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.
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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?
Slashdot article with virtually all the comments defending Microsoft... Satan must be wearing a heavy coat, and using an umbrella to deflect pig crap.