INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER Bookmark this page

  
Display: Sort:
The suspicious death of XP support | 34 comments (34 topical) | Post A Comment
Is it really?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by modcon on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:20:58 AM PDT

While MS may be responsible for the device manager issue, is it really their fault if a third party app ceases to work with an MS OS after an update or patch is installed? It continues to amaze me that when something goes wrong on a Windows system after a new release, version or update people are so quick to blame MS for issues that are not necessarily their fault. Until one knows WHY the application or hardware stopped working, place blame on the manufacturer of the device or app first. They should have gotten the beta releases and final release candidate and vetted their products for compatibility with the latest MS patch. MS does make these available to manufacturers that request them, and it's not like there is any secret to when they are available. HP, Symantec and ZoneAlarm are all responsibile testing their products' compatibility with Windows updates. Or do they not get the Beta releases to do that testing? Does everyone honestly believe MS is required to test updates, versions and patches with every single piece of third party software and every possible hardware configuration possible? If they had to do that, they would never release anything. And no smart comments about how that would be an improvement! :)

[ Reply to This ]


How is the end user supposed to know?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by partan on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:38:29 AM PDT

In this case, MS should have some mention of incompatibilities that can occur with other software and hardware vendors.  Even if it's just a link to that company's solution.  This way, the end user doesn't have to determine what vendor's software is actually causing the problem.  If someone applies a patch for Windows and loses his/her Internet connection, what is he/she most likely going to do?  Look to MS for a solution.  Why?  Because the MS patch was the last thing applied.  Maybe a vendor blog could be hosted by MS for this purpose?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Mention incompatibilities?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by modcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:20:42 AM PDT

Only if you expect MS to do test the compatibility of all third party apps with all of their updates - which I've said is not their responsibility as long as they make the updates available to developers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:53:37 PM PDT

"Only if you expect MS to do test the compatibility of all third party apps with all of their updates"

And, of course, MS kinda sorta does exactly that, by pushing it on the user base. All he's asking is that if MS starts to get widespread reports of problems with a particular app, that they note that on their web site (where it will be found!) as a known compatibility issue.

With respect to earlier postings, while it's true that MS can't be expected to test with all the software people might use, nor can software vendors be expected to test with MS patches that don't even exist yet.

Ultimately, there are things that both sides can do to avoid headaches.

Software vendors can code to the specifications and APIs, avoiding doing anything dodgy (say, as an optimization) or using undocumented protocols.

MS, meanwhile, can a) document all such APIs and specifications clearly, and b) not break compatibility with them with a patch or service pack unless it's absolutely necessary to plug a security hole.

MS could also stand to fix plain old ordinary non-security-hole bugs once in a while. For instance, Explorer and the picture/fax previewer in XP STILL leak memory, especially when browsing lots of image directories and previewing lots of the images, even after thirteen years, Win98's release, WinME's release, WinXP's release, and two XP service packs. I'm guessing they still leak memory after you install SP3. :P


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Proprietary Products Don't Work[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by srynas on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:29:38 PM PDT

The problem is quite complex, but it boils down to both Microsoft and the third party app crowd being increasingly proprietary.  Adding proprietary "layers" makes the underlying code more complex to maintain a "closed" operating environment.  Increasing complexity translates into less reliability and greater potential for interoperability failures.  

We also live in a world where companies don't admit the truth.  Did Comcast response of "traffic shaping" really mean that it managed its network to screw its customers or where there real network management issues that had to be addressed. We will never really know.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Microsoft *Forces* the Upgrade[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by ricegf on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:44:57 AM PDT

After the first bricking of his laptop, my son rolled back to an earlier checkpoint to regain Internet access. The next day, XP re-installed the patch without any apparent acknowledgment from the user, then rebooted without recourse (abruptly ending a better than usual WoW campaign).

If Microsoft rams unwanted updates down its users' collective throats, I'm happy to grant it full blame for not ensuring those updates are compatible with the users' computers first. You can't eat your cake and have it, too.


----- George F. Rice It is better to copy success than to invent mediocrity.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Forces the update?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by modcon on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:06:11 AM PDT

Actually, SP3 is an update that can be avoided by NOT using automatic updates - at least until the next update cycle. And the PC owner has a choice to use auto-updates or not. I don't use auto-update, but manually connect about a week after patch Tuesday and then select which updates I'll accept and which ones I won't (at least until the update become mandatory...) There are also other packages that allow the user to fully control which updates are and aren't installed (Update Managers.) Is it more work to manually select the updates you wish to load? Sure it is. Would most people still do the updates if it was manual? Probably not. But the main fact still remains: if MS made SP3 available to developers MS is NOT responsible for testing compatibility with third part apps and is not responsible for any resultant failuers. If it wasn't made available, then it's an entirely different matter and MS bears full responsiblility.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Gak![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:56:35 PM PDT

"The next day, XP re-installed the patch without any apparent acknowledgment from the user, then rebooted without recourse (abruptly ending a better than usual WoW campaign)."

Christ, people, turn off "download updates automatically" and "install updates automatically"! Especially the latter. That laptop is probably infected with WGA Notifications too, and Christ alone knows what other crawling horrors devised by the devious forces of darkness at Redmond.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



The suspicious death of XP support | 34 comments (34 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:

Menu
· create account
· faq
· search

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

 HOME  NEWS  COLUMNS  BLOGS  PODCASTS  TECHNOLOGIES  TEST CENTER  EVENTS  CAREERS  IT EXEC-CONNECT   About Awards Contact Us 

Copyright © 2006, Reprints, Permissions, Licensing, IDG Network, Privacy Policy.
All Rights reserved. InfoWorld is a leading publisher of technology information and product reviews on topics including viruses,
phishing, worms, firewalls, security, servers, storage, networking, wireless, databases, and web services.

 ComputerWorld :: LinuxWorld :: Network World :: CIO :: PC World :: Darwin :: CMO :: CSO
IT Careers :: JavaWorld :: Macworld :: Mac Central :: Playlist :: GamePro :: GameStar :: Gamerhelp
ITWorld Canada :: Computerwoche :: Techworld UK :: tecChannel :: IDG.se :: IDG.no :: IDG.pl

create account | faq | search