 1

Ha ha ha. If you are "a coder" you too can spend six months studying the code to figure out how to add a trivial feature or fix some obvious bug.

If you aren't then you can pay someone full-time to learn the code enough to fix a trivial bug. That is, assuming they aren't already very, very familar with it. Then you have other requirements that may be involved, such as interfacing with other hardware or software.

No, it isn't as easy as "just pay someone". You might have to find them first, or pay for them to learn the code. Best case possible would be they agree to "learn the code" on their own time and will call back when they feel comfortable enough to work productively with a piece of software. That would be very unusual but possible for someone trying to learn their way around.
Re:Power by westlake · 2007-07-15 06:50 · Score: 1

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.
Fixing a mission-critical app can cost bucket loads of cash.
The fix that breaks compatibility with the bog-standard install means trouble down the road.
Re:Power by bit01 · 2007-07-15 11:32 · Score: 1

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.

Fixing a mission-critical app can cost bucket loads of cash.

Usually not true. And better than having no option to fix it at all.

The fix that breaks compatibility with the bog-standard install means trouble down the road.

If it's important send the patch upstream and/or modularise it. More options than closed source.

---

Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.
Re:Power by bit01 · 2007-07-15 11:53 · Score: 1

Ha ha ha. If you are "a coder" you too can spend six months studying the code to figure out how to add a trivial feature or fix some obvious bug.

You're a zealot. Days, not months, and you can often pay the upstream to incorporate a fix for you. Or are you going to try to claim that closed source mysteriously makes the costs go away? You'll be paying one way or another.

If you aren't then you can pay someone full-time to learn the code enough to fix a trivial bug. That is, assuming they aren't already very, very familar with it. Then you have other requirements that may be involved, such as interfacing with other hardware or software.

Pay the original writer or pay a third party. A choice you don't have with closed source software.

No, it isn't as easy as "just pay someone".

Yes it is. With both closed source and open source it's always pay someone. It's just that with open source you have more flexibility and the vendor can't control, that is charge, as much. More of a open, free market in other words. I take it you like free markets?

You might have to find them first, or pay for them to learn the code.

Probably not. It depends on the package but popular ones tend to have many contributors giving many choices. Maybe it's a trivial fix costing next to nothing that the closed source vendor doesn't want to implement because they want to keep you on the upgrade treadmill or simply don't want to spend money on because their business objectives aren't aligned with yours.

Best case possible would be they agree to "learn the code" on their own time and will call back when they feel comfortable enough to work productively with a piece of software. That would be very unusual but possible for someone trying to learn their way around.

Nonsense. The usual case is that it's easy to find and fix a problem. Some bugs can be bears but that's true for both closed and open source software and you'll still end up paying for it in either case.

---

Open source software is everything that closed source software is. Plus the source is available.
Re:Power by Random832 · 2007-07-16 01:49 · Score: 1

As an IT Manager, i would be very worried about "paying someone" for a fix...it would have to be "somone" that I can take to court should their fix domore harm than good Right, just like how you can take Microsoft to court if their "hotfix" does more harm than good.

--
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.

Uninstall Programs in Windows VISTA by tjm1968 · 2007-07-15 05:16 · Score: 1

It took me a while to find the solution to this one. Microsoft renamed the old Add/Remove Progams feature. It is now located in the Control Panel/Programs and Features control panel. I've installed and uninstalled several programs through it and it has worked just fine. Good luck.

Re:Uninstall Programs in Windows VISTA by wwejason · 2007-07-15 17:07 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm still not clear on what the original author's problem is exactly, but if you can't see the option to open Add/Remove Programs, then bring up the Run box (in Vista that's Windows Key + R), and enter: appwiz.cpl

Re:why is this on slashdot? by bigstrat2003 · 2007-07-15 05:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

An update in Vista breaking something rather major (the ability to uninstall shit), qualifies as both news (hasn't happened to any other version of Windows that I recall), and something that matters (plenty of people are using Vista, even if it's only because it came with their computer, so this is potentially affecting quite a few people). It quite firmly belongs on slashdot, thanks.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by empaler · 2007-07-15 05:19 · Score: 1

Christ, that's the most incomprehensible, flaming and irrelevant comment I've seen in a while. Welcome to Slashdot - you'll fit right in.
The funny thing about that is how close yours and his UIDs are. (Not that I really care about those, it's just like a rookie telling another rookie "Welcome! Now let me tell you all you need to know...")

FUD Article by Fanboys_Suck_Dick · 2007-07-15 05:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

A Google search returns quite a few hits on this issue

Translation: a grand total of 5 users say they are experiencing this problem, probably including the author of this story.

After reading the posts linked in the article it seems the problem might be related to Yahoo toolbar crapware being installed on the PCs. You can use use system restore to fix the problem. Stop clicking "accept" when UAC warns you not to install crapware. Stop posting Vista FUD stories to Slashdot. Thank you.

Re:FUD Article by VertigoAce · 2007-07-15 06:53 · Score: 1

Furthermore, all four of the supplied links were written before July 10th. In other words, none of those four have anything to do with the latest updates to Vista.
Re:FUD Article by RobFlynn · 2007-07-15 10:55 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:Bullshit by Seumas · 2007-07-15 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your world only contains failure rates of 0% and 100%, huh?

Re:why would by SolusSD · 2007-07-15 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

hm. maybe people would take your opinions more seriously if your alias wasn't msfanboi2. personally, my computing experience has been much more enjoyable since i switched to osx/linux at home and at work. if you've found a way to spend 50% of your time on windows maintaining it-- good for you.

Nope. by Pyrion · 2007-07-15 05:20 · Score: 1

Getting the uninstall menu just fine in Vista x64 post-this month's patch tuesday.

--
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.

Good case for using a VM by khb · 2007-07-15 05:21 · Score: 1

Like VMware or Parallels. Snapshot before any update, if you don't like the result just restore to the snapshot image.

Also handles pesky issues like the claimed inability to really wipe data ... you can always blow away virtual disk images.

Re:Good case for using a VM by Pyrion · 2007-07-15 05:28 · Score: 1

What, you mean inability to delete shadow copies? Just turn off system restore and then delete the files in question.

--
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.

Issues by nytrokiss · 2007-07-15 05:22 · Score: 1

There are some well known issues uninstalling some software in vista! SOnic dla comes to mind becuase it can only be uninstalled in sface mode using safemsi...

Re:WHO CARES by node159 · 2007-07-15 05:26 · Score: 1

"Macintosh Explorer" makes me want to poke eyes with sharp hot things.

As if there wasn't enought pain in the world, god it looks awful...

--
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?

This warrants a topic? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 05:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just when you thought Slashdot couldn't get any worse. A handful of people have a problem uninstalling some programs and the fud merchants jump in with cries of "OMG LOZ U KANT UNINSTOL PROGRAMZ ON M$ VISTA(DRM EDITION LOLZ)".

If I go find a small amount of people on the Apple help forums, or maybe over on the official Ubuntu forums, that are having difficulties from a software update, can I have my own Slashdot story too? Oh pretty please!!!

Why? by polyex · 2007-07-15 05:27 · Score: 1

Why do people put up with this sort of stuff? I mean computers are supposed to be both fun and practical. If what the poster is saying is true, its really ridiculous that a multi-billion dollar selling product would be so shoddy. I find it surprising that people who know well before purchasing Windows that MS is legendary with the number of bugs etc in Windows but continue to use the product and have the audacity to act surprised when Microsoft acts like Microsoft. Is anyone delusional enough to believe that MS will somehow improve change one damn thing for the benefit of the customer except as a reaction to what a Apple or whoever is doing or to rope you into some strategy not yet revealed to benefit MS only down the road? This is fine for Microsoft and is obviously making them richer. But truly, what does it do for you? For 15 or whatever I see people continue to adapt themselves to Microsoft rather than MS adapting to the customer (or even you masochists out there promoting this stuff as acceptable because of the monopoly)? Until it gets so bad that the product is just completely one sided to the detriment of the customer or the alternatives are strong enough for people to chance moving to them, Microsoft will continue to be Microsoft. Neither evil or good, just not looking out for you, so no - I am not surprised and I wont be when yet another ridiculous MS Windows bug is posted here on Slashdot. I am only surprised that a situation like this is allowed and even considered normal for years and years now.

Re:WHO CARES by Lehk228 · 2007-07-15 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

speak and spell also doesn't have patch problems, but just because it's easier to use doesn't justify replacing a professional system with a toy.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

No removing of hotfix installers by Osvaldo+Doederlein · 2007-07-15 05:30 · Score: 1

Another thing that bothers me: on Win2K and XP, after every batch of monthly hotfix updates I would delete the hidden Windows/KBxxxx directories that the hotfixes create with their uninstallers and backups of replaced files. I do that because I never, ever, remove any such updates, from small hotfixes to huge service packs (downgrading is for losers)... so, why wasting disk space with their uninstallers? Now on Vista I cannot do that anymore, because its Windows/* file organization is orders of magnitude larger, more complex and more obscure than ever before. I tried to identify which files and directories contain hotfix uninstallation data, but it's a mess, I'd take a lot of time to identify those files (I know how to do that, e.,g. with ProcMon logs) and I'd still fear breaking the whole OS if I remove or update any files manually.

Well, Vista is so big in the disk that wasting a few dozen Mb with unwanted uninstallers does not seem like a big deal anymore. But it IS a big deal when an OS's base file structure becomes so stupidly complex, that some body like me (Windows user since 3.0, ex-sysadmin, and skilled software developer) is too scared to touch it with his bare hands...

Re:Solution by griffjon · 2007-07-15 05:30 · Score: 1

IAWTC - this totally worked for me. Also with a little work you can get much better eye candy on less powerful hardware, I've noticed.

--
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer

Re:Bullshit by sid0 · 2007-07-15 05:32 · Score: 5, Funny

The tone of TFS does. "Programs cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista?" Nice device -- just use the question mark on a smear to disclaim it if it is later found false. I think it's called the "Cavuto mark", after the guy on Fox News.

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by JohnnyBGod · 2007-07-15 05:34 · Score: 1

Why, thank you! Now, I don't see how something like saying I can't reproduce the bug which this whole article refers to is irrelevant. As for incomprehensible, I'll admit that it is, since Slashdot got rid of the paragraphs I had in it, because I forgot to choose to post the comment as plain text AND preview it. I also let some grammatical mistakes slip through, but bear in mind that English is not my mother language. Furthermore, I wasn't flaming anything or anyone in any way, nor can I see how one would think that I was.

And last, but not least, I don't need welcoming: I've been here for a while. Well. at least almost as long as you.

No, it's a UI problem by Henry+V+.009 · 2007-07-15 05:39 · Score: 1

The uninstall button appears when you click on the application you want to uninstall.

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by Clete2 · 2007-07-15 05:41 · Score: 5, Informative

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).

Re:why is this on slashdot? by LiquidFire_HK · 2007-07-15 05:46 · Score: 1

AOL control panel What? Where did you see that?

Re:Bullshit by nschubach · 2007-07-15 05:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh come on. Microsoft has claimed the problem is less than 5% of all units. Mr. Moore reminds us that it's not the problems the devices are having, it's the manner to which they repair them!

Oh wait, that's that other Microsoft product... Sorry.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by JohnnyBGod · 2007-07-15 05:50 · Score: 1

FUD? I just said "I can't reproduce this bug". I never had any love for Microsoft, even though I like some of their products (Visual Studio comes to mind, for example, even though there are good open source alternatives).

Concerning my grammar, I've already explained myself in another post.

And to get my own house in order, I'd have to get my own house first. ;)

It's called the "Don't Lose Your Stuff" feature by that+IT+girl · 2007-07-15 05:50 · Score: 1

Don't you just hate it when you're clicking on random boxes on your screen and deleting things because you don't have any idea what "autoexec.bat" and "winsock.dll" are, but they must be a virus because you didn't put it there...and then suddenly your computer decides it hates you and won't work anymore? Now introducing Windows Vista. You can't actually remove anything from this hard drive. You better REALLY want that on there before you click 'save'. But you'll never lose anything again!

--
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by sid0 · 2007-07-15 05:52 · Score: 1

Mate. Don't get upset. Check who I replied to. I didn't reply to you, I replied to "Joe The Dragon".

I haven't had any problems with the update, either.

Re:Bullshit by RonnyJ · 2007-07-15 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

In this case, the very first post saying 'mine is OK' is modded as Redundant.

Re:why is this on slashdot? by Zibblsnrt · 2007-07-15 05:53 · Score: 1

'Cause no self-described nerds use AOL or Vista, right?

--
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Why? by tweedle100 · 2007-07-15 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

And I'm surprised how a support question ends up on a news site!

Would your "vetting" process have spotted this? by Joce640k · 2007-07-15 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Would your "vetting" process have spotted this...?

I can see how a "vetting process" would spot major problems with a patch but would you honestly have spotted "uninstall button missing for some applications"?

To me it seems like the sort of thing people only notice weeks or months after an update.

--
No sig today...

Re:Would your "vetting" process have spotted this? by witte · 2007-07-15 23:23 · Score: 1

I'd expect MS to at least invest in regression testing with test automation tools.
It's not so hard to set up eg. Mercury QTP to catch this sort of problem.

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by ToriaUru · 2007-07-15 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Add me to that group. I will continue to refuse to use it. I'm dual-booting with Linux now, and slowly learning my way around Ubuntu 7.04. That's what I'll take over Vista, any day.

--
Toria

TFTI Captain Oblivious by The+MAZZTer · 2007-07-15 05:58 · Score: 1

Good to see you read the title. You should go back and read the summary. What you describe as taking you a while is the EASY part.

Re:TFTI Captain Oblivious by tjm1968 · 2007-07-16 01:52 · Score: 1

Sorry, I've used it to uninstall several programs since I discovered that was how you access the option to add/remove. I've uninstalled several programs that didn't have an uninstall option as well as programs that did. It hasn't given me any problems, so I thought sharing the "easy" solution might help someone. Cheers

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by JohnnyBGod · 2007-07-15 05:59 · Score: 1

Oh, well, dumb me. The comment appeared immediately below mine, so I didn't even read the title. I wasn't upset, anyway. Over time, I've learned not to take the Internet too seriously. LOL, reading that last sentence again, it makes me sound really old.

Re:Solution by TheRaven64 · 2007-07-15 05:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

My PowerBook came with OS X 10.2, and was upgraded to 10.3 then to 10.4 without any issues. Over the three years that it was my primary machine, I never re-installed the operating system. After one year, it was sent in for repair. Apple lost it and provided me with a replacement. Fortunately, before sending it in, I'd imaged the disk onto an old QuickSilver G4 (desktop), which I used in the intervening period. When I got it back, I just moved the disk contents back over. The next time I sent it in for repair, I moved the contents of the disk to a G4 Mac Mini and did the same thing. The OS install, over three years, was resident on three machines and went through three major OS versions.

The FreeBSD box under my desk has gone from 4.7 up to 6.2. At some point in the 6.x series, I moved /home onto a software RAID 1 array.

My OpenBSD box has gone from 3.7 to 4.1, again, without any problems.

Windows is the only operating system I've used where you expect upgrades to break things. Upgrading is almost always preferable to a clean install, since you keep all of your settings. If it isn't reliable, then that's a very bad thing.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

The short answer is "yes, you should". by khasim · 2007-07-15 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch? Every patch Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks?

By planning for it.

How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves?

By testing them.

Does it add to their 'experience' or job value?

Knowing what is on their systems is part of their job. As is maintaining those systems.

I don't think so, and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.

Yes, there are admins like that out there.

End result - we have a WSUS server which handles all the updates, and that server is set to automatic, sothe sysads get back to their task of configuring new PCs, setting up changed environments based on changing project needs etc.

So you automatically accept and deploy the patches Microsoft sends out ... knowing that Microsoft itself tells you that they do NOT test those patches against other company's software.

A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates.

My opinion is the opposite. But then, my opinion is based upon my experience with vendors releasing patches that broke systems.

Re:The short answer is "yes, you should". by jkrise · 2007-07-15 06:14 · Score: 1

One thing we need to remember is that there's no 'scientific' way of going about testing patches - which is what I pointed out in my original post. There is absolutely ZERO INFORMATION about what a patch will fix, until it gets released. The information from Microsoft merely states what it (attempts to) fix. In the absence of the source for the patches, users will have to guess what the impact will be - by checking every possible combination - and there are hundreds of things to check out.

How can someone even begin to assume that a patch for a Windows vulnerability will prevent uninstalling software? Sounds very far fetched to me - unless we are talking about millions of users.

--
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Re:The short answer is "yes, you should". by Henry+V+.009 · 2007-07-15 07:36 · Score: 1

It depends on your needs as an organization. There are risks either way. In general, a security disaster is a bigger problem than a patch problem. Cleanup after a security incident is expensive and you can't always fix everything. Once sensitive data is stolen, it can't be unstolen.

You need to weigh the risk of downtime due to failed patches against the security risk. This will also depend on the nature of your backup and redundancy plan. How long does it take to restore a system from backup after a failed patch? What is the nature of your redundant systems in case of a major software failure on your main systems? How much does downtime cost you?

The ultimate, though expensive, solution is to automatically patch and to have an instant fail-over ready, either through clustering or some other means. You therefore reduce security risk and patch risks. Whether that is realistic or not depends on budgets and uptime needs. In a lot of situations, restoring from backups is acceptable, and in that case automatic updates combined with a decent backup solution would be fine.

If failover is impossible and downtime is unacceptable, then the only real solution is to test, patch, and pray. With the emphasis on the last.

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by JohnnyBGod · 2007-07-15 06:02 · Score: 1

Please ignore everything I've said... I've been pretty Reply-happy today (don't feel like studying), and assumed your comment was in response to mine, since it was so close to it.

Re:Doesn't matter by nschubach · 2007-07-15 06:03 · Score: 1

The unwise believe that only.

Yoda, is that you?

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Re:why would by Chutulu · 2007-07-15 06:06 · Score: 1

1. i payed nothing for Vista and yes the copy is perfectly legal 2. i didn't bought any new hardware 3. ever heard of free anti-virus?? 4. that's the same time i would spend in updating Linux.... 5. yeah

right, switching is impractical by r00t · 2007-07-15 06:10 · Score: 1

I could never switch to Vista.

First of all, it doesn't support my hardware. I'd have to buy an x86 or x86-64 system.

Then I'd lose my virtual desktops. Working without virtual desktops would be like running a marathon with my shoelaces tied together. It's too horrible to seriously contemplate; keeping 50 to 150 windows open would no longer be practical. I'd have to buy Photoshop ($$$), because gimp is unusable without virtual desktops.

Rather than using plain text files and shell scripts to get things done, I'd have to get lots of single-purpose software. (actually I'd go with Linux in a VM, but that's cheating) I'd have to blindly trust random little shareware apps to not be buggy or malware -- it's rare to get the source, and Vista doesn't include a compiler anyway.

I'd have to avoid putting critical personal data on the machine. I don't want my financial data leaking out via some spyware thing. I know many people take this risk, but I have too much to lose.

I'd have to stop going to certain web sites. (running Firefox is cheating; Vista's browser is IE7) The pop-ups would be awful at some of the places I visit. The malware is another concern.

It sounds miserable and hopeless. Maybe I'd just let the computer stay off and collect dust.

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by nschubach · 2007-07-15 06:11 · Score: 1

You forgot to tell him how you used to post and read Slashdot in waist high snow both ways.

Oh, and don't forget the part where Internet was only $0.10 back in the day.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Re:Or... by nschubach · 2007-07-15 06:14 · Score: 1

... it must be the Zune DRM they are fixing because they are obviously not having many problems with any red rings of death or scratched discs.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.

Mod parent up! by khasim · 2007-07-15 06:14 · Score: 1

Yeah, I know. But I have karma to burn.

And before I hear from all the Windows admins, yeah, I know. But re-imaging a drive is not a real solution. The rest of the industry has moved past that but you people still advocate it. Just because it takes YOU less time to re-image a drive (what? an hour per drive?) than to find the real problem?

It's "computer SCIENCE". Where is the SCIENCE in "re-format & re-install"?

Where is the advancement?

Where is the solution to whatever caused the problem?

Re:Bullshit by Original+Replica · 2007-07-15 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft has claimed the problem is less than 5% of all units.

Maybe the big image problem MicroSoft is having as far as bugs and quality control is a matter of people expecting more from computers as they get ever more integrated in our lives. If 5% of a new model of HD-DVD player wouldn't eject the DVD, there would be a recall. When PCs were novelties it was OK for them to be "quirky". That time has passed. MicroSoft, and much of the software world in general, need to step up and produce goods with real craftsmanship, not patched together. Yes I know modern software is all terribly complex, but if it's too hard to do well, go into a different line of work.

--
We are all just people.

Re:Solution by Killjoy_NL · 2007-07-15 06:15 · Score: 1, Funny

IAWTC

I Am a World Trade Center

???

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)

And this is Microsoft's fault how? by cdrguru · 2007-07-15 06:21 · Score: 1

If the install does not include provisions for uninstall, then no standard uninstall is possible.

If the information for uninstall is deleted from the registry, then no uninstall is possible.

Sure, Microsoft might have some secret agenda whereby Yahoo Messenger and other "uninstall" information is silently deleted but that makes about as much sense as saying under Linux there isn't an Uninstall button.

How about Yahoo screwing up with their latest installer so the Uninstall option isn't there anymore?

Re:Bullshit by Viros · 2007-07-15 06:25 · Score: 1

Mine works fine too, running Vista Home Premium. This may be limited to certain configs, or it could even be that it affects all BUT a few types of configs. Point is, there seem to be a fair number of people that this isn't affecting at all.

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by JohnnyBGod · 2007-07-15 06:28 · Score: 1

And now I've replied to the wrong person *sigh*. I think I'll just stop.

Permissions? by PCM2 · 2007-07-15 06:30 · Score: 1

Attempting to be a little more constructive than some of these other replies ... I, too, have no problems uninstalling anything on my Vista system, and I'm running with all patches. But then, I'm also running with UAC disabled. Maybe this is a simple permissions issue? Remember, with Vista you no longer run as an Administrator by default. Perhaps some of these older programs were installed as Administrator -- maybe even under XP -- and the unprivileged user doesn't have permission to run the uninstall script. I know I've run into similar annoyances with Vista often, where even though I AM running as an Admin it tells me I "need permission" to copy or delete files, etc.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Permissions? by TheNetAvenger · 2007-07-15 07:37 · Score: 1

, too, have no problems uninstalling anything on my Vista system, and I'm running with all patches. But then, I'm also running with UAC disabled. Maybe this is a simple permissions issue?

We have tons of test systems with mass amounts of test software. I can CERTAINLY say that this article is either FUD or a TROLL and why SlashDot put it up is just another sign this sign is dying or dead.

The UAC doesn't matter in this regard, we have systems with it disabled and systems with it on, and after asking a few of the techs this weekend, not a single system has the Uninstall button disabled, and this even includes 'very' test systems with non-standard updates and software installed.

UAC works like this, the Uninstall button would NEVER disapper, the only way the UAC would be involved is if the Program needs permission to delete itself from a protected area like Program Files. In this can the UAC will note the process trying to access this area of the system and pop up a prompt LONG after the person has clicked the Uninstall button and started the uninstall application.

UAC would have nothing to do with this user's incompetence.

(Involved in years of beta with Vista and 100s of thousands of users and new users to Vista, and this is the first user I have ever seen even ask a ridiculous question like this, or purport it has something to do with Vista. Chances are this person has installed some 'spycleaner/regcleaner/crap' utility to his system and isn't bright enough to correlate that IT screwed with his registry.)
Re:Permissions? by Tony+Hoyle · 2007-07-15 12:14 · Score: 1

Possibly, but UAC can and does fail like this. You can get the 'do you want to do this?' box, click OK and have nothing at all happen - for example I had a vista box do that consistently when deleting items from the desktop - the only way to delete items was to start up and administrative shell and delete using the command line as the gui was totally broken.

Vista has a large number of problems (I've run it since the RC and have probably hit about half of them) and isn't production ready yet.. but then XP really didn't get there until SP1 or SP2 (depending on what you wanted to use it for.. personally I'd say SP2 was when they finally got it working).

Companies certainly shouldn't be rolling it out yet - it's just not had long enough in the field. Heck, half the companies I work with are just about rolling out XP.
Re:Permissions? by TheNetAvenger · 2007-07-16 03:36 · Score: 1

Possibly, but UAC can and does fail like this. You can get the 'do you want to do this?' box, click OK and have nothing at all happen - for example I had a vista box do that consistently when deleting items from the desktop - the only way to delete items was to start up and administrative shell and delete using the command line as the gui was totally broken.

Unless it is a shortcut installed for all users, if you are getting a UAC for files or documents that truly exist in your desktop folder you have some massive permission problems with your system and should force the folder files to inherent their parent permissions.

This is not in any way normal or the default behavior of Vista.

Re:Vista is a strange beast by Martin+Blank · 2007-07-15 06:30 · Score: 1

I've been using Vista since Beta 1, had it as my primary work OS since Beta 2, and have been running Vista-64 since about three days after the code was released to volume customers. With the exception of some older Checkpoint firewall UIs and a lack of Atheros drivers (which a colleague recently found but which I have not tested), all of my work software has loaded just fine. The Atheros drivers don't really bother me because I have an integrated Intel wireless card, I flip to Linux and MADWifi for most wireless security work, and the Checkpoint UIs load fine in VMWare (except FP3, which for some reason won't complete a connection).

I regard Vista as neither as good nor as bad as many people say. It's nothing spectacular, though there are UI improvements that I rather like. (I'm somewhat annoyed that Windows Explorer still does not have a quicker method of creating a new folder than using the context menu, but that's a minor issue.) I don't rush anyone to get it, but I don't recommend that they avoid it on new PCs, either.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

"Black box" testing. by khasim · 2007-07-15 06:33 · Score: 1

One thing we need to remember is that there's no 'scientific' way of going about testing patches - which is what I pointed out in my original post.

That depends upon what you mean by "scientific". You can always use black box testing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_testing

There is absolutely ZERO INFORMATION about what a patch will fix, until it gets released. The information from Microsoft merely states what it (attempts to) fix.

Which is all the more reason to run your own tests.

In the absence of the source for the patches, users will have to guess what the impact will be - by checking every possible combination - and there are hundreds of things to check out.

If your environment is that complex, you really need to do the testing.

But most environments are not that complex. You might have a dozen different departments, all with identical configurations, that you'd need to test.

That is, if you've already followed "best practices" and standardized your systems and images.

Re:"Black box" testing. by multipartmixed · 2007-07-15 07:39 · Score: 1

You clearly don't understand THOROUGH software testing.

I could easily take a default windows + office platform and write a blackbox test suite that misses stuff, yet takes more than a man year to run.

Oh, say, let's say a particular update breaks word 2003 loading documents saved in word 97 with times new roman italic between courier new bold paragraphs, IF the paragraphs in question are less than three lines long.

Would you expect sysadmin staff to be able to find THAT? It could happen, if you want to be thorough in your blackbox testing.. there is no substitute for man years.

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?

No worse than OS X? by astrosmash · 2007-07-15 06:37 · Score: 4, Informative

No worse than OS X, huh?

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 /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.

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!

Re:No worse than OS X? by myowntrueself · 2007-07-15 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Thats how it is supposed to be.

Thats not how it is, even for the Apple-produced iLife apps. Garageband is a great example. If you drop the application bundle in the trash you are still left with a few gigs of (now useless) files 'scattered' throughout the filesystem. Ok 'scattered' may be a bit extreme but the point stands that by dragging the garageband app bundle to the trash you have *not* removed all traces of the app.

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Re:No worse than OS X? by Jugalator · 2007-07-15 09:17 · Score: 1

The reality is that most Windows uninstallers do little more than what is accomplished from dragging an application bundle to the trash

I have no idea what App-Zapper is, but sounds like what you're looking for is something like Total Uninstall?

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Re:why would by Skuld-Chan · 2007-07-15 06:50 · Score: 1

To be honest I find little difference between Vista and OSX. I develop on both platforms actually. Both have elevation prompts, both have automatic updates turned on by default. Both require reboots for a good majority of updates. Both have had updates that have caused issues with 3rd party apps (Quicktime update breaking PPC emulation on Intel Macs is a good example - I actually can't remember an update recent memory that has caused any issues on Windows).

If OSX works for you better - great - arguing which one is better I think is getting harder and harder.

Re:why is this on slashdot? by Otter · 2007-07-15 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny

An update in Vista breaking something rather major ... qualifies as both news ... and something that matters ... It quite firmly belongs on slashdot, thanks.

And the fact that it's not actually true pretty much seals the deal!

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...

Two Minutes Hate by Scottoest · 2007-07-15 07:01 · Score: 1

I have a pretty typical Vista x32 installation, that is patched and up to date, and I don't have this problem. The Uninstall button doesn't show up until you select a program, but then, it was always that way.

I think it's funny how TFS in this article was phrased though, as I bet a quick Google search would also find people who can't get their mouse to work in Linux, or whose F10 key keeps typing a 'W' in Windows XP. The author then asks if anyone else is having the issue, with the title basically implying programs cannot be uninstalled definitively. There are other, I think more honest and fair ways to find out if it is a Windows problem, than taking someone's personal anecdote, with a small handful of others, and then implying it is ia universal issue.

Before I went to bed last night though, I got my Microsoft "two minutes hate" about some bogus Office 2007 "try before you buy" story, and now when I wake up, this - with all of the requisite yuks about switching to another operating system (which operating system they have in mind, I can't imagine :))

It really harms a websites credibility as an arbiter of real tech news, to post un-vetted stories about an operating system. It shows a lot of bias. And yes, I am well aware that this place has always had a hard anti-MS bent, haha. /endrant

- Scott

No problem by east0r_r0x · 2007-07-15 07:04 · Score: 1

No problem here; and I have every update installed.

Re:why would by Frenchman113 · 2007-07-15 07:07 · Score: 2, Informative

I can't believe I'm allowing myself to be goaded into answering an AC, but...

You'll get modded down as a troll because you are one.

1.) You can get full installs of Vista for less than full versions of MacOS X. False. MacOS X costs $130. The full version of Vista costs $400. End of story. Wrong. Most people won't need Vista "Ultimate". In fact, Ultimate is not $400 either. Further, Vista is not locked to hardware.

2.) You can run Vista (without Aero) just fine on older hardware. False. Vista requires more memory and processor speed for various background tasks not related to the excessive and useless graphics system it uses. If you don't have 512 MB of RAM and a 1 GHz processor in these days, maybe you ought to be looking for a new computer. Further, "excessive" and "useless" are purely opinions. Usually, Aero INCREASES performance since it offloads rendering to the GPU.

3.) There are quite a few FREE AV's out there that work fine. Irrelevant. You're upping the hardware requirements again, and you simply don't need AV software on other OSes. 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).

4.) Build the computer, run Windows update. No different than any other OS with patches for the OS and applications. False. First off, Windows Update only updates Windows components. Various other OSes will update other software as well.

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.

I guess Chutulu is playing Cthulu's advocate... by benhocking · 2007-07-15 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

When you say "mine is OK", are you saying that you upgraded Vista and that you can uninstall programs you installed prior to upgrading, or are you talking about something else? Your post is surprisingly short of information for a "defense" post.

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

stuff that just works on OSX by symbolset · 2007-07-15 07:15 · Score: 1

In osX the program to copy an image of your system disk to external media is an integral part of the operating system. You can make waypoint images, mount images, install software on them and use the standard OS installer to install an os on them. There's even multicast streaming software to deploy the resulting image files to hundreds of pc's remotely. The os install disc includes the facility as well.

Since uninstallers can never be trusted to remove all traces of their package and avoid bizarre compatibility issues, waypoint imaging has been my preferred package uninstall process on XP for years. I have to use third party utilities but I work it into my periodic XP hygiene reimaging.

I would say Apple has handled this issue better than anybody else in the field. They include everything except the backup media in the base system. I wish they would sell osX for standard systems.

My gnu/linux systems don't need this because I never need a hygiene reinstall, and I "upgrade" to.a clean install of a new version or distro more often, and I can't recall uninstalling any software anyway -- if it's free, why bother?

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Caused havoc with my pocketpc by grimmy · 2007-07-15 07:26 · Score: 1

For some reason my ppc stopped syncing, the device could see it was plugged in and tried to sync but the lovely new windows mobile device center had no idea I plugged anything in.

Only thing I could find in google was *another* recent update to .net 2 that fskced up some programs that used it and to reinstall. Of course I click uninstall in control panel, it does it's thing and voila it's still there!

Re:Bullshit by HiThere · 2007-07-15 07:28 · Score: 1

I've certainly encountered at least one person on a mailing list who felt like that. He expected his computer to work properly NOW!!, and wasn't willing to hear technical explanations as to how to fix it. This was the more annoying as it was totally off topic for the mailing list, which was only semi-moderated (obnoxious posters get banned, but anyone can post). Naturally he started off appearing to be reasonable, but experiencing trouble...and he tied it peripherally onto the topic of the list.

I doubt that anyone that I've encountered is broadly unique. (Probabilities seem against it.) Therefore it's probable that some percentage of the population is like that guy.

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me that it's possible for general purpose computers to be secured from unexpected failures...especially failures that aren't expected by people who are only vaguely familiar with the technology. ("I know what a computer is. It's that thing that calculates numbers and talks over the internet. And it plays games too.") This is the more true when some properties of computing are covered by patents that are unintelligible as to what they mean. So just because one computer does things one way doesn't mean that other computers are even legally allowed to do it the same way. (Note that here I'm not drawing a distinction between hardware and software patents. For this argument their effects are identical. If someone were to patent a mouse that could recognize who was using it, and automatically log them in appropriately [see a recent Apple announcement...though I'm extrapolating a bit], then only computers that could use that mouse could recognize a person by feel. Other computers couldn't act the same way because of legal impediments. The patents could all be hardware based.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Bullshit by HiThere · 2007-07-15 07:33 · Score: 1

You've got a point...but note the number of posts by "anonymous coward" on this heading.

If it's not astroturfing, it's sure hit a nerve on SOMEBODY(ies).

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Anything can be uninstalled by Tablizer · 2007-07-15 07:34 · Score: 2, Informative

You just need to download the ColdMetal(tm) Uninstall Tool:

http://www.tindlescomputerrepair.com/dont%20shoot. gif

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:why would by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 07:38 · Score: 1, Informative

Wrong. Most people won't need Vista "Ultimate". In fact, Ultimate is not $400 either. Further, Vista is not locked to hardware. He said "full version". The full version of Windows Vista costs $400. You can buy lesser, crippled versions for less money, but if you want the full version of Vista you have to pony up $400. In fact, there's only one version of Windows Vista cheaper than OS X, and that's Vista Basic Upgrade at $99. If you want a full version, period, you'll be spending more than Mac OS X costs. (I'm ignoring the "Starter Edition" because it can't be sold in most of the countries Slashdot readers come from.)

If you don't have 512 MB of RAM and a 1 GHz processor in these days, maybe you ought to be looking for a new computer. Further, "excessive" and "useless" are purely opinions. Usually, Aero INCREASES performance since it offloads rendering to the GPU. We're talking about older hardware. So you agree, you can't run Vista on older hardware. Not to mention the original poster was talking about running Vista without Aero, thereby making your last point moot.

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.

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by vertinox · 2007-07-15 07:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Because he speaks a bit of truth. If you have supported Vista on the corporate side of things, it is a bit of the spawn of the devil in some regards. Most legacy VPN programs are hosed and countless other products had to go through a whole series of revamping and patching (heck even Outlook Web Access controls are broke on systems using Vista if you don't patch)

Of course most corporate users wouldn't notice thing since most companies are staying away from Vista like the plague but on occasion when a user calls in saying they got a new persona computer from dell and need to VPN or use OLWA or a legacy app... Well...

Office 2007 on the other hand is great, but you can run that on WinXP. No need to upgrade.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)

Re:I found a better upgrade to XP... by Rycross · 2007-07-15 07:42 · Score: 1

There are no rules as to what applications you have to run.

In the context of things that make people a "switcheur":

thinks Firefox is a good Mac app

waiting for OS X port of PayrollPro 2000

Troll Evaluation: 1/10. You used a copy and paste troll that isn't even internally consistent. Please try to spruce it up a bit and put some real effort into it.

Re:Solution by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · 2007-07-15 07:45 · Score: 1

IAWTC
I Am a World Trade Center

???

Profit!!!

Fixed that business plan for you. Y're welcome.

Re:why would by dreamlax · 2007-07-15 07:45 · Score: 1

Wrong. Most people won't need Vista "Ultimate". In fact, Ultimate is not $400 either. Further, Vista is not locked to hardware.

No, you're wrong. He was comparing full versions, i.e. the cost to get everything on offer.

If you don't have 512 MB of RAM and a 1 GHz processor in these days, maybe you ought to be looking for a new computer. Further, "excessive" and "useless" are purely opinions. Usually, Aero INCREASES performance since it offloads rendering to the GPU.

Depends what you're doing. I had an argument with a guy here on Slashdot that said he still uses Windows 95 to do web surfing etc. I think that is a bit extreme. I'm currently running Apache on Linux on an old Toshiba 300CDS notebook computer, with 80MB RAM (I work for Toshiba). Fortunately it supports LBA drives, so I could slap something bigger than the 1.2 GB HDD it had in there. It's set up as a jukebox, with the headphone jack going to a small amp, and is remote controllable through the PC Card LAN. Uptime? About 4 months (I set it up about 4 months and 1 week ago). I tried running Gnome on it; it worked, although quite slowly.

My point is, although Vista requires today's hardware, people still have to justify the shift from XP. XP runs on some shitty stuff and can do what people want a computer to do; "I just want to do word processing and surf the web."

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).

True, common sense is all it takes for people like you and me, people who know about computers, security etc., but the average Joe Bloggs is a general moron with a computer. Common sense among morons results in some serious shit, and not the good kind at 88 mph. That's why antivirus software even exists. The original point was that with Linux, *BSD, OSX etc., it is a lot harder to fudge your system up, even if you're a moron. It's especially harder if the network and user privileges are correctly set up. The same applies for Windows too, of course. I think you are right with the common sense and all, but I think you'll find it's common only among geeks and nerds.

Submitter needs to read more by omibus · 2007-07-15 07:50 · Score: 2, Informative

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 problem is obvious by Thought+Police+OMall · 2007-07-15 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Microsoft Hater Alert!! by talmai · 2007-07-15 07:52 · Score: 1

Stop bashing Microsoft you Apple-sucking OSS-tolerant Slashdotter!!

Re:Solution by HiThere · 2007-07-15 07:58 · Score: 1

To be fair I've seen comments that upgrading from Ubuntu Dapper Drake to Edgy Eft (late beta) broke things. I didn't even try, but just did a reinstall...as I usually do. A reinstall gets rid of lots of old cruft that I'd otherwise never get around to cleaning.

OTOH, Linux makes it easy to have /home be a separate partition, and if you do that, then a reinstall is pretty cheap.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Doesn't matter by HiThere · 2007-07-15 08:03 · Score: 1

You're correct.
E.g., I have an MSWind95 box that stopped crashing shortly after I stopped installing new program or allowing it network connections. These days I only run two programs on it, and they're the reason that I still have any MS software at all. (Well, three programs if you count PySol.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Uninstaller by BanjoBob · 2007-07-15 08:04 · Score: 1

Yep, I noticed that the option to Uninstall Vista was also missing ;-}

--
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix

Re:Solution by TheRealTerry · 2007-07-15 08:05 · Score: 1

Yeah, this is what I'm thinking. I let Mac OS update itself without any fear what so ever. In the several years I've been running OS X I have NEVER had an issue with an update causing any issues, in fact the updates always make the system more responsive and add features, as an update should. When I see an update is ready I see it as a positive thing and can't wait to see what improvements in brings. I'm sure I will just be called a "fanboi" or something else ignorantly childish, but fact remains, Window updates regularly cause problems and illicit fear and Mac ones do the exact opposite. I would think anyone would prefer to be a fan of things working as they are supposed to.

Re:why is this on slashdot? by the_fat_kid · 2007-07-15 08:05 · Score: 2, Funny

no.
The deal will not be done for at least two weeks.
A dupe is required to complete the cycle.

--
-- Sig under construction...

Re:Solution by lordtoran · 2007-07-15 08:07 · Score: 1

Rarely, if ever, has a major OS upgrade over an older version (any OS, not just Microsoft's) resulted in a computer that was as stable and functional as a fresh install. Funny. I have a Mandriva and a Kubuntu box and a full distribution upgrade is a simple matter of supplying the package manager with the new repositories. From then on, it works like any other update. Both boxes have been upgraded multiple times that way without even the slightest glitch.

I think you have to raise your expectations regarding OSes a bit ...

--
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp

Re:Bullshit by Idbar · 2007-07-15 08:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Perhaps people used to the previous control panel can't find the icon to "add/remove" programs anymore?

I had to install and uninstall software on at least 10 vista computers (different characteristics, different vendors, including Sony, Toshiba, Dell and Shuttle from Core Duos to Xeon Quads from 512MB to 8G RAM). Not a single one had a problem.

what are you smoking? by boarder · 2007-07-15 08:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

But the company seems to have no clue or they would have fixed it already.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You do realize you are talking about a monolithic block of code for an OS from a gigantic software company and not a small, open source app, right? Things don't just change on the fly, especially not small inconveniences such as this. They've probably known about it for months and just haven't taken the time to fix it, since there are many other pressing issues out there.

--
IANAL, but I play one on /.

Re:why is this on slashdot? by Idbar · 2007-07-15 08:14 · Score: 1

I always thought AOL was a virus. Is the people installing it for fun or just for the challenge?

Re:Solution by Jugalator · 2007-07-15 08:14 · Score: 1

This will allow you to uninstall all of your programs.

And actually, step #2 is not necessary, although #1 is essential. ;-)

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Re:Solution by lordtoran · 2007-07-15 08:23 · Score: 1

To be fair I've seen comments that upgrading from Ubuntu Dapper Drake to Edgy Eft (late beta) broke things. That's why you shouldn't upgrade to a beta on a "has to run" system. If you want to tinker around, do it in a VM ;-)

I didn't even try, but just did a reinstall...as I usually do. A reinstall gets rid of lots of old cruft that I'd otherwise never get around to cleaning. That's thinking around the lines of Windows. If you use the package manager EXCLUSIVELY for software maintenance and don't circumvent it with manual installation procedures, there is no cruft to clean up except of the one or other orphaned config file.

OTOH, Linux makes it easy to have /home be a separate partition, and if you do that, then a reinstall is pretty cheap. In fact, every distro I know creates a separate home partition by default. If you really think you have to reinstall, also make a backup of /etc, by the way. That makes it even cheaper.

--
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp

Re:Bullshit by g0dsp33d · 2007-07-15 08:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well, Microsoft has a solution, buy 20 copies of the product and you'll have 19 working ones :).

--
lol: You see no door there!

Re:why is this on slashdot? by Master+of+Transhuman · 2007-07-15 08:47 · Score: 1

In other words, it's an UNPATCHED Vista bug.

Thank you for clarifying how good Vista is.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

Re:why would by saxoholic · 2007-07-15 08:49 · Score: 1

why would anybody intentionally subject themselves to an OS like this? Lets see... 1. Buy Vista ($$$) 2. Buy screaming fast new hardware-- just to make it usable. 3. Buy Antivirus software ($$$) 4. Spend most of your time at your computer servicing the OS (virus scans, spyware scans, updates, security patches, et al).. 5. worth it? You forgot "7. Profit"

I'm failing to see.. by ebbomega · 2007-07-15 08:52 · Score: 1

I fail to see how being unable to open a Word 97 document is really that production-critical. In this day and age there are thousands of alternatives.

The point is, run a basic test run and make sure there are no major crashes occurring, that the software generally does what it's supposed to, and no major bumps along the road are going to cause you great headaches the next morning. Being unable to do something as obscure as opening a Word 97 document in Office (download OpenOffice/e-mail yourself in Google/fuck, if it's that crucial open it up in WordPad) is minor compared to a system-wide failure because the update decided to break the system's bootloader. That is easy to catch on a blackbox system.

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

Re:I'm failing to see.. by ehrichweiss · 2007-07-15 10:48 · Score: 1

It can easily be critical in the work routine of a newspaper. It is not uncommon for ad or copy changes to come in and then 2 minutes later the whole paper is sent off to press. There's no time to find another solution no matter how many different ones there might be.

You are failing to address the point though, this wasn't something "mission critical"; it is the inability to uninstall older programs, something you're not going to routinely check every time you install a new patch and you might not notice it until months down the road. More to the point, it's about *noticing*, or not, this happened since it is obviously less noticeable than, say, a BSOD, or crash of a mission critical program. It went unnoticed for a while and the debate is regarding whether an IT staff should be held responsible for it. I say *if* they are software engineers that are paid $150+/hr to do this then hold them responsible. If they are paid $15-30/hr at an understaffed office, maybe not so much.

--
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Re:I'm failing to see.. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2007-07-15 18:11 · Score: 1

Second off, what if that word doc is a contract or letter of understanding and the guy who opens it is a VP? Do you expect a VP to install OO? Regardless, you can't expect sysadmins to find even obvious things like bootloader corruption when they're so short staffed that they can't even run a push-patching service.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:I'm failing to see.. by ebbomega · 2007-07-17 03:41 · Score: 1

I expect a VP to call the IT department, and then IT can fix it. If it's really that important, make it a top-priority ticket and get it fixed within the hour. But still, that's just ONE CASE. The whole point of testing is to make sure that the don't become completely unusable because of a patch/update. There are various levels of how critical an issue is. Being unable to connect to the internet is a big one. Being unable to open an obscure document type is not. Incidentally, checking internet connectivity is easy. Checking compatibility with all previous versions of Word is not. Now if the upgrade was, say, from Word 97 to Office 2003, then maybe yeah, you should test to see if 97 documents open properly. But that's kind of dependant on what is entailed in the upgrade. And if you don't know what's being upgraded, then you really shouldn't be in the sysadmin business.

All I'm really saying here is an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You won't be able to catch 100% of the small bugs that come through a patch, but at least you can avoid system-wide meltdowns that could have been prevented with a simple test box.

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

Re:Here's another one by Nosferatu+Alucard · 2007-07-15 09:04 · Score: 1

I just typed that into my calculator (Vista Ultimate 32bit) and it worked without a problem.

Re:Bullshit by fd0man · 2007-07-15 09:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Perhaps you ought to give GNU/Linux systems another try. Perhaps Ubuntu would be your forté, simply because the "esoteric command line stuff," as you put it, isn't really required. There may be some situations wherein a little bit of command line stuff might be required, but these situations are typically more rare than you would think, at least in my experience. It just seems that people that run into these situations are quite loud and rampant with it.

There are many systems that are more tailored for geeks, and then you have Ubuntu and some other systems that are really tailored to end-users. Overall, they're doing a great job with it, and it is getting to be better as time goes on.

Having run both Windows Vista (both the 32-bit and the 64-bit, beta and release versions), I must say that there really is no comparison to Ubuntu. Windows still has many problems that it hasn't really gotten over yet, mostly due to problems that still haunt them from the past, but also because when you install a retail version of Vista, the drivers that you need have to be sought and everything else. Contrasted with Ubuntu, which has drivers for everything on all of the PCs that I manage on my own personal network, and on other systems that I have installed it onto (which at this point exceeds 100). Other distributions of GNU/Linux are more lightweight, but you don't really need to be that lightweight on today's PCs, either: Windows Vista seems to require way more resources than an updated and heavily customized Ubuntu Feisty box running an up-to-date version of Compiz and Emerald.

Here's an experiment for you to run on your own, if you are able to do so: Take a relatively modern PC and a Windows Vista Retail disc and an Ubuntu Feisty disc. Have someone install both of them. To be fair, make sure that it is a computer that has hardware that is supported under both operating systems by either a third party driver or the operating system itself. See which one is easier (and takes less time and black magic) to get working. I'm willing to bet that the outcome will surprise you. I know for sure that the outcome will surprise you on the machine that I have as my primary workstation (a HP Pavilion Slimline s7700n PC). Ubuntu supports the hardware in this system even better than Vista does pre-installed, and runs quite a bit faster (one such example: Guild Wars runs like utter crud on this system under Vista, but runs perfectly under Cedega on Ubuntu. Windows XP runs it better than Vista on this PC, but not as well as I can run it under Ubuntu.

It might be pertinent to do some fact-checking before spouting off next time... but then again, this is Slashdot.

No problems here by lilfields · 2007-07-15 09:33 · Score: 1, Troll

Sorry to interrupt the anti-Microsoft circle jerk, but my Windows Vista (64-bit Ultimate) does not have this problem. While I understand some people may have this problem, the Original Post makes it sound as if this has occurred on every single copy of Windows Vista that has ran the latest update; which as you can tell is not the case. Why does a minority problem even get Slashdotted? Because it's about Microsoft or because it's a slow Sunday? Linux, Linux, Linux, Linux.

Re:Bullshit by sumdumass · 2007-07-15 09:44 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:WHO CARES by Anonymous Coward · 2007-07-15 09:47 · Score: 1, Informative

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.

Really? by Perseid · 2007-07-15 09:58 · Score: 1

It's not a bug it's a...wait, what?

The obvious one by benhocking · 2007-07-15 10:07 · Score: 4, Funny

the answer is: the obvious one.

That you don't even have Vista?

--
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?

Re:The obvious one by Virgil+Tibbs · 2007-07-15 11:33 · Score: 1

That you don't even have Vista? there goes most of the slashdot community...

--
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net

Re:Bullshit by Tom · 2007-07-15 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with you entirely. And I'd like to add one thing:

Yes I know modern software is all terribly complex, but if it's too hard to do well, go into a different line of work. Yes, computer software is complex. So are planes. So are rockets. In fact, so are modern cars. We wouldn't accept even half the failure rate in any of those.

The problem with software is the license crap. The part that makes it impossible to return it as defect, even if it contains thousands of critical bugs. We need more consumer protection there. Just like any other items, if it has more than a low number of non-critical problems, one should be able to return any software for a full refund.

Pass that as a law, include that no license, EULA or any other agreement can void that right, and within record time, software quality would go up.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Solution by tftp · 2007-07-15 10:11 · Score: 1

There is nothing illicit (unlawful) with fear of MS patches. And automatic updates definitely elicit the said fear.

Vista is garbage by Saksi · 2007-07-15 10:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

I begged and pleaded with one of my clients (the only one I knew it would be a problem with) not to put Vista on the network. On a whim they did. It took me days to figure out how to connect it to the domain (after of course being forced to upgrade to the ultimate version.) Then about two weeks ago my client called to say quickbooks wouldn't work, (it had been working for about a month) what had I done? After counting to 10 or 100 or whatever it took for the red to start clearing, I replied that this was why I had asked them not to get Vista. I had turned automatic updates off. Somehow they were back on. I feel pretty sure it was in the fine print of something she installed that updates would be turned on. 2 hours with quickbooks started with uninstall and reinstall and ended with "if you can't uninstall you'll have to contact the computers manufacturer." 2 hours with Sony ended with "we won't support it unless you put the original OS back on." 1 hour with M$ led to an emailed msi uninstaller program which seemed to uninstall quickbooks. It didn't and quickbooks wouldn't reinstall. Another hour with quickbooks and a link to another M$ uninstaller program and I finally got quickbooks uninstalled, reinstalled and working so far. I still have no uninstall option for about 30 out of 40 installed programs. Like the poster above only recently installed programs can be uninstalled. I have been in the computer field for 27 years, I have M$ and Novell certs. My feeling now is that Vista will be the end of my computer career. At least until I become competent with GNU Linux. Another indication of my level of disgust with M$ Vista, I have been reading /. and other forums & blogs for many many years and this is the first post I have ever made. Obviously I should remain a lurker(saksi). Anyway /. is great. Caio

Re:Vista is garbage by Virgil+Tibbs · 2007-07-15 12:06 · Score: 1

off topic: GNU LINUX is easy - good luck with getting used to it - if you need any help i'm sure we can point you in he right direction i made the conversion from xp to ubuntu about 3 months ago and for me its going great...
on topic: that sounds like a nightmare situation! Clients who blame you if something goes wrong are the worst! This scenario has happened to me a few times, though admittedly not with vista involved - i'm proud to say i have never used it!

--
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
Re:Vista is garbage by soulhuntre · 2007-07-15 22:20 · Score: 1

Your clients problem is not Vista - it's having a consultant who can't manage Vista. Honestly, this stuff just isn't that hard.

--
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!
Re:Vista is garbage by Saksi · 2007-07-16 14:52 · Score: 1

5 hours with technical support (including tier 2 support) with 3 different companies including M$. And M$ did not fix the no uninstall problem. It's not that I couldn't manage vista it's that with the exposure to, and insight from open source, I refuse to put up with a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma full of bugs and pay for it not to work. And if it just isn't that hard to manage vista why can't their own technical support fix it, why does every IT professional I know that has control of their network refuse to allow vista on it (including the NY port authority), and why has the public demanded and received xp on new computers instead of vista only. I can think of myriad other points of reason but I fear they fall on deaf or M$ shill ears. I restrained myself from using a proverb involving pearls and swine but I'm not confident of the propriety of either.
Re:Vista is garbage by soulhuntre · 2007-07-16 15:58 · Score: 1

why does every IT professional I know that has control of their network refuse to allow vista

Then you only associate with Linux zealot morons? Frankly how insular and tiny your professional circles might be isn't of interest here. What is amusing is how you wrap your inability to adapt to a new operating system release up int he illusion that it is someone elses failing.

--
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read /. at -1!

Re:Solution by griffjon · 2007-07-15 10:24 · Score: 1

I Agree With This Comment

--
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer

Re:Bullshit by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2007-07-15 10:31 · Score: 1

"Yes, just because you're not having problems, that obviously means that nobody else with a different hardware configuration, different software installed, or a different version of Vista could possibly be having issues with it. That would just be silly."

Odd, nobody says this when the "Mine's Okay!" comment is made about Firefox.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Defective by Design? by Caetel · 2007-07-15 11:01 · Score: 1

How exactly is this defective by design? In fact, how does this relate to DRM at all? Why are there people who go around tagging every Microsoft related story as such?

By doing so, all you do is make the whole campaign less effective, and make yourselves look like Microsoft bashing idiots in the process.

FYI by Kawahee · 2007-07-15 11:04 · Score: 1

Just as a FYI, with a fully patched Vista system the Uninstall option is there under Programs and Features for me.

--
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.

Funny.... by Corson · 2007-07-15 11:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

...that most of you reacted as if I hated Vista. You may be surprised to learn that I actually like Vista, better than XP. I have purchased my HP laptop precisely because I wanted to experience Vista. BTW, I know exactly how to uninstall programs in Windows, Vista or other (I have been using, and programming in, Windows ever since release 3.1) and I have the administrator privileges required to do that. Enough of this. Uninstall is still possible (tested) using the Windows Installer CleanUp Utility (a.k.a. msicuu2.exe). As mentioned above, what puzzles me is that the Uninstall option is no longer available for programs that I have installed a few months ago and that some programs are no longer listed, as if they had never been installed. Since I am obviously not the only one in this situation, I was hoping to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Should I have asked those of you who don't have a clue of what this is about to please refrain from digressing? Thank you.

Re:Funny.... by Raideen · 2007-07-16 00:06 · Score: 1

The tip here usually works. http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1385288 &page=1
The programs that you're having issues with seem to have been installed using the Windows Installer. In that case, you'll just have a GID for the program under the Uninstall key instead of the program name. The tip still applies. The Cleanup Utility doesn't remove the actual installation--just the file associated with the installer and the registry keys that go with it, which would get you to the point where you could reinstall the program.

One other thing you could try is to check under HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uni nstall\{GUID HERE} for the application that you're looking to uninstall. There should be a value named "UninstallString". For example, the information for Microsoft Office Communicator 2005 is at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uni nstall\{BE5AD430-9E0C-4243-AB3F-593835869855}
UninstallString is "MsiExec.exe /X{BE5AD430-9E0C-4243-AB3F-593835869855}". Sometimes, you'll see an install string with /I instead of /X. If you use that, you should get the install wizard and have the option to uninstall. If you don't get that, change the I to an X and it should just proceed with the uninstall.

(Ignore the space in Uninstall. /. appears to be putting that in.)

Re:Bullshit by cheater512 · 2007-07-15 11:24 · Score: 1

Either quality would go up or major companies (e.g. Microsoft) would go down.

Vista - the gift that keeps on giving...to kdawson by Bearhouse · 2007-07-15 11:34 · Score: 1

Am I alone in having enough of this "yet-another-not-really-a-problem-but-lets-post-an yway-cos-its-vista-meaningless-tags" crap?

I hope not.

Lord knows I'm no Ms or even less a Vista aplogist, (check my posts). Probably beacuse I've been using PCs since before they were called PCs. Seriously doubt that anybody here has more reason to hate Bill's shitty code than me.

But enough is enough. As another poster pointed out, in another thread, kd seems to be going the way of zonk. Too many bullshit anti-Ms posts already.

Re:Bullshit by howlingmadhowie · 2007-07-15 11:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

as far as i'm concerned, if i'd just spent 200 dollars on the newest and best product from the largest and richest software company in the world i'd expect the thing to fucking well just work and work now.

Re:Solution by TheRealTerry · 2007-07-15 11:42 · Score: 1

True, but there is certainly something retarded about harping on grammar in a comment thread like an anal retentive jerk off. Why don't you go fondle your MLS handbook.

Average users shouldn't notice by bendav · 2007-07-15 11:54 · Score: 1

I agree. My mother (who just got 'an internet' at home) should be able to press 'go' and use a computer, with very little training. Why not? The vast majority of computer users do only very, very simple things on their computer.

Re:Average users shouldn't notice by Daychilde · 2007-07-15 19:03 · Score: 1

Driving is probably very simple to you now, but probably not quite so simple when you first started.

--
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
Re:Average users shouldn't notice by JohnBailey · 2007-07-16 03:25 · Score: 1

I agree. My mother (who just got 'an internet' at home) should be able to press 'go' and use a computer, with very little training. Why not? The vast majority of computer users do only very, very simple things on their computer.

This is exactly the problem. Would the same person expect to be able to play the violin just because they bought one?

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

screenshot by Corson · 2007-07-15 12:00 · Score: 1

Ok, have a look at these two merged scheenshots. On the left hand side you can see the Uninstall button for "Mozilla Thunderbird (2.0.0.4)", installed four days ago. On the right hand side that same button is unavailable for "MySQL Tools 5.0". It's also unavailable for all apps that are missing info such as the installation date and size (that is, most of the apps on that list).

Re:screenshot by plague3106 · 2007-07-16 03:58 · Score: 1

That doesn't prove a whole lot since you may not have had an uninstall for MySql tools a few days ago either. Is there a reason your current screen shot isn't also displaying Firefox as the selected application?
Re:screenshot by Corson · 2007-07-16 07:53 · Score: 1

I'll answer your second question later today, I don't have the laptop with me at this moment. And yes, both MySQL Server and Tools could be uninstalled fromm the Control Panel a few months ago. If I can come up with better proof (useful suggestions are welcome) I'll post it here.
Re:screenshot by Corson · 2007-07-16 10:38 · Score: 1

Is there a reason your current screen shot isn't also displaying Firefox as the selected application?
The fact that Mozilla Firefox is missing on that list is a symptom of the problem. As you can see in this second screenshot, I can launch Firefox. Other programs on that list that cannot be uninstalled include OpenOffice.org, PHP, Quicktime, and others; but those programs are listed while Firefox is not. As you can see in the third screenshot, the earliest installation date shown is 22 June 2007; programs whose installation date is not shown cannot be uninstalled from the Control Panel, which suggests that whatever caused the problem happened before that date. Also, in the fourth screenshot you can see all items listed in registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Uninstall" -- I would expect to see more, given that I have installed more than 90 distinct applications on this computer.
Re:screenshot by plague3106 · 2007-07-17 01:02 · Score: 1

The fact that Mozilla Firefox is missing on that list is a symptom of the problem.

Well I see it wasn't in either screenshot. The one in the first screen shot which was highlite was Thunderbird, which does appear in both lists.

Other programs on that list that cannot be uninstalled include OpenOffice.org, PHP, Quicktime, and others; but those programs are listed while Firefox is not. As you can see in the third screenshot, the earliest installation date shown is 22 June 2007; programs whose installation date is not shown cannot be uninstalled from the Control Panel, which suggests that whatever caused the problem happened before that date. Also, in the fourth screenshot you can see all items listed in registry key "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur rentVersion\Uninstall" -- I would expect to see more, given that I have installed more than 90 distinct applications on this computer.

Hmm, that certainly is odd. I can't say I've seen this particular behavior in Programs and Features, and I have Vista Business at work and Vista Ultimate at home. At work I can see that I have many more registry entries than you under uninstall. It would seem odd though that a patch would remove most of those entries, but not all of them.

Re:Solution by tftp · 2007-07-15 12:07 · Score: 1

You are correct, I guess - there is no value in education. One can talk like an illiterate idiot and still be elected to ... ah, forget it.

Re:Bullshit by LifesABeach · 2007-07-15 12:13 · Score: 1

Well, this issue got my attention. I immediately updated my downloaded free copy of Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, with all the Microsoft updates that applied. I then brought up the Synaptic Manager. I installed a CD Rip/Tear/Burn program. I then uninstalled it. Just want to say, "Thanks". My Ubuntu is now updated with the latest Microsoft updates.

Not surprising by bl8n8r · 2007-07-15 12:26 · Score: 1

Given the plethora of issues with it, I wouldn't be surprised if the cdrom drive opens up and swallows your mouse someday. It would probably spit it back out though because it's about the only perepheral that doesn't need DRM to interface with vista.

--
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org

Re:Solution by TheRealTerry · 2007-07-15 12:33 · Score: 1

Accidentally using a homonym while typing out a comment in a thread on a Slashdot article doesn't make someone an illiterate idiot who sees no value in education. It just means I accidentally typed the wrong word. Jesus Christ dude, you have got to get laid... ah, forget it.

Re:Bullshit by FractalZone · 2007-07-15 12:40 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Why isn't it fixed yet? Blame MS bug reporting by MrZaius · 2007-07-15 13:19 · Score: 1

http://weblog.timaltman.com/node/834

Like the blogger says, there's basically no way to file a bug report with Microsoft short of using snail mail or paying for support. I've never been anything but impressed with the people I've met at Microsoft, but their customer service and QA staff must be completely out of their little minds. I went through the same hoops described in the blog post above when pointing out that Always On Top windows behaved in a glitchy manner when running a full-screen RDP session on multiple monitors - Got my bug report bounced back to me no less than 5 times through 5 different forms before I gave up and started using radmin.

Lord forbid they, like every sane and reasonable company out there, set up a real bug reporting page.

Re:Solution by ThePengwin · 2007-07-15 13:26 · Score: 1

That business plan is crazy,

Just crazy enough to work....

Re:Vista - the gift that keeps on giving...to kdaw by dbIII · 2007-07-15 13:51 · Score: 1

You are right. Uninstall in MS Windows is broken most of the time anyway but that is usually an application problem from vendors other than Microsoft. Blame is unimportant - the mess is.

Below is one example of many for those that are really not familiar with setting up Microsoft systems. A recent reinstall to solve fatal configuration settings in an application required a lot more than running the uninstaller. The procedure was to run the uninstaller, reboot, delete directories with the file manager from several different locations (many locked from deletion before the reboot), an hour long hunt and destroy through the registry, a reinstall of the application, three patches and fifteen minutes clicking on bits of GUI to feed it the right settings. This would of course have only taken about two hours if I got it right the first time and odd registry settings had not caused intermittant problems that took hours to surface.

It's not really a Microsoft problem - it's a problem with people writing software with less care and collaboration than if they were weaving baskets and very offensive when the application is licenced at thousands per seat per year. The uninstall feature is a mess but there must still be enough there to get it to work.

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by dbIII · 2007-07-15 13:59 · Score: 1

At least five grammatical errors ... English skills

There's no point correcting English here, most of the posters are from the USA where apparently "loose" means "lose" and other differences like doubleplusgoodfreshlymadecompoundwords and marketingspeak. The language of the net is broken english.

Re:why would by dbIII · 2007-07-15 14:09 · Score: 1

You can get full installs of Vista for less than full versions of MacOS X

Not necessarily. The local MS advocate who had to keep reinstalling his dodgy version of XP every few weeks because he couldn't be bothered to pay for it found a torrent of OS X and is now a Mac advocate.

I haven't seen enough of Vista to see where the options are to increase performance but I supect older hardware means different things to each of us - 256MB of RAM is not going to cut it (under a big heatsink in a system smaller than a CDROM drive). Personally Win2kPro still looks like the best MS option if there are drivers (there usually are) or Server2003 if you want 64 bit and can get the drivers.

Re:why would by dbIII · 2007-07-15 14:17 · Score: 1

You don't need AV software on Windows either

There's one on every network. Having a *nix email gateway with virus scanning saves such people from some things, and NAT from a lot of others. If they don't run Outlook and IE they may have a clue and actually save themselves until the day somebody else sits down at their machine, does something stupid and the machine ends up with malware.

Re:Bullshit by bane2571 · 2007-07-15 14:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

MMM, Car analogy.
The trouble with this one is that cars, planes etc are self contained. With software it is running on a near infinite combination of machines that are anywhere from barely capable to super charged overclocking wetdreams. Now given that a lot of windows problems could be attributed to some unexpected intolerance in the application software and/or hardware it is being run with it is very hard to know when it is faulty.

Here, let me wander off topic by ColdWetDog · 2007-07-15 14:59 · Score: 1

This reminds me to ask whether Adobe on the Mac is as dimwitted as Adobe on Microsoft. Since I'm wedded to Photoshop, I can't do the Linux route (lets not start on GIMP, please). I've considered OS X but lately I've been underwhelmed about doing all of this work to get locked into yet ANOTHER vendor and for hardware as well as software.

But you're correct, Adobe is a nightmare - bloated, confusing, difficult to uninstall, difficult to get to work and play well with others. If Adobe-on-the-Mac is better "behaved", it still might be worth my while to switch.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

You don't need more staff by Aqualung812 · 2007-07-15 15:16 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:You don't need more staff by MindStalker · 2007-07-15 15:32 · Score: 1

Yea, this is basically what I do. So far the only update that has really hurt me is one that only affected 2003 Server x64, because I have only one of those... Currently in the process of requesting a second.. but you know...

Solution: Hijackthis by poetmatt · 2007-07-15 16:29 · Score: 1

As my subject says, simple solution. done and done. Even something that simple can grab all installed programs and uninstall them (including things not listed in registry) of course, basic windows vista users try not to uninstall your kernel :)

Exactly by SphericalCrusher · 2007-07-15 16:48 · Score: 1

As mentioned many times, it's a common problem. Microsoft normally recommend that you go through the software to uninstall anyhow -- such as Yahoo Messenger's uninstall utility (since it now loads down all of that extra stuff like toolbars, browser add-ons, anti-malware, etc). And if you right click on most anything in the Programs section, you can "Change" it to remove it or just uninstall it completely. I've never had a problem with uninstalling software so far.

--
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher

Re:Exactly by plague3106 · 2007-07-16 04:10 · Score: 1

So four threads with five or less posts indicates a common problem now?
Re:Exactly by SphericalCrusher · 2007-07-16 10:43 · Score: 1

Who cares how many posts each thread has? I made a point.

--
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
Re:Exactly by plague3106 · 2007-07-17 01:32 · Score: 1

No, you really didn't. At least not the one you wanted to. If it was a "common problem" I'd expect pages and pages of threads all across the internet.
Re:Exactly by SphericalCrusher · 2007-07-17 02:26 · Score: 1

Search the Microsoft Support Forums. It's not really a "Problem" though, just the way Windows Vista is. All it takes is a right click and a left click on Change or Uninstall and you're all set. Since most programs in the Programs and Features area uses the software's built in uninstaller feature, it only can rely on that when it has to change that particular setting. No big deal.

--
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher

Grandmothers !=stupid by Hucko · 2007-07-15 17:04 · Score: 1

Is that the same grandmother who has 5 different botnets infecting her computer?

--
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...

Re:Grandmothers !=stupid by desenz · 2007-07-16 02:09 · Score: 1

No, grandma is a very efficient user. There are at least 7.

Re:Solution by Keybounce · 2007-07-15 17:16 · Score: 1

> Upgrading is almost always preferable to a clean install, since you keep all of your settings.

And every Microsoft Windows guide I've seen recommends clean intalls over upgrades because of the "mixture" problem. Hmm...

Re:Bullshit by Hucko · 2007-07-15 17:23 · Score: 1

They Flaming do! Grrr...

--
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...

Uninstalling by Keybounce · 2007-07-15 17:40 · Score: 1

> Compare that to Linux, or even Windows -- add/remove programs, click "uninstall". Done.

I'm sorry, on windows that just runs a vendor supplied script. Did it forget to remove a driver that it installed? Does it work correctly if you install A, then B, then uninstall A?

Can you check if it installed driver program X?
Can you check if it was uninstalled?

For that matter, did you even know that it was installing a system driver? Does the system do anything to tell you that this is a user-level install versus a system-level install? With the "All user" versus "Single user" setup, can you even control which it is? How badly messed up is the "All user" concept -- if I clean up my own desktop, have I screwed over all the other users on my system?

And did I give it permission to install anything? Did it install a new CD-Rom driver before I even agreed to let it, and then leave it there when I said "No thanks"?

What do you really need in an "installer" program, for OS level support? Ultimately, any changes made by this program, or by any program on the system in response to activities by this program, have to be tracked at the OS kernel level -- that means that any Open/write/close traces need to be monitored. And even at that, what if the program didn't have the "I'm an installer" bit set, and none of that kernel level tracking was done?

The bottom line? You can't have an installer program if you want any chance of an OS -- Operating SYSTEM level tracking. Kernel level tracking is just more nightmare than anything else without some hefty support, starting with a versioning filesystem. Now figure out how to track "Which of the many programs running now was responsible for this change" when you've got multiple users, multiple windows, multiple programs all running at once.

For the system to track things for you, what do you need?

1. Nothing goes into the system unless the system puts it in.
2. The system tracks what it puts in, and lets you manage it.

That means packages with no installer scripts.

That means that, as far as I know, none of: Windows, Mac OS, .rpm's, Suse, etc.

Nothing more than tarballs without "install.sh" or "install.exe". Nothing but plain ".zip"'s of the program in a working state.

Re:Uninstalling by SanityInAnarchy · 2007-07-15 18:47 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, on windows that just runs a vendor supplied script.
True enough. At least there usually is one.
On OS X, there are only two standard, easy ways for a vendor to provide such a script: Either as part of the original install .pkg (meaning you have to insert the install disc or re-download the installer in order to uninstall), or by dragging the .app to the Trash. Beyond that, and you're entirely on your own, meaning the user probably has to dig through your distribution -- either the folder they downloaded, or somewhere in Applications -- for an uninstaller.
In fact, I believe OS X has a perfectly elegant way to uninstall apps installed with the .pkg (or was it .mpkg? It's been awhile), and some people have pointed this out to me. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't provide any kind of interface for this (not even CLI) -- you have to download some third-party software, some of it free now, in order to get a GUI for it.

What do you really need in an "installer" program, for OS level support? Ultimately, any changes made by this program, or by any program on the system in response to activities by this program, have to be tracked at the OS kernel level -- that means that any Open/write/close traces need to be monitored.
That's not sufficient, if you're really going to give it root. All it has to do then is open/write/close a binary or a script, then relax until that binary/script is run -- probably without the "installer" bit set. It can probably figure out how to trigger that automatically, but I'm assuming, for the benefit of the doubt, that you're also following fork/exec like a hawk.

The bottom line? You can't have an installer program if you want any chance of an OS -- Operating SYSTEM level tracking.
That's actually not what I'm asking, in the anal-retentive "The OS is the kernel" way. I'm just asking for some really decent userland support for this.

That means packages with no installer scripts.
Well, a strict interpretation actually allows installer scripts. They just have to be sufficiently sandboxed.
It's not that hard, really. Just have them run as a user with no write privileges except to their own temporary install directory. They can still examine the system and make decisions about where they're going to put things, but ultimately, they can't write directly to the rest of the system.
Which is exactly what Gentoo's Portage does -- except, of course, ebuilds also allow post-installation scripts, because some software effectively requires it, but these are rarely used, at least in the packages I've seen.
However, I think Linux takes a fairly sane middle ground, considering the state of most software today. Software is packaged by a distro maintainer, which means that if there's an installation script, it's going to be done by the distro maintainer, and it's likely to be very small -- much smaller than on a system like Windows (where the simplest things require Registry changes). A very small install script means a very small uninstall script, too. And because the distro maintainers do everything, you can generally trust them to get it right -- there's all sorts of common scripts, like a script to rebuild the initramfs image when a driver is installed or removed.
In practice, the only cruft that ends up being left behind these days is config files, and that's both tiny and optional -- you can, in fact, force apt to remove those for you automatically, too.
Certainly, it won't protect you from someone who deliberately writes a malicious package, but nothing will, anyway. The problem here is one of incompetence. OS X makes it fundamentally hard to do uninstallers well, at least as far as the end-user is concerned. Windows makes it entirely too easy to write uninstallers that don't catch everything, or installers that

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Need not uninstall. Just delete the files by a-puredot · 2007-07-15 17:59 · Score: 1

I am not sure about this, at least for vista. I heard that install images work on Vista. And if install images do work on vista then deleting those files directly wont affect your system files. And the reason behind this is very simple because if you are not installing then no files will be added to your system file structure as such.

regards

Not only vista by rockwood · 2007-07-15 18:58 · Score: 1

I've stood by win2k for some time now and just yesterday I saw this also. Though I am not entirely sure that this came through a windows update. Reason is that I select when updates install and I haven't done any lately - Additionally I notice this after I had my anti-virus off for the day when I needed the extra responsiveness and resources.

Has this actually been confirmed to be from the MS updates?

--
Never try to beat a professional at his own game!

Re:Bullshit by Daychilde · 2007-07-15 19:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, no bothering with warranties at all for anything! I mean, warranties exist to cover situations where things are supposed to work, but don't, right? So next time I buy a car - no warranty for me, it'll just *work*, right? After all, that's 10-30K for something - it damned well better work! ...Hyperbole aside, yes, things *should* work, but in the real world, they don't always. This is neither to say that Microsoft has done enough, nor to say that they should be shut down as a company over this issue........ just that it's reasonable for things to go wrong and for companies to have to try and fix them.

I mean, that's seriously like a two year old dropping a cookie on the floor and having a tantrum "WANT COOKIE! WWAAAAAAAAANT COOKIE!"

(On the other hand, one begins to suspect that companies hire two year olds, so maybe it's a fair trade. heh)

--
A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.

Re:Bullshit by udippel · 2007-07-15 19:06 · Score: 1

as far as i'm concerned, if i'd just spent 200 dollars on the newest and best product from the largest and richest software company in the world i'd expect the thing to fucking well just work and work now.

How can this be 'Interesting' ?? (at this very moment at +4) ?
This is about the most boring 'news' ever. The mess started well before an expensive DOS3.0, stretched across DOS4.0 through Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 95 and Windows ME. As well as NT3, NT4. That is, around 20 years of software that is more (see above) or less (DOS5.0, W2K, XP) crappy.
If there was no lock-in with games and file formats, Microsoft would be some rather unknown system integrator, if at all.

Pgm Can't Be Uninstalled by Admin... by bratwiz · 2007-07-15 19:45 · Score: 1

I have a program that I installed as a trial which now that I'm done with it and want it to go away says "Insufficient Priviledges must be Admin". Which is all well and good except that I _am_ the admin... (cue thunder-crash, lightning bolts and wild demonic laughter). Doesn't work right-click, left-click or any kind of click-- just won't un-install. But I did finally say fuck it and blew away its directories. Now I just have the stupid registry entries to contend with. (sigh) I hate windows. Linux is better, but its not there yet for a day-to-day desktop. [And I can say that, I've been a die-hard linux advocate and daily primary user of it since the early 90's] I wish the big-boys would port the windows apps over to linux. This ain't a troll. I'm just sick and tired of the MS shit and would love to have a real alternative. Linux, imo, is the best hope on the horizon and it keeps getting better and better-- but it lacks the one thing MS has and does well-- a bottom line which focuses and drives even the little boring shit that is necessary to finish up and polish an OS. Instead of having 14 half-done apps that you can probably use to get stuff done with overall, would't it be nice-- just once-- to have a single _finished_ app that just did the job? I think that's my major complaint with open-source in general. As much as I like it and use it everyday, I really wish sometimes that I could just sit down and not have to worry about which combination of stuff I'm going to have to cobble together to get something done. (And I'm a good cobbler-- just blowing off some steam I guess :)

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by b100dian · 2007-07-15 20:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

I recently bought a Dell laptop with tons of crap software installed. None of them had the Uninstall button
I solved the problem by replacing that Vista with a clean installed one.

It still puzzles me how they (Dell) did it, but haven't had the time to check it myself.

--
gtkaml.org

Re:Bullshit by adinu79 · 2007-07-15 20:53 · Score: 1

Both outcomes would be more than acceptable.

Jesus by RMH101 · 2007-07-15 22:30 · Score: 1

That's *exactly* what you should be doing. Step up to it and do your job properly. Build a preproduction environment. Test on it. Write test scripts and automate as much as you can, but if you're calling something a "production environment" and you're letting it get autopatched without testing, you're not a system administrator. You're a disaster waiting to happen.

Quit whining by RMH101 · 2007-07-15 22:35 · Score: 1

You either put up with a bad situation, or you do something about it.

If you want to do something about it, make the business case for change. Put in simple terms the risks to the companies bottom line if they continue as they are doing. Let the numbers talk for you - this shouldn't be an emotive issue.

No company wants to spend more than they have to on IT or any other resource: the point is that your job is to make it very, very clear what the minimum budget is for continued operations at an agreed level of risk.

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by refitman · 2007-07-15 23:05 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re:Bullshit by Tom · 2007-07-15 23:21 · Score: 1

Either quality would go up or major companies (e.g. Microsoft) would go down. I fail to see where the difference is.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by higuita · 2007-07-16 00:16 · Score: 1

just dump all those VPNs...

install openvpn, it supports vista, works fine and its secure

better yet!!, install linux instead of vista !! :)

--
Higuita

what a Novel(l) Idea! by obergfellja · 2007-07-16 00:48 · Score: 1

how about using the ultimate un-install button. install a Linux favor instead of Vista. I don't know if you noticed this but windows Vista even has problems with their own software (parts of VS.NET 2005) working on Vista. I used that comparability test from Microsoft to inform me (if I do choose so) to install Vista (from XP Pro), I have found that one of the apps that are broken is the VS.NET 2005 software. Granted, I know that not everyone uses this, but it is just funny to see a company break software that is their own building tools.

Re:what a Novel(l) Idea! by plague3106 · 2007-07-16 04:12 · Score: 1

Nice troll attempt. I'm using VS2005 pro on Vista right now. Its not broken, you simply need an additional patch after SP1. Everything has been working just fine in VS.

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by KIFulgore · 2007-07-16 01:14 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:WHO CARES by Random832 · 2007-07-16 01:45 · Score: 1

So what makes Windows suddenly relevant to us now? Who are all these "Mac users" clamoring for aberrations like "Macintosh Explorer"? Are these the same "Mac users" on VersionTracker writing glowing reviews of Firefox and Azureus? Who let them in, anyway? What's "Macintosh Explorer" have to do with Windows? Does Windows suddenly have a monopoly on the word "Explorer" now? And I know people have been wanting a tabbed Finder [which is basically the same need the program you linked seems to be designed to fill] for years.

"glowing reviews of Firefox" - well, maybe if safari had gotten a type-ahead-find feature sometime before version 3, among other things, people wouldn't want alternative browsers. And, again, what's Firefox got to do with Windows, other than the fact that it's a cross-platform program?

Azureus is a crappy program, but I'm not sure how you're connecting it with windows either - As for being "un-mac-like", sure it doesn't follow the human interface guidelines, but name a piece of Apple software that does. The human interface guidelines have been a dead letter ever since quicktime 4 was released.

--
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.

Re:Bullshit by One+Childish+N00b · 2007-07-16 01:53 · Score: 1

Planes, rockets and modern cars kill people if they fail in unpredictable ways, the worst that can happen if a PC crashes is you lose a couple of hours' work. Computer systems where there is anything hugely important at stake tend to run embedded systems that are held to a far higher standard of quality.

It doesn't excuse companies for writing sloppy software, but it's the reason we accept a failure rate we wouldn't accept in anything where people might die as a result - if, God forbid, you ever get seriously ill, I sincerely doubt your life support machine would be running Windows.

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.

Re:Bullshit by Tom · 2007-07-16 03:10 · Score: 1

True to some extend.

If the hardware locks up, there's nothing your software can do. But if something in the hardware is causing your software to lock up, then your hardware abstraction layer and hence your OS is buggy.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · 2007-07-16 03:59 · Score: 1

I'm thinking it's probably a registry setting. In XP, the uninstall info is stored at HKey_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Uninstall (I think... that's totally from memory and I'm running Linux at work and XP at home since Vista came out). I'm guessing that there is an option in each programs uninstall registry to hide the uninstall button, or they simply didn't set any uninstall method in the registry, which would serve the same end.

"CurrentVersion" Doesn't have a space in it in that registry key name, but I can't seem to make it go away in the preview. Slashdot must have a word length limit for text wrapping purposes.

--
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue

The warranty for Vista... is suprisingly helpful by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · 2007-07-16 04:17 · Score: 1

Yeah, no bothering with warranties at all for anything!

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/W indows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875 -8153-889cf5105718.pdf

When I first read your post, I thought, "I'll show him. Microshaft doesn't warrant their products, else technical support would be free." But, to my suprise, Vista (Ultimate, at least) does indeed include a warranty. And it even provides remedies for Microsoft's inability to repair any errors in Vista that are not by design (such as the Digital Restrictions Management software's defectiveness by design).

I thought I'd share this information and admit to my conclusion jump so as to be an example to others:
Always check your facts.

--
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue

...like the Google Toolbar by Still+Having+Fun · 2007-07-16 04:21 · Score: 1

I found that the Uninstall option is available for Google Toolbar in Vista, but it doesn't do anything!

Why was this modded up? by jgoemat · 2007-07-16 05:20 · Score: 1

I can make an install for ANY windows machine that has no uninstall -- this has been trivial since the days of Win95.

omibus (and apparently the modders) must not have even read the article summary. This is occurring for programs that DO have an uninstaller, and that were present and able to be uninstalled prior to the most recent Vista update. After the update, those programs were no longer able to be installed. That is a problem.

Re:Solution by HiThere · 2007-07-16 05:23 · Score: 1

To be fair I've seen comments that upgrading from Ubuntu Dapper Drake to Edgy Eft (late beta) broke things. That's why you shouldn't upgrade to a beta on a "has to run" system. If you want to tinker around, do it in a VM ;-) Fair, but my system *IS* for tinkering. I've got four different distributions installed, each in their own partition, a partition for backup, and a main home partition. (And a vfat partition and a few swap partitions.)

I didn't even try, but just did a reinstall...as I usually do. A reinstall gets rid of lots of old cruft that I'd otherwise never get around to cleaning. That's thinking around the lines of Windows. If you use the package manager EXCLUSIVELY for software maintenance and don't circumvent it with manual installation procedures, there is no cruft to clean up except of the one or other orphaned config file. I don't know about you, but I don't remember what I've installed or why. Some libraries get installed to satisfy dependencies, etc. OTOH, I've recent aptitude remove libraries that were just installed to satisfy dependencies, and were no longer needed. But some of the libraries were manually installed to satisfy a requirement for something that I installed manually (either because there wasn't a package for it, or because I wanted to have a later version, or a version to tinker with. E.g., I usually install a test version of Python long before it's ready for the unstable tree. (OTOH, Python doesn't usually have missing dependencies....but sometimes it requires a different version of a library than the system currently has installed.)

Over time cruft builds up.

OTOH, Linux makes it easy to have /home be a separate partition, and if you do that, then a reinstall is pretty cheap. In fact, every distro I know creates a separate home partition by default. If you really think you have to reinstall, also make a backup of /etc, by the way. That makes it even cheaper. Actually, many distributions now make the entire disk one large partition (plus a swap partition), or did a few years ago. Several distro's do this. The last Mandrake that I tried did that. Ubuntu, Debian, the last Red Hat I tried, etc. (Maybe not Mandrake. That was long enough ago that I'm uncertain.) It all depends on which install options you pick. But I've got all the partitions in use, and I want to control the allocation, so I always pick manual. (To be fair, I'm not sure what would happen if I just told it to "automatically configure", but I did that once, and the results were such that I'm not likely to do it again. Fortunately at that time I had a tape backup...something I'm currently lacking.)

A virtual machine ought to be a nice alternative, but I keep upgrading the base layer OS, and the virtual machine stops working. Partitions don't have that problem. I've still got one partition running Sarge...I think the only thing I use it for is running CivCTP, and I keep thinking I should virtualize it...but I haven't.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Bullshit by Brickwall · 2007-07-16 06:32 · Score: 1

With software it is running on a near infinite combination of machines that are anywhere from barely capable to super charged overclocking wetdreams.

Oh, foo. Every piece of packaged software I buy states the minimum configuration required to install and run the program. Now I might understand that there could be problems if the package requires, say, 512k RAM, and you have 1 MB RAM on your system, but you're trying to keep 6 Firefox windows open, background print a 50-page Word document, keep Excel, Powerpoint, and Access open, and chat with your buddy on IM all at the same time. But then again, you can have trouble keeping your car running in -30 temperatures on icy roads during a blizzard. I doubt most of the people who are having these troubles are overloading their systems; it sounds more like typical M$ bugs.

--
What was once true, is no longer so

Re:Bullshit by RobertM1968 · 2007-07-16 08:12 · Score: 1

While your post is very insightful, and accurate in many respects, including customer expectations, and what customers should expect (but have been taught not to), there is another side to this - which I suspect will be the other shoe dropping in the near future.

Anyone remember the "extremely small quantities" of XBox360's (and XBox's) with defects? Somewhere here on /. are the figures MS touted as being so small at the time people first started to gripe. Now, we know that such a large number of them (XBox360s - last week on /.) have had issues, that MS has had to set aside a small fortune (at least in my definition of the amount) to continue and extend support because their figures at the initial announcement were taken from some weird MS-FantasyLand. So, if MS is claiming that only 5% of PCs are experiencing this problem, how many actually are?

In this case, we may never actually know, as this issue can be addressed in a later patch - as opposed to a product recall, or warranty extension, etc... but from past track record (XBox, XBox360, various Windows exploits), I have learned that when MS says y%, you need to multiply that y by some number making the result much larger.

Of course, even 5% of a massive number (MS's touted Vista numbers - as innaccurate as they are) is still a pretty massive number... over a million installs?

Either way, focusing on finding a fix may be better than debating either MS's (probably hugely) innacurate #s, or "Gee, I had no problems"... "Gee, I did". If MS is trivializing this issue, it may mean a semi-silent patch, or it may mean no action on their part until enough gripes make the news.

I dont run Vista, and only work on it when a customer has it (or demands it) installed... so I cant play with it to figure anything out (and have better things to do with my time - like watching paint dry, or watching grass grow)... but others here have suggested a few great tips that may help users solve these issues themselves, like certain registry keys to check for corruption/lack of/incorrect settings... (for uninstall keys)

Perhaps someone with Vista experiencing this problem could check those tips out and post something useful for others here with similar problems. If/when one of my (few) Vista using customers runs into the problem, (if this isnt solved/patched), I will do so and post back...

I know /. is supposed to be a "Bash MS forum"... but I still remember back in the day, on my ancient 5 digit user account when instead people would actually respond back with helpful feedback and tips... ;-)

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!

Re:Bullshit by RobertM1968 · 2007-07-16 08:26 · Score: 1

It has also happened on XP... and as someone else pointed out (not going to take the credit for it), it seems to happen more frequently on pre-installs, where the bundleware is what is suddenly uninstallable - perhaps that's a bug - or perhaps a defect-by-design.

On XP, when this problem occurred, the problem most frequently asserted itself as a failed uninstall (nothing happened, uninstaller crashed or errored out), and occassionally as no uninstall option.

I think the situation here is either (a) the problem is occurring in more frequency than in previous versions, or (b) because of all the disdain (and possibly even hate? - deserved or otherwise) for Vista, there is a bigger stink being made about this problem with Vista that's happened in the past on other versions of the OS (or maybe a combination of the two).

--
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!

Maybe Windows Automatic Update has been hijacked by sasdrtx · 2007-07-16 09:36 · Score: 1

I figure it's going to happen sooner or later.

--
Most people don't even think inside the box.

Re:Because GNU/Linux and OSX suck... by Ash-Fox · 2007-07-16 11:41 · Score: 1

Sure you can use Vi, but who would want to?

I use Staroffice.

What high level stats program or CAD program is available for something other than Windows.

No idea, not my field.

GNU/Linux still does not have legal DVD playback in most distros.

Yes it does, just set the DVDROM region if you're in a country with messed up laws, else install the proper packages. I also cannot think of a 'average joe' user who plays DVDs on his computer instead of his DVD player.

It is simply not a realistic solution for most beginning and advanced computers users.

I use Linux because I find it more advanced than Windows. I really don't mind paying for a quality product and I'm not really that into Opensource philosophy, that's also why I am using Staroffice and not Openoffice.

I also found that many of my Windows games perform better under Linux+Wine than they do under Windows on the same hardware, which was quite a welcome surprise.

The Mac is more polished, but is also more of a closed platform.

I cannot agree when next to me is a MacBookPro that has wireless which does not work when I update to 10.4.9, when Finder is being a piece of crap. When I tell OS X not to use anti-aliasing/sub-pixel crap on small fonts in the preferences pane, OS X still goes ahead and does it. I don't even get the benefits of fully supported hardware on this stupid closed platform.

I actually like being able to open my computer up and add hardware devices at will.

Despite not being so big on that, I agree with that philosophy.

In the end, Slash can propagate as much propaganda against Vista and Office as it wants too.

I actually quite liked Office 2007 under XP, however I found it annoying that it didn't go by XP's guidelines and in the end, it didn't really introduce anything I needed over StarOffice.

The real reason that most individuals do not use Linux is because of the dogma that follows it.

I think the real reason is that when you buy a computer, it comes with Windows. You goto a store, they only sell Windows, they've never heard of Linux and neither has average joe.

I'm sure if every vendor that had a Windows product, was swapped for a Linux product and vice versa (that meaning, Windows only stores only selling Linux suddenly, Linux-only stores selling only Windows etc.) would probably increase the sales/adoption of Linux beyond Windows sales/adoption that year.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-07-16 15:48 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2007-07-16 15:53 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Errata by ebbomega · 2007-07-17 03:43 · Score: 1

The whole point of testing is to make sure that the don't become completely unusable

should read:
The whole point of testing is to make sure that the system doesn't become completely unusable

--
Karma: Non-Heinous

Re:m$ DRM must of choked by empaler · 2007-07-17 21:03 · Score: 1

You forgot to tell him how you used to post and read Slashdot in waist high snow both ways.

Oh, and don't forget the part where Internet was only $0.10 back in the day.
I'm from Greenland. That covers the snow. The prices have fallen considerably since I was a kid, though... :)

Re:Bullshit by neomunk · 2007-07-18 11:03 · Score: 1

I don't think that the article was posted in concern to those who aren't affected. In fact, I don't think ANY bug discussions are about the people who aren't affected.

I don't see how this is relevant. I must admit though, your 'soft-core' shilling is much less obnoxious than the longer line of goatse-like asshats shilling above you, you should ask for a raise.

Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... by Pizentios · 2007-07-24 09:05 · Score: 1

Well, if you can't run Office 2007 on windows XP, how come i have it installed?

--
-Pizentios

Slashdot Mirror

Programs Cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista?

355 of 469 comments (clear)