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?"

Comments

fail

[Anonymous Coward]

did you try running it?

Re:fail

[LearnToSpell]

I think the point is that they should catch this error as early as possible (i.e. before the download starts) rather than after you've gone to the trouble of downloading and trying to install it.

Please don't. I spend 95% of my time in Gentoo, but I have my ntfs-3g drive mounted. There are plenty of occasions where I'll run into some little Windows program that looks interesting, so I'll download it straight to my "installx0r" folder on Windows. What you're proposing is that I reboot into Windows, attempt to find the site I was on, and download it then? That'll just about guarantee I never use your program.

Now, certain sites (cnet? Nvidia? Can't remember...) will have a suggestion for versions: "oh, it looks like you're running Opera on Linux - try this file," and that can be fine as long as they have a direct chooser for some other OS if that's not what I want.

Summary: I'm with everybody else. Non-issue; OP is an idiot. kdawson too, but we knew that already.

Re:fail

[Locke2005]

No, you should be able to download anything. If the executable does anything that is OS-specific, then it should do an OS check when it begins executing. Any doofus can use Vista to download to a network drive, then execute it on a non-Vista machine. A download check does nothing to prevent this.

Re:fail

[Blakey Rat]

And it's entirely unpossible I want to download the file on my Mac, and run it on my Windows box? Maybe the problem it's freakin' solving relates to the Windows computer's network card or web browser?

This article is retarded. Anybody who thought about this "problem" for longer than 20 milliseconds would realize that MS is doing things the right way here.

Not post worthy...

[Trracer]

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.

What?

[Reality Master 101]

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?

Re:What?

[esocid]

I'm also following your line of thinking. Why should it automatically detect your OS. I could be downloading from Fedora laptop to give to Win desktop b/c my network drivers are fried.
If it really isn't for your OS version, it won't work, end of story.

Why is this on the front page? The link isn't even the correct one...and unless I'm not reading this all correctly, it seems like someone is searching for a problem, rather than presenting an obvious one.

So, um...

[Minwee]

'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

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?

Here, let me put this in perspective

[DaveV1.0]

I tried to download a Linux program to my Windows box and it let me. This is obviously a bug in the Linux program.

So basically you'r telling us

[jernejk]

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.

Oh please! The Story "Fails".

[Frosty Piss]

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.

Re:Oh please! The Story "Fails".

[afidel]

Simple scenario, your Vista machine is hosed and can't get online properly so you download the fix tool on your Mac or Linux PC. That took .1 seconds to come up with.

Re:Oh please! The Story "Fails".

[tbannist]

The "error" isn't that you can download the application package. The "error" is that many users are likely to mistakenly download the package when it doesn't apply to them. In this case it would be appropriate to check the system setting and say "Microsoft has detected that your current operating system is . This package is for systems , , ... . Click 'Continue' to download anyway, click 'Cancel' to return to the previous page, or click ' Version' to get this file for operating system ."

That's the right way to do it. Check because you can, let the user override if they want to, and provide a link to what you think the proper file should be (if there is one, otherwise say it doesn't exist), and a way to return to the page they were reading.

Why do so many people assume that things are either all right or all wrong?

Seize every little opportunity

[Tarlus]

From TFA:

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.

It gets worse.

[RulerOf]

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.