Slashdot Mirror
The Broken Design of Microsoft's "Fix it" Tool
$luggo writes "Curious about MS Fix It, I recently went hunting in the MS knowledge base for articles that provide the new EZ-button. After locating on few, I decided to click the button to download the Microsoft Installer package containing the executable and/or files that automatically enable the DVD Library feature in Windows Vista Home Premium and Ultimate — on my XP Media Center. 'Surely, MS will use some scripting, HTTP User-Agent sniffing, or even Genuine Windows validation to verify that I am running Vista,' I thought. It did not and I canceled the download when I received the prompt to save the file. So, I wonder: is there a Fix-it for Fix it? Because I can easily imagine someone doing what I did without scrolling to the bottom of the KB article and verifying that the article applies to their OS/version. This is a great example poor design. Why not simply use the download approach that other articles / fixes / service packs use, whereby the user must select the appropriate OS?"
did you try running it?
How do you know it doesn't change that when you run it?
I haven't tried just this specific "fix", but the MSI the OP almost downloaded can check the installed OS version... so this is not news-worthy.
English is not my first language, so cut me some slack -: Om du kan lasa det har sa kan du Svenska
Link in summary takes me to an XP Service Pack 3 page, not a DVD library support thingy.
After locating on few, I decided to click the button to download the Microsoft Installer package containing the executable and/or files that automatically enable the DVD Library feature in Windows Vista Home Premium and Ultimate -- on my XP Media Center. 'Surely, MS will use some scripting, HTTP User-Agent sniffing, or even Genuine Windows validation to verify that I am running Vista,' I thought. It did not and I canceled the download when I received the prompt to save the file.
Is this guy really that big of a dumb-ass? Does he really think that Microsoft should forbid the *downloading* -- not running, downloading -- of a file because of the operating system string?
Maybe, just maybe, I might want to download a file on a DIFFERENT computer and transfer it to my broken computer.
How did this article make the front page?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Ignore that.
I find it humorous that Microsoft releases Windows Defender for spyware and Windows LIVE for antivirus when it would benefit them much more to integrate the, albeit limited, protection provided by these clients directly into Windows.
In other words, fix the problems with Windows directly instead of pretending to be the valiant solution provider in offering add-on products to fix the problems they originally created.
User-Agent "sniffing" is a bad approach under any circumstances - it's too easy, not to mention common, to fake. And since all script-based approaches I am aware of rely on User-Agent detection, they would be effectively broken as well.
If I were doing it, I would put the OS detection in the setup EXE itself. That way, the setup program could *authoritatively* determine what OS was in use, and block installation onto any invalid systems. But we may never know since you didn't finish the download and give it a shot. ;)
Yeah. It would be terrible if someone could do what you did: Download a patch and then throw it away. If you wanted to be scared, why not actually run it and see what happens? That's the right time for it to check your operating system.
Here's something to think about. What if the file you were trying to download was the one you needed to fix your network connection? Wouldn't you want to do exactly what you said you did, and download it on another computer first? Or do I need to make a car analogy about how your BMW keys don't prevent you from sitting in the back of a Ford Crown Victoria?
I needz to knowz
You guys are really hitting the bottom of the barrel in the MS jihad movement, aren't you?
You mean MS lets you download a patch even though it doesn't apply to the machine you download from?! CRAZY!?!
What next, going to claim Bill Gates is the antichrist and is just trying to somehow make money off of giving away most of his money to charity? Oh...wait, you already do that. Ahahaha. Jackasses.
I know, using a Microsoft automated support tool is an instant deduction on my geek points. However, I had a registry issue caused by a botched Office update, and the tool automated a bunch of registry edits and menu navigating, and it actually worked.
I've also had a few friends (of course, I do the PC repair for them) use it with positive results.
One of the first things that it asks you is if you're using it on the PC that is having the issue. If you hit "a different PC", it asks you to run it on the other PC, or it gives you step-by-step manual directions.
Having a friend with an inverse situation (Vista issue, XP fix-it - network related, if I recall correctly), he ran the fix-it tool and hit "problem on this PC"- and it refused to run (wrong OS error).
The Fix-it tool can fix a lot of errors that would prevent proper internet access too- and not every Windows PC has internet.
Since the submitter never even tried to run the file (because someone running Ubuntu, or even XP would never need to download a Vista fix-it for his friend), this is really a nonstory.
I was testing ubuntu and accidentally I typed sudo rm -rf / and woosh! everything broke!
This is unbearable!
While you can download the FixIt on any OS (after all you may be grabbing it on a different machine, at work, at a library or so if your internet at home is down because of a problem you're trying to FixIt) if you run the FixIt application you got on the wrong OS.. it simply tells you the Fix is not meant for you. If it's already applied it silently churns away says, the fix is done and doesn't change a thing.
Sniffing for user agents basically means you're restricting your fixes to systems which accurately report their OS to the webpage, which may not be true from another system, through certain proxies, using another web browser than IE, etc.
On most issues, it doesn't seem to do anything manually anymore. I tried a Fix-it for a job stuck in a print queue (a network printer on a different network) for XP- it worked fine. I tried a Vista fix-it regarding log files: Open it, it opens a dialog that says "This fix-it does not apply to your system" and closes.
The page even says:
It doesn't ask you if the PC with the issue is the one you're on anymore; however, if the Fix-it is for a different OS, it won't run at all.
I tried to download a Linux program to my Windows box and it let me. This is obviously a bug in the Linux program.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Curious about Brain-Repair, I recently went hunting in the Slashdot Brain Repository for summaries that provide the new brain-repair-button. After locating on few [sic], I decided to click the button to download the Slashdot package to automatically enable the the Consider Actions feature in Idiot OS - on my brain.
"Surely, Slashdot will use some pupil dilation measurements, phrenology, or even invasive surgery to verify that I do in fact have a brain," I thought. It did not and I stopped in my tracks when I received the prompt to read the study materials into my brain myself.
So, I wonder: is there a repair button for Brain-Repair? Because I can easily imagine someone doing what I did without scrolling to the bottom of the Slashdot Brain Repository and verifying that the Consider Actions package applies to their brain. This is a great example poor design. [sic] Why not simply use the Brain Preview Jar approach that other Repositories use, whereby the user must select the appropriate brain?
The Broken Logic of Luggo's "Slashdot" Tool
Slashdot, I've loved you for a long time. However, over the past couple of years you've really started to veer off-course. You can find all the rants elsewhere, so I'll just get to the point: either Idle and kdawson go, or I do.
Sincerely yours,
Loyal Slashdot readers everywhere
umm, sure, I write scripts for my production boxen all the time and trust them. This is the OS DEVELOPER providing the script, while it should go through at least as much testing as my scripts go through I'm more likely to trust a MS script on a MS server than a random script off the interwebs to it, even if both have had the same level of testing in my environments.
you had a headache (your original problem), went to a drugstore and saw an menstrual pain reliever, which neither applies to your (male) platform nor describe your symptoms on the package, you bought the menstrual pain reliever anyway and now you're ranting that clerk didn't ask you if you were buying it for yourself. With all due respect, sir, basically you're telling us you're an idiot.
What a great idea that would be.
Because no one ever downloads things on their work machine and takes them home to their own machine on a ucb thumb drive thing. Or have network issues and want to download something on their laptop and copy it to their desktop machine (say the router died and they have a cell phone network internet pc card on their laptop). Or just plain old happen to be using the XP machine to download something they are going to run on the 3 vista machines.
No much better that the web site checks and doesn't let you download the file you know you want.
This is one of the most retarded "articles" I've seen on slashdot, and obviously that is saying a lot.
It's an "error" to be able to download an application package? Maybe users might want to download it to deploy accross a network (God forbid), and they happen to be surfing MS on XP? There could be many reasons to download it on XP. It's not a fuck-up until a Vista-only MS app installs on XP. Until then, it's just some guy downloading a file on XP.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
$luggo I hope you are sat at your computer with cheeks burning from embarrasment. You fuckwit.
I'll be the first to agree the MS download site is not always the easiest to navigate and find the downloads you want, but come on man, have you never installed anything that doesn't do the system checks when run? You tit.
This is a great example poor design.
Seriously, get the fuck off of yourself. People in this community will use any, any excuse to bash Microsoft, citing "bad design" when there are... I don't know, millions of software download sites that don't check details about your computer.
"Bad design" would be if the software itself didn't first check important details about the system before making any serious changes to it. And it appears to me that this Fix-It program was well-designed to take these things into consideration.
Valid arguments about how MS may do something poorly is one thing. Extremely common around here. But nitpicking an "issue" as stupid and trivial as this made the main site is just pathetic.
/* No Comment */
the last 90 seconds of my life back, please?
Not only are you correct, but the OP is an idiot, and further, Microsoft's employees are simply not that stupid.
I submit that we tag this article as "Troll" and force the submitter to hand over both his geek card and his right to flame Microsoft.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
I'm sure that what happens is you download it, run it, it says, "Oh, I detect that you're not running Windows Vista! Let me FIX that for you!...There, $104.99 has been charged to your credit card. Where else do you want to go today?"
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Ex-Microsoft chief deliberately releases bugs into the wild!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
81 posts so far, and none mention "fucks it". Slashdot ain't what it used to be.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Isn't this a case of Fix-Your-Expectations?
First to say, I'm oblivious to what the Fix-It tool is.
But I'd think I can download a fix, onto a machine that is not the target machine I want to fix. The tool itself should safely check if the fix is applicable, not the download.
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
Seriously, kdawson's legendary hate for anything microsoft is getting a little old.
I know every website likes to have a mascot or quirky editor or whatever, but please, get someone with a brain for a change, not some ideologe.
This slashdot post is just too full of errors it never should have been posted in the first place.
Wolf, boy, cry or something on that line.
Curious about Ms Fix It
Not after what Ms. Pac Man did to me!
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Ignore that.
May I ask why you changed your mind? I question the necessity of asking if the guy is a "dumbass" because smart people can have lapses in judgment too, but otherwise I think you had a good point.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I realize that other posters on here can be that stupid, but this has a certain odor about it.
Also, kdawson sucks. He needs to go wherever Zonk went.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Agreed. When I was younger it seemed Slashdot was a home to experts and intellectuals of all fields (some beyond me), but lately I've noticed a lot of sensationalism and immaturity in the post quality. Either I'm getting smarter as I age, or the bar has been lowered.
I downloaded and ran the fix in question on an XP box.
It responded: This "Fix It" does not apply to your system.
Then it gives you an option of going to their blog or providing feedback via email.
Nothing to see here.
This is like saying MS lets you download XP SP2 patches from a Vista machine. Maybe i have an XP machine I don't want to plug into the net yet?!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
There are reasons to download on a different machine than you're planning to install it on. And stopping the "horrors" of downloading an incorrect file seems low on the priority.
On linux & macs I can download files for different versions of the OS and nothing complains. Even worse, I can download Linux files for differnt distros and even install them and total screw up things.
Somehow, this whole thread seems minor...
You can't trust the browser agent string to correctly identify the OS the browser is running on because that value can be tweaked by the client or user in many cases -- some browsers allow it to be set to a custom value! The suggestion that Microsoft should not download a piece of software to a computer over the Internet is absurd. Submitter fail. Story promotion failure big time. I mean, how much information do you really wish a server over the Internet can know about your home computer!?
story translates as: "i was allowed to do something that i have no use for, something must be wrong!"
protip to the author: your imagination is not the limit of all possible cases.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
I thought I'd seen it all. OMGPonies... a front page filled with nothing but XP bashing... etc etc etc...
But, seriously. A front page story complaining that you could /download/ something? Sweet zombie jesus on a stick, WTF is wrong with you guys??? "I could download this thing... I think I'll write to /. about it!".
Articles like this make me firmly believe that we should start allowing natural selection again.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
So this is a tacit admission that it was broken from the beginning?
The only people that are going to gripe about this are techies that are looking for a reason to hate Microsoft...sorry, "Micro$oft."
Average users that are intimidated by this stuff will appreciate it.
It's proof positive that anyone can get a story posted on /.
Did you say "insightful" or "inciteful"?
More like he got to the counter, but didn't even buy it.
Still? Good analogy.
I read the post about the "Fix-it" problem and some of the other replies, but it would take me a long time to read all replies with the amount of time I have to do so. I'll say this though, the "automatic updates" for all versions of Windows from WIN95 through WIN-XP worked just fine, and that included Service packs, driver updates, security updates, etc. In WIN-Vista Premium Home Edition, or whatever it was called, however, once WIN-Vista Service Pack 1 came through, once it finished installing, I could not get the computer running. I had a Windows start up problem. Also, with Firefox 3, it kept crashing on me, and I was so fed up with the problems I was having, even with support help, that I decided to switch over to Linux. However, even if the operating system was different than what the downloaded file supported, all that would happen, when I tried to install like say a driver, it just would show me a message that it was made for a different operating system and wouldn't install. With WIN-Vista SP1, I even tried the 434 Mb file that supposedly had all of the necessary files, even the files that was needed before installing SP1, the installation ran for around 39 minutes, with the computer rebooting now and then, but when the installation got to the third stage, the computer would get stuck when trying to reboot. I will say this though, shortly after buying the computer I'm using right now, that had WIN-Vista on it, I made the three "Recovery" disks, plus later I made the "Diagnostic CD" too, so if worse came to worse, I could use the "Recovery" disks to place WIN-Vista back unto the computer to the factory settings. For the Media Center, there's a Kubuntu version where you install Kubuntu 7.10, then you have a second and third CD to install the media center, like if you'd want to watch TV on your computer using your Hauppauge PVR500 for example like I have...It uses drivers that are for the PVR150 card, and is about the same except for having two receivers in it, but the Linux version of the media center is mostly for controlling lighting, and for security cameras, etc., but you can use it for watching TV. As far as something being for the wrong or different operating system, sometimes the WGA says that you have the wrong OS, or that the file is for some other OS, but if you do the download manually, that isn't always the case, but it just won't install if it's for a different OS than what you are using. The only thing though, about using Linux over using Windows, I have quite as bit of purchased software that only runs on Windows, but I suppose that I could try that Linux software program that allows you to run Windows programs, and I have tried using it, WINE or whatever it's called, but the graphics are a little "choppy," and/or "slower," than when using Windows...Games, like the Atari games I played back in the early 80's, Pacman, Frogger, Pong, Centipede, Millipede, Asteroids, Battlezone, Crystal Castles, Warlords, Gravitar, Tempest, Missle Command, Breakout, Super Breakout, plus many more, but I see that Linux has a great version called something like LBreakout2 or whatever, and the only thing I don't like about that game is when you miss, there's a "cuss" word unless you run the child's version, but that isn't that great compared to the "regular" game. I also have card games, board games, encyclopedias on CD, Wheel Of Fortune, Family Feud, Mahjongg and Disney Mahjongg, Train Simulator, Flight Simulator, and a bunch of others, like WWII Normandy and Beyond Pearl Harbor in the "American Heroes Collection' CD, with two others and Mig Alley and Apache Havoc on another CD set, etc...a lot of educational software plus a lot of game software that only works in Windows, but maybe I can get Whine or Wine, or whatever it is, to work better than the first few times I tried to use it, unless I can get Solaris to work right, then it allows me to boot into either Linux or Windows so I could then run the "Windows only" software. Have a Great Day, Bernard
Copy pasta. That has to be the single coolest term I've heard all year. Thank you wastedlife.
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
Identify the problem and FIX IT!
Seems to me like the author of the article has missed the point entirely.
When something is broken, a savvy user will surf the net, look on newsgroups and forums for solutions, even go to MS itself and try to find a solution in the KB.
The people who actually NEED a "Fix It" button are NOT in the above category. These are the people who don't know whether they are running XP or Vista, or whether it's home, premium, enterprise, professional etc ...
All they know is their "windows" is broken, and want to click one button to fix it. So how is going through a questionairre to determine which download is appropriate going to help them ?
They need a single click, single download, and then let the MSI itself determine the OS and version, and make the appropriate patch.
Nethertheless, the article itself is an obvious troll just to associate "Microsoft" and "fail" in the same headline.
right below the fix it button
Note If you are not on the computer that has the problem, you can save the automatic fix to a flash drive or to a CD and then run it on the computer that has the problem.
This is liek teh most worst entry on /. ever!