Ed Foster's Gripelog || Adventures With Microsoft Security Update Support

» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters Technology & Business Daily

INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER

Bookmark this page

Adventures With Microsoft Security Update Support

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:40:13 AM PDT

Given the enormous amount of time an enormous number of people are spending these days installing critical Windows security updates, you'd think Microsoft support would need to be operating as efficiently as possible. One reader's recent experience helping a friend with a security patch problem left him thinking that quite the opposite is true.

"My friend, a 70-plus-year-old psychiatrist who still practices in emergency rooms, recently purchased a top-of-the-line Dell with Windows-XP Media Edition computer," the reader wrote. "When he showed me his new PC, he complained that one of the Windows updates kept failing and he was concerned. I checked his PC, and it was configured properly. I scanned the hard disk for any malware, and the PC was declared clean. Yet, the KB886903 security update for Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 1.1 Service Pack 1 kept failing to install with an error message saying 'Application has generated an exception process ID ...' I started following the links from the Microsoft update site trying to find out what I could do to help my friend."

The reader noted in a Microsoft security bulletin the statement that there would be no charge for support calls associated with security updates if he called Microsoft Product Support Services at 1-866-PCSAFETY. "It was late Friday night, so I called," the reader wrote. "The first person who answered the phone said that it would cost me $35 charged to my credit card. When I read the statement about there being no charge, she said OK, but she could not generate a case ID because her PC was in the process of being patched. She said she would transfer me to some other place. Here I was waiting, with no click, no music, nothing to hear. After about fifteen to twenty minutes, I called the number again. Again I went through the explanation, and got a case number. This support person took the shotgun approach, had me change any and all Internet settings, redownload the patch, check the automatic update, reboot, reapply, reboot, safe mode, not-so safe mode -- I mean everything."

While the second tech was putting him on several long holds, the reader was searching the Microsoft site. "I found an article on how to troubleshoot, but it looked scary and involved many manual steps with Regedit. Anyway, after spending over two hours with the second tech, he said that this was not a security issue and I should call Windows support. At this point, I wished my friend purchased a Mac! I asked to speak with a supervisor and raised the question with him why they were not using Remote Assistance and how come I had start calling other support numbers. The supervisor did some research and obviously found the same knowledge base article that I had seen. Finally, he told me that I should call Windows support at 1-800-936-5700. When I did, the line was already closed. Total time I spent on the phone that Friday night was over three hours, and we still had the same problem."

Bright and early Saturday morning, the reader called the Windows support number. "I was glad that at least my case ID was still there, but I still had to confirm every detail one more time," the reader wrote. "The Windows support tech I talked with sent me an e-mail with three links -- one to download an installer cleanup utility, and others to install .NET framework and upgrade it. He was very good and we were done in ten minutes. Then I asked him two questions. How come this procedure is not in the knowledge base articles? He developed it himself, he said. Since I had problems copying and pasting URLs from multiple lines in his email message, why does he not use Remote Assistance? Because Microsoft does not let them."

For those who lament the off-shoring of technical support, the reader would like to note that the Windows tech who had the answers was the only one he spoke with who obviously was in an overseas call center. But while he's grateful he finally hooked up with a tech who knew their stuff, the inefficiency of the whole process of dealing with security update issues disturbs him. "The thing that amazes me is that Microsoft itself won't let their staff use the Remote Assistance feature," he wrote. "Could you imagine my 70-plus-year--old friend trying to deal with the technicians, exchange e-mail, copying and pasting paste URLs, downloads, Regedit, etc.?"

< A Very Fishy License Agreement | Reader Voices: Unjustifying Piracy >

Adventures With Microsoft Security Update Support | 50 comments (50 topical) | Post A Comment

Higher support is about as hit-and-miss[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by foxyshadis1 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:47:37 PM PDT

If you spring for their $235-per-incident standard support, they'll sometimes use remote. I've had one tech do it (after an hour of wasting my time until he finally discovered the same things I'd been telling him), two who told me they couldn't, and a few I never asked about that.

My personal metric is that if the guy asks you to do the same thing twice, misses obvious stuff, or puts you on hold for a while to 'check with someone', it's time to hang up and get a new tech. Unfortunately, that's sometimes difficult with Microsoft support because they assign cases to a tech, and refer it back to him when he's on duty.

Too bad even paying all that money doesn't guarantee good support. I guess that's what happens when you have a bazillion techs. They've probably had problems in the past with techs using remote control for ulterior purposes, but if customers request it, there's no reason not to do it and trim a lot of time.

[ Reply to This ]

v[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#133)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 07:45:34 AM PDT

MS support[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:34:44 AM PDT

I actually have had very good experience with the Microsoft suupport for security patches. The Tech I had was from Canada, pulled me back from a no boot situation, and spent several hours with me to make sure it was really fixed. All for free.

[ Reply to This ]

Too complex[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 12:59:24 PM PDT

My point? Simple. Most computers are too complicated for the average person to use and maintain. Never underestimate the average person's ability or intelligence and you won't be disappointed. Sure, the techies can make cool toys but the average person is still trying to get the 12:00 to stop flashing on the family VCR. (Think I'm kidding? I teach computer classes at a local college and I discovered this first-hand from my adult students.) Not only do we have a problem with poorly maintained computers functioning improperly and not being used to their potential ... but now they are hooked to the Internet with broadband and are a security risk to all of us. Until inventors, developers, and marketers understand the implications of the goodies they sell, we'll continue to have products that are cool but don't really solve problems - they just create new ones.

[ Reply to This ]

understaning implications[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by LetzRole on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:24:34 PM PDT

Well said, until the end. It matters not if those people understand the implications of their technology. The underlying problem is they are humans and as such they are motivated by money, power, and sex. Change that and the problem will change. Solutions are not ultimate because at best, they only change the environment and new problems develop in the new environment. Its the human element that is the constant problem, you see.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Little clarification[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by foxyshadis1 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:49:17 AM PDT

Humans are motivated by comfort, pleasure, and fear. Your three are just means to an end.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Too Complicated[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 27, 2005 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

OK, we hear this point over and over and it's getting on my nerves -

Computers are too complicated for the "average" user. This may very well be true, but computers are complicated because they do complicated things, not because they are badly designed. The "average" user cannot use a pencil to make a recognizable self portrait - is this because the pencil is badly designed? No, this is because the "average" user has not troubled himself to acquire the skills (or is not capable of acquiring the skills) to use it. I've taught a lot of beginners over the years (since DOS 3.3) on a lot of different OS's and one thing I have noticed is that many people (of otherwise average intelligence) have a GREAT deal of difficulty understanding the concept of hierarchal folder/directory structures. That is, they just never get the idea that files are contained in folders, and folders can also be contained in other folders or if they do get it, it slips quickly away (and NO the Mac OS is no help to these people, they keep everything on their desktop). The same people never seem to understand that an icon can represent a program or a file and that a file can be opened from within a program. OTOH many, many people ARE capable of understanding and working with these abstractions which are necessary if files are to be kept in an organized fashion. Just as we have managed to accept that many "average" people will never be able to draw well, no matter how "user friendly" we make the pencil and paper, we're also going to have to accept the idea that many people will never be able to get the most out of their computers, no matter how many wizards, help files and pretty colors we lumber the OS with.

And, really, never overestimate the average person's abilities if you want to avoid disappointment; do not underestimate if you want to avoid surprise. And keep in mind that your estimate of someone's abilities will not change those actual abilities one...little...bit.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Filing Cabinet[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by tscoff on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 07:48:30 AM PDT

Have you tried to use a filing cabinet with folders within folders and files within those folders to explain the filing system on a computer? That's how I was taught and it worked for me.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I have to admit that I was a success story[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by ekuns on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:04:36 PM PDT

A few years back, I upgraded my Linux server to a faster box, and to my surprise my Win98 VMWare virtual machine would no longer boot. I believe I got an error in NDIS, but I am not positive. I decided to try the Microsoft support system and to my great surprise and relief, I got excellent support. They very quickly sent me a patch to test (I was obviously not the first person to encounter this) and the patch fixed the problem totally. I was pleased that I did not have to go through hoops to prove the validity of my (100% legally purchased boxed set) Win98 and we very quickly got to the problem and solved it.

This is not security, but I bring it up because it is a product that was old when I sought out support, and something they did not have to support. The "bug" was a timing loop that on my newer and much faster processor measured a zero and did a divide by zero. With the speeds of computers that were available when Win98 was released, this is the kind of error I can forgive for that era. I was astounded and impressed by the quick and successful support.

Microsoft seems to be a company that is very hit-and-miss. It's really kind of amazing the degree to which this is true. It's almost as if each sub-part of the company is run by totally different rules for support, security, customer-friendliness, and so on. I had expected that since I was having a problem with a Win98 in a VMWare environment under Linux that I would have a problem getting their help. Yet here, with support on current security issues, people have experiences that differ so dramatically from my one experience with Microsoft tech support.

[ Reply to This ]

Remote Assistance[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:27:33 PM PDT

I find it strange that they are not allowed to use Remote Assistance. I have found it helpful here at work after we moved to XP, but always assumed that the whole point for the majority of people who are not in a corporate environment was for the tech support helpers to be able to come right in and fix the problem. I guess not...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Remote Access Prohibition[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 04:48:56 PM PDT

I am not the least bit surprised that Microsoft prohibits their technical support staff from using remote access. The potential liability issues are staggering. Your computer is not working, you want somebody to fix it for free, they login and do something you don't understand, but don't seem able to fix it, or worse, now it won't work at all. You sue! And this is a good case scenario. Although I may have a love/hate relationship with Microsoft this is one time I fully support their policy.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Updates should be unattended[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 02:16:29 PM PDT

More on Windows Updates. They should be able to run totally unattended. I do critical updates on servers and often when there is a Service Patch that may take 90 minutes, there are three or four prompts that require a "next", accept a EULA, agree to install AFTER you've downloaded, etc. This means whether a company has an on-site IT person or an IT company that is remotely performing the audit, someone has to check back in multiple times during the 90 minutes in order to successfully trigger the next action in order to successfully apply the updates. This takes time...subsequently money. Once one has started to install updates, the next button should be "Restart -- yes or no".

[ Reply to This ]

Virtually all updates can be run unattended[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 06:01:10 PM PDT

Virtually all the Microsoft updates can be run unattended, including the reboot. You just need to go through the documentation and learn how. It's a little complicated the first time, but once you learn how to set it up, it's pretty straightforward. The default installations are for non-expert users and walk you through what's happening. And if they didn't make you go through things like the EULA in the default installation, you'd get all kinds of people complaining it was hidden, and there was no meeting of the minds, etc.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

You're missing the point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by LasVegan on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 08:53:14 AM PDT

The problem is not with automation per se. Things like the EULA should come up. The problem is that everything that needs to be asked should be asked up front. Whether it's 1 prompt or 20 I should be able to answer them all quickly and then walk away.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Where updates go wrong[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by foxyshadis1 on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 01:16:42 PM PDT

He's right, it pisses me off that when I go to install 2003 SP1 I come back 4 hours later to check and make sure it's okay, and I see "SP1 requires that WINS be stopped to continue" after 10 minutes of checking space and current versions and unpacking, but before installing anything. Then 10 minutes more until it's installed and asks for a reboot.

Because of that I'm likely to run future service packs through command-line switches and scripts instead, but that has a higher irritation factor than double-clicking from a fileshare.

(As if anyone but a lawyer has ever read every windows update that requires a eula. Yes, MS, we know it might just mess things up, you don't need to spend 12 pages telling us that and how you aren't liable if it does.)

A vaguely related gripe is logging on to a server and getting "server was unexpectedly shutdown, enter the cause". Damned if I know why, I can't remember what might've shut it down yesterday or last month. Turns out it's windows update's fault most of the time; why can't they add an event in the log about it instead of asking me to later on?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#126)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:01:46 PM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピング SEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

auto update bugs[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 11:05:16 PM PDT

I have seen occasions where an auto update fails. If you ignore it long enough, it seems that a later dispatch will fix it. Although I have once seen it fail and repeatedly try to download and install itself over and over again. Unfortunately, the auto-updater system is still buggy. The developer or team responsible probably doesnt even know about the problems. If your customer contact occurs in another building (or country), you tend to get out of the loop! Really, there is no excuse for it. Hopefully Apple will deliever a better OS experience for us in the near future.

[ Reply to This ]

Buggy Updates[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by foxyshadis1 on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 03:44:24 AM PDT

Most of the time, I see this with drivers. I don't know why they have to suck so much.

Anyway, if you feel like informing the developers, you can try posting at:
http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/Default.aspx (requires passport)
or look for an appropriate blog on http://blogs.msdn.com/ to post in/email to.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

same problem[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by cwhodges on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 10:13:20 AM PDT

I would like to know the exact process that you actually used to fix the issue, as I have the same problem.

[ Reply to This ]

The process that worked...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 11:30:23 AM PDT

1) download and install windows installer cleanup utility:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/E/9/D/E9D80355-7AB4-45B8-80E8-983A48D5E1BD/msicuu2.exe

2) remove .NET framework from computer by following steps:
Please run it from Start, All Programs, Windows Install Clean Up.
Please select the software that is related to .NET framework and click remove.

3) MS .NET framework 1.1 redistributable package
http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/a/c/aac39226-8825-44ce-90e3-bf8203e74006/dotnetfx,exe

MS .NET framework service pack 1
http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/b/4/8b4addd8-e957-4dea-bdb8-c4e00af5b94b/NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe

Security Update for MS .NET framework, version 1.1 service pack 1 (KB886903)
http://download.windowsupdate.com/msdownload/update/v3-19990518/cabpool/NDP1.1sp1-KB886903-X86_71e9691c7ac7576dd00edc308378146.exe

PS-

It may be easier to serach for the .exe files at the download sites.

Good Luck.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Are we sure Microsoft was the villian?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by LetzRole on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:58:30 PM PDT

I wonder if people stop to consider their own culpability in these matters. It is almost always the operator's error or some buggy 3rd rate software from a pirate factory or the like that corrupts the install related environment. Power failures / spikes/ improper shutdowns are all sources of corruption. Also, the junk people tend to leave hanging around in their file structure makes it a miracle the machines function as well as they do. People seem to think they can expect the computer to operate under any circumstances with no regard for how they maintain it or use it, as if its supposed to be bullet proof. Unreasonable expectations lead to unjustly defaming the supplier, i.e. Microsoft or whomever. Most of the time, the true villian can be found in the bathroom mirror. Making software so it is idiot proof is an idiot's concept of a solution.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

"3rd rate software"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by sconeu on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 08:00:45 PM PDT

<I>some buggy 3rd rate software from a pirate factory</I>

You mean like Symantec? 90% of the time you have to disable Symantec AV /Norton AV to install Visual Studio.

Oh wait, NAV *is* buggy 3rd rate software....

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

3rd rate software[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 07:16:55 AM PDT

No, he's correct. 3rd rate buggy software from a pirate factory describes Microsoft perfectly. So, yes it is that 3rd rate software causing the problem, just as the original poster implied. And before you get going on the pirate part, just ask any of the small software companies Bill has stolen from about the piracy they commit.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I agree with a little of what you said[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by ekuns on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:34:15 PM PDT

It is almost always the operator's error or some buggy 3rd rate software from a pirate factory or the like that corrupts the install related environment.

That's a fairly extreme statement, and I have to disagree. Yes, there are many cases where people install cracked software (which comes along with who knows what viruses) or people misconfigure their machines. All of that happens. But to say it is almost always that is to let Microsoft off the hook. There are many operating systems out there, and Microsoft Windows is by far one of the most susceptible to these sorts of problems. You might claim that people using the other operating systems tend to be more computer savvy. (And I do not just mean Linux, but also MacOS, the various UNIX operating systems, VAX VMS for students, and also including experience from the older Amiga and NeXT and other computers.) There may be an element of that, but not to such a degree as to explain the problems experienced under Windows that are not experienced to the same degree under other operating systems present and past.

Microsoft software in and of itself is quite capable of corrupting the machine. I've known people to have problems like that described here on fresh and totally legal Windows installations. And I am talking about computer savvy people.

Thus, I agree that there are a lot of people out there who do not know how to manage their machine very well, and who install a lot of malware with or without awareness of doing so. But to say that this is the majority of the problem is to overstate the case enormously.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

OS is reponsible for its own health[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by xyzzy on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:29:29 PM PDT

The reason it is called an 'Operating System' is that it is the software responsible for operating the computer. If it is corrupted, the OS should be able to detect this and get the enviornment back to a known-good state. A fundamental problem with Windows is that there is nothing that 'owns' the enviornment that can make this determination, and manage the repair process. Windows should be able to pop up a message saying 'There is a problem with your enviorment. Please insert the "Windows Utility CD" and run WindowsRepair.EXE'; this would find the corrupted DLLs, registry settings, and the like, repair them, and get the user back up and running. I realize this is a pipe dream (we don't even get the OS on a CD anymore), but I don't think its too much to ask that an Operating System be able to actually operate the computer.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Repair Utility not necessary[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Fushigi on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 04:54:55 AM PDT

A repair util likely wouldn't be needed if the OS was actually isolated from the applications & drivers. Physical isolation from the OS portion of the disk and logical isolation in terms of RAM and other system resources. If Windows was architected properly, an application or driver would never be the cause of system instability/crashes. The app or driver might crash, but it wouldn't cause the OS to crash or flake out.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Driver crashes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by foxyshadis1 on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 08:19:00 AM PDT

That's great in theory, but right now every OS crashes or becomes unstable if a kernel driver fails horribly, which is why most OSes (including current NT-based ones) prefer user-mode drivers. And so far I've never seen a user-mode driver cause more than an application crash. For the same reason apps aren't allowed to scribble into each others' and the system's memory and disk, unless they enable privs that are only active under admin and sometimes power user accounts; and why SFP, SxS, and System Restore (eg, registry backups) are enabled by default.

Buggy kernel-mode realtek drivers hating on sleep mode are the only things that have ever made my entire xp system unstable in the last year, and I beat at it.

If you're talking about 98 and friends then you're talking about another planet entirely, which is kind of beating a dead horse. Many of the failings of current Windows comes down to running as root too much of the time, and developers who abuse that default to create software that requires and perpetuates it. More security and stability vs. pissing off your customer base and costing them a lot of money.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Not every OS[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Fushigi on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 11:33:37 AM PDT

Maybe every PC-class OS, but not "every OS". I can count using the fingers on my feet how many times I've heard of an AS/400 (now iSeries i5) crash due to a driver issue in the last 10 years. If a failure in a device or driver occurs, the offending device is disabled. You can troubleshoot or re-enable as you see fit, but the system itself will not crash.

BTW, the iSeries is also architecturally immune to buffer overflow errors. It won't execute data and an overflow can at most crash an app; it won't bring down the system.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Kernel drivers failing horrible[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by ekuns on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 11:55:16 AM PDT

I was playing with a new Linux filesystem. My code passed a null pointer into the Linux virtual file system core code. That code took an oops and died. The rest of Linux, however, continued on with no awareness that the filesystem code was kaput. The Linux kernel subsystems are properly isolated from one another. EVERYthing on the system that did not need file access was totally unaffected by my code error.

On Windows, many things have been moved into the operating system area for marketing reasons -- to make things 5% faster or 2% faster. IE being integrated into the OS is one of these examples, but only one. When they moved IE into the operating system, they destabilized all of Windows. They have done this with many things. When you remove architectual barriers to subsystems, you do indeed speed things up, but you reduce stability by a much greater factor.

I totally agree that talking about any version of Windows from WinME backwards is beating a dead horse. Many of the problems with WinXP are driven by marketing decisions Microsoft made. Such as -- as you said -- running as root most of the time so Windows would be easier to manager for the typical user.

I am surprised that still, after all these years, that Windows has not seen the solution that UNIX (and probably many OS's) takes to DLL Hell -- use versioned DLL files so something linked against an old DLL will use the old one while something linked against the new one will use the new one. Viola. Problem solved.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Wow, that's cool.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by foxyshadis1 on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 04:51:07 PM PDT

That's actually what SxS is, Side-by-Side install. XP includes several versions each of a couple dozen system DLLs. Its usefulness is still really limited, since it's only those couple dozen instead of several hundred; maybe by longhorn everything'll be fully versioned out. (I'm sure they got the idea from unix, like most of their 'new and better' features.)

I'm surprised that Linux took a blow like that in step, but it's been a while since I spent a lot of time on it, so I guess some of my ideas are outdated. I'm going to have to update myself. And Fushigi is right, my bad, unix OSes have been far more durable than PC OSes forever. (With my experience with Solaris, I should've known better.)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Re;[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous User on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 07:49:52 AM PDT

Yale buy acomplia viagra alternative Google buy viagra Google UK buy cialis Yahoo! buy zoloft Stanford buy paxil online buy propecia Google Org Google USA

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Agree[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#132)
by Anonymous User on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

buy viagra

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

出会い[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#135)
by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 01:32:53 AM PDT

SEXできるサイト逆援助専門の出会い逆援助でセレブ女性とH 童貞喪失も可能不倫がしたい人にもおすすめセックスフレンドもできますセフレがほしい人におすすめセックスフレンドがみつかるサイトです奥さんと不倫できる SEXできる優良出会い初心者でも逆援可能不倫関係希望女性多数逆援助でもOKです。 M男募集中の痴女人妻さんとセックス逆援助で稼ぐセックスができます。愛人希望のOL 不倫希望の人妻出会いがみつかる出会い系サイトはこちら。

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#127)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM PDT

RE: Microsoft Security Adventures[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by LetzRole on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:05:24 PM PDT

Where is the decree guaranteeing anyone absolute right to problem-free computing? If you can't handle the load, get off the road. And stop your incessant whining, its annoying.

[ Reply to This ]

I think what people are wishing for...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by ekuns on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:16:01 PM PDT

...is for software companies to support their products at least as well -- minimally as well -- as companies who make tangible products support those products. If you buy a hammer that falls apart on the trip home, you would reasonable expect to be able to return that item. If you buy something that after you bring it home you find it is totally unfit for the purpose for which it was advertised, you would reasonably expect to be able to return that item.

With tangible products, there are implied guarantees supported by law. With software, however, companies are somehow able to sell software without any requirement that the software even minimally does what it is advertised to do. In a few cases, software companies have been able to directly lie about the capabilities of their software, leaving the purchasers of that software with little recourse, not even the ability to get their money back.

You are right. There is no guarantee of problem-free computing. Anyone who expects to have problem-free computing is going to be persistently frustrated! However, it is reasonable to have some minimal expectation about a minimal level of support.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Agreed. The question then becomes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by LetzRole on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 06:39:51 PM PDT

"What is 'reasonable' minimum support level?" Comparing tangible assets to software is logically incongruent because they are far too dissimilar. In the case of an operating system like Win XP, the complexity of the product exceeds the human capacity to fully grasp. It is truely amazing it performs as well as it does on as many platforms with an almost infinite number of variable parameters in play that it is operating on at any one time. Is it perfect? No. But so what? Only one thing I know of is perfect and nothing else is or ever will be. So the point is, quit the bitching and look on the positive. Anyone can complain; an adult gets on with it and doesn't dwell on the negative.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Wow, you see this as an unsolvable problem[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by ekuns on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:39:43 PM PDT

In the case of an operating system like Win XP, the complexity of the product exceeds the human capacity to fully grasp.

I have to sit back and admire that statement for a while before I say anything more.

Still admiring...

OK, enough reflection. Let's respond.

If WinXP is so complex that it is beyond the human capacity to grasp, then it is far more complicated than it needs to be and it is designed so poorly as to be inexcusable. I doubt any of those are true, except that Windows probably is well more complicated than it needs to be. That is true of much software. There are many things far more complicated than Windows. The US tax code, for example, is far, far more complicated than any release of Windows. Yet every year, people and companies manage to fill out their tax forms largely in compliance with the law.

Windows is not anywhere close to as complicated as you give it credit for.

So the point is, quit the bitching and look on the positive. Anyone can complain; an adult gets on with it and doesn't dwell on the negative.

There is a difference between dwelling on the negative and identifying a problem and trying to take action to improve a bad situation. An adult recognizes those problems that need to be addressed (and then takes appropriate action) and can distinguish those cases from instances where truly nothing can be done. Where nothing can be done, one needs to deal with the problem as best as possible and then move on. But to simply give up at the first sign of difficulty, to throw up one's hands and say, "This is beyond me, I cannot comprehend it, there is nothing I can do, so I will not complain and I will just do what I can" -- that is not the action of an adult.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Baton Rouge [ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 02:02:02 AM PDT

<h1>Bianco spades membrane melons chamberlain riverfront pin photographed, </h1>

[ Reply to This ]

Bluetooth Security[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#113)
by hjhjh220 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM PDT

/ مسجات رمضان / مسجات رومانسية / مسجات شوق / مسجات عتاب / مسجات اشتياق / النغمات / نغمات نوكيا / تنزيل نغمات / تحميل نغمات / نغمات mp3 / نغمات 2007 / نغمات 2007 / نغمات 2008 / نغمات اسلامية / موقع نغمات / نغمات صوتية / نغمات mar جوال نوكيا / برامج نوكيا / ثيمات / مسجات / نغمات / برامج 6600 / برامج 3250 / برامج n70 / برامج n95 / برامج n73 / برامج الجيل الثالث / ثيمات n73 / ثيمات n70 / ثيمات 3250 / ثيمات 6300 / ثيمات 6600 / ثيمات 6630 / ثيمات e50 / ثيمات n70 / ثيمات n80 / ثيمات nth / مسجات / المسجات / احلى مسجات / مسجات حب / مسجات حلوة

[ Reply to This ]

pasing[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#123)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:49:44 AM PDT

<title>Letter - Jewelry</title>

Dear Sir or Madam:

First, thank you to be able to extract the time to read our mail. In order to increase the international business relations, form a reciprocal cooperation, Our Company selects such method to strive for your opinion and expecting your support or trade communication.

Our web is Wholesale Jewelry. This is the largest wholesaler and all the commodities made by handmade. You can wholesale thousands of jewelry easily and quickly. We have Jewelry Designer specialized in professional jewelry making and make constant efforts to promote and maintain high-quality beaded jewelry, precious stone jewelry| body jewelry| costume jewelry| silver jewelry| beaded jewelry| swarovski crystal jewelry| glass jewelry| pearl jewelry| turquoise jewelry| wire jewelry| fashion jewelry| unique handcrafted jewelry| bridal jewelry| tour jewelry| discount jewelry| vintage jewelry| jewelry scales| jewelry boxes| imitation jewelry supplies| Material ofjewelry supplies and etc. Our Jewelry is a website where you will find the highest quality and lowest price jewelry conveniently. The minimum order is $100. You can also sample goods before shipping in our Jewelry stores.Besides, we have excellent customer service and professional guidance.Since2004,tangjewelry.com has established long-term cooperation with thousands of customers from dozens of countries. 99% of customers expressed their satisfaction with our products and service. Blog.To know more details about Jewelry Wholesale|, please enter our web: http://www.aypearl.com/ If you have any question please contact us. We will feedback you as soon as possible .

We look forward with great expectation to your favorable reply .In the end, thank you for your attention.

Our Email: Tangjewelry_001#yahoo.com

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

noman[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#122)
by rickman on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM PDT

FLV to WMA FLV to WAV FLV to MP3 MP3 to WMA MPEG to WMA AVI to WMA Quicktime to WMA 3GP to WMA AAC to MP3 RM to WMA MPEG to WMA MOV to WMA WMV to WMA MPG to WMA MP4 to WMA M4A to WMA WMA to AAC ipod to pc DVD to iPod WMV to iPod MPEG to iPod FLV to iPod AVI to Ipod Ipod to Ipod iPod to Mac transfer winxmedia avi mpeg ipod converter Transfer music from Ipod to PC Download K-Lite Codec Pack ipod to pc transfer copy dvd to iPod iPod copy iPod backup cucusoft ipod video converter cucusoft dvd to ipodconverter xilisoft ipod video converter xilisoft dvd to ipod converter imtoo iPod movie converter imtoo DVD to iPod converter PQ dvd to iPod FLV to iPod converter WMV to iPod converter MPEG to iPod converter AVI to iPod converter How to transfer songs from iPod to Mac DVD to iPod Macos x software m4v-converter M4V to MP4 Converter M4V to MPEG Converter M4V to AVI Converter M4V to WMV Converter M4V to MPG Converter Itunes M4V to Vob convert M4V to MP3 M4V TO WMA Converter FLV TO M4V Converter flv to mp3 AVI to FLV WMV to FLV MPEG/MP4/MPG to FLV ASF to FLV Divx to FLV FLV to Ipod FLV to PSP FLV to Zune FLV to 3GP

[ Reply to This ]

kimo[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 05:50:34 AM PDT