Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

The suspicious death of XP support

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:31:00 AM PDT

As Microsoft slowly kills off Windows XP itself -- over the protest of many users -- it's still unclear exactly when Redmond will formally cut off all support for its old OS. But one reader's experience in dealing with a series of update fiascos over the last few months suggests that XP support may actually have expired already, and under suspicious circumstances.


"I lost my XP system near the middle of May, and it took me until the end of June to get it back," the reader wrote. "What happened was that, suddenly, all of my hardware disappeared from the Windows device manager as did my administrator privileges. I had a lot of licensed apps on my system, and the prospect of starting with a fresh install was too daunting, so I decided to recover instead. During this time, I spent over eight cumulative hours talking to Microsoft's Indian 'support technicians.' I was at least six hours into that ordeal before I finally spoke with one that had a small clue what he was talking about."

Microsoft support led the reader on a merry chase without coming close to identifying the problem. "I'd perform one repair install after another, and there'd always be something that wouldn't work. Sometimes it was Administrator privileges, sometimes it was scripting, sometimes it was the MSI installer, sometimes it was Windows updates and sometimes it was Windows activation, which would reset itself for no apparent reason. Naturally, during every step of this, I had to do detailed malware scans, and although Norton proclaimed my broken system virus free, I had my doubts. Not until I had exercised four different anti-spyware utilities and five rootkit detectors did I become fully convinced that malware was not to blame."

Microsoft wasn't the only company giving the reader a problem, though. "You might be asking, 'What about your backups? You did have recent image backups, didn't you?' I had a lot of them, but they'd been made with Acronis True Image version 11, which backs up to and from RAID arrays without a hiccup, but can't restore them. As my C: drive is a RAID 0 array, this came as a nasty surprise. I'm convinced that Acronis broke their latest release to rush Vista compatibility out the door. If my suspicion is correct, they certainly aren't alone. Some Vista capable updates don't work nearly as well with XP as their predecessors. At any rate, I've now switched to ShadowProtect, which should hopefully provide usable image backups."

Once he realized neither Microsoft nor Acronis was going to help him, the reader spent six weeks researching on his own. Ultimately he found a way using BartPE to restore an earlier True Image backup of the system. And what had caused the Windows device manager to disappear in the first place?

"I finally found the answer on Symantec's website after it was too late to help me. It said that when you install Windows Service Pack 3, a tool called Fixccs.exe adds numerous registry keys in many locations but is unable to remove them. And among the symptoms those registry keys cause is an empty Windows device manager. I had installed XP SP3 a couple of days before my system died. To date, I have not been able to find anything on Microsoft's site that acknowledges this condition or suggests a remedy."

Having restored his system, the reader was just getting ready to write me about his experience when he suddenly lost his Internet connection. "This was due to another of Microsoft's quality control slipups, which they so far have not deigned to mention. I'm a registered ZoneAlarm user, and Checkpoint/ZoneAlarm provided the resolution by e-mail alert. Fortunately, because I had done a Windows update shortly before I noticed the problem, and I'd already guessed it was the source of the problem and uninstalled it. Had I not done so, I would have been unable to receive Checkpoints's security alert warning that Microsoft Update KB951748 causes ZoneAlarm users on XP systems to lose connectivity."

Many readers ran into this problem with ZoneAlarm and the Windows update last week, and while it isn't yet clear what caused the conflict, only one of the companies seems to be doing anything about it. "Again, not a peep has been heard from Microsoft about this issue," the reader wrote. "ZoneAlarm had to issue an entire new version to correct the problem."

The real issue in all of this, the reader concludes, is Microsoft's lack of competence in supporting XP. "Microsoft has done nothing to address the nightmares their woefully untested service packs and upgrades have caused some of their customers. I spent six weeks trying to correct their SP3 screw up and another hour with KB951748. Microsoft should have identified both of these as known issues within a day or two of their release, and they should be have been responsible for alerting their customers and fixing their code. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if any malware can do more damage to my system than Microsoft has in their attempts to secure it."

There doesn't seem much doubt that XP support is dead. The question is whether it was killed by incompetence, indifference, or malicious intent. What do you think? Post your comments below or write Ed Foster at Foster@gripe2ed.com.

--------------------

To receive my column in a free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.

< Is the Do-Not-Call list not working? | Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright >


Display: Sort:
The suspicious death of XP support | 30 comments (30 topical) | Post A Comment
Progression to "Cash Cow" Mentality[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by srynas on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:17:01 AM PDT

When Microsoft was "young" (circa the early 1990s) you could actually contact Microsoft and obtain technical support. In fact, when you bought the operating system your received "real" disks and manuals.

Over the years your ability to actually contact Microsoft has slowly vaporized. We no longer get "real" disks or manuals.  When you run into a problem, the error message encourages you to contact your "system administrator" or other "friends"; NOT Microsoft!!!

I am still using Access2000 and had a particularly distasteful experience. I received the "report error message", which I went ahead and did.  The response screen from Microsoft had a "view details" button.  Out of curiosity, I clicked on it. The message said that Access2000 was NO longer a supported product and to resolve this situation, I should upgrade.

This message raises several questions.
1. Why is the message "hidden".  For the casual user it appears, on the surface, that Microsoft is still working on making Access200 better and is collecting data to resolve problems.
2. The error message says that we should "upgrade". However, we are not provided with any assurances that upgrading would actually resolve the problem that caused Access to crash.
3. Bugs are unfortunately "normal".  However considering the installed base of Access and the fact that this is a "mission critical" application, one would think that Microsoft would "fix" problems.  After all, cars with certain critical defects are recalled to have them fixed. (note-I am talking about fixing and old version of Access not enhancing it.)

Getting back to WindowsXP. Microsoft is now involved in product "churning". They are making cosmetic "upgrades" and using planned obsolesce to force consumers to buy the same product over and over again. Moreover, Microsoft has been using language out of Orwell's "1984" which leaves the consumer with feelings of suspicion about Microsoft's real intentions.  

To end this, my daughter installed UBUNTU on her computer and the installation went better, yes better, than a WindowsXP reinstall.  I also have a test computer using UBUNTU and it appears to be equivalent to WindowsXP.  If Microsoft simply views its customers as "revenue units", time to move on.  LINUX here we come.

[ Reply to This ]



Beware service packs and Windows Update[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM PDT

This story contains a "background" lesson: don't trust recent patch offerings from Microsoft, and don't use Windows Update. I'm old enough to have seen lots of problems with the first release of any service pack, and plenty of hotfixes that have unintended consequences. Although Windows systems may be less secure when they're not on the latest SPs and hotfixes, a good set of security hardware/software (virus & spyware scanner, firewall) means installing the "latest" patches will not be an emergency unless you are experiencing an issue directly addressed by the patch. And yes, it takes awhile to rebuild an XP system from scratch, but I start the process in a heartbeat if I even remotely suspect a bad patch or an undocumented virus. Most people can return to productivity in a lot less time that what it took for this reader to talk with MS support.

[ Reply to This ]


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 ]



Acronis problems here, too.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Futurepower tm on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:52:57 AM PDT

We have had EXTREME problems with Microsoft being abusive toward its customers.

We are having terrible problems with Acronis and ZoneAlarm not working well together. Acronis has recommended many hours of work, and we've done that work, but there has been no resolution.

Of course, if Microsoft took care of its customers, an adequate software firewall and backup software would be built into Windows. It should not be necessary to struggle with third-party vendors and the inevitable conflicts between their packages.

[ Reply to This ]


Really?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM PDT

Oh, really? Just like a Web browser, right? A great convenience to add to the operating system -- I agree.

It's a shame adding something like that causes anti-trust lawsuits. Damn.

You users are quite hypocrites, really. Only one perspective -- everything should magically just work just because you need it to work. As a software developer, I suggest you consider that the people who write software don't have the capability to simply shit code out of their asses on a daily basis, and they don't intend for it to not work with other software. It's really quite frustrating to have users like you -- who clearly don't understand either side of the spectrum, the manufacturer's or the third party's -- thinking that you have a great solution for the world's computing problems.

Consider someone besides yourself, next time.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Sh*t Code[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM PDT

...don't have the capability to simply shit code out of their asses on a daily basis...

What? I thought that's what Microsoft developers did on a regular basis..

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Customers are right to expect software to work[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:09:54 AM PDT

Ummm... as a software developer I'm of the opinion that software really should just work, just like cars should turn when you turn the steering wheel, and a bowl of soup in a restaurant should not contain a fly.

But in the real world, bugs happen, cars are sometimes defective, and flies do occaisionally land in bowls of soup.  The important things are (a) to make rapid and effective restitution to the customer, whether this means a work-around or a patch release, a new car or a fresh bowl of soup and a complimentary bottle of wine.  And (b) to improve the processes that allowed the bug to slip through in the first place.

YES bugs will happen, but as soon as we say "well that's just the way it is" and accept the existance of bugs we're on a downward slope.  And the responsibility doesn't fall entirely on the guy who wrote the code.  Certainly a company the size of Microsoft should have a large QA department, testing not just Windows itself but how Windows interacts with other major software packages - and ZoneAlarm certainly qualifies as one of them.  The objective should be for code released to end-users to be bug-free...  an unachievable objective, maybe, it should be the target nonetheless!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:59:30 PM PDT

"As a software developer, I suggest you consider that the people who write software don't have the capability to simply shit code out of their asses on a daily basis."

Strange -- to judge by the quality of the code I've seen that other people wrote, I had gathered that that was precisely the usual process by which most code was produced!


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



XP Support?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM PDT

"There doesn't seem much doubt that XP support is dead. The question is whether it was killed by incompetence, indifference, or malicious intent."

YES!

[ Reply to This ]



Malice or incompetance[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by dickcaro on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:45:32 AM PDT

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." ascribed to Napoleon Bonaparte.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Or, to phrase it another way[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by sconeu on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:34 AM PDT

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Or vice versa.

---

Citroen, Lemon, pWs747, Mississippi, Suzuki, Navy

Technically, all of them except for Lemon and Navy.  The others, with the exception of the "correct" answer, are names.

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



XP / ZoneAlarm Woes[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by wbr on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM PDT

I, too, had the same problems after installing SP3. Fortunately, I use Ghost 9.0, which was able to restore my pre-SP3 backup (made just before installing SP3). I then found Microsoft Help & Support article 953979, 07-Jul-2008, revision 5.0. Thus armed, I tried SP3 again, but this time turning Norton AntiVirus off first. Install went perfectly and I had no problems with seeing network connections or devices. ZoneAlarm did the blocking of all internet after the ZA download to fix the Microsoft DNS fix. I found that turning the firewall settings in ZA to off then to medium then to high seemed to work. I can only guess that there was some setting in the Registry which was corrected by that sequence of actions.

[ Reply to This ]


A nice waste of time[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:35:42 PM PDT

After dealing with Windows systems professionally for 17 years, all I have to say is that anyone who would spend that many hours and weeks trying to fix a busted Windows installation when it would probably have taken about 4 hours (assuming lots of time getting your apps just so) to completely reload Windows from scratch is not really thinking clearly.

It's true that not all users are equipped to do a complete reload, but anyone who's reading this column (and who has such a tricked out environment) could do that with much less trouble. As for the data backup, you would be much better served buying an external USB hard drive (250GB mini drive for <$150 at most stores) and just dragging a copy up there.</p>

And I concur with the other commenter: beware the brand new service pack! I would wait about six months before I tried it. (although I haven't had a problem with normal Windows Update in years).

Sometimes the low tech solution ("FFR: Fdisk, Fomat, Reload") is the best one.



[ Reply to This ]


Access 2000! What[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:21:25 PM PDT

Let's be fair, are you using any home apps that are 8 years old on your Linux box? Don't get me wrong, I prefer Linux for myself, but I don't expect to run Fedora 3 any more. All vendors who are profit making ventures have employees that they pay, the best talent will go to developing or supporting the new product, the noobs or not as motivated folks will end up supporting the thing that's on the way to EOL. I still run XP on one machine at home, have seen that type behaviour on one occasion on Windows 2003 server, we did reload it from scratch and restored data. Unfortunate, but.....

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


And They Said the Mainframe was Dead[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by joep42 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:39:33 PM PDT

Mainframes (big Iron) evolved from the late 1950's (think Univac, Honeywell and IBM) to the 1980's (about a 25 year period) where performance and uptime reached 99% plus.  Problems, like those often described in columns and forums like this could not be tolerated in the MVS-mainframe world.  Thousands of users were linked to mainframes through CICS and an outage took them all offline.  MVS not only had many sub-systems, it had to work with absolutely compatibility with third party software.   System engineers from IBM, 3rd party vendors and from within the company's IT departments stood ready to instantly respond to any problem that affected uptime and availability.  Programmers, sometimes called business consultants, sat with end users so programmers knew exactly what the user required to be productive.  The user (as we called them) was king.

My point?  The PC has been available to businesses and individuals since 1982 (about a 26 year period).  While the hardware has matured and become highly reliable, operating systems, software and 3rd party utilities are still playing in the sand lots by comparison.

System users should not have to be techies and be versed on the innards of their operating systems to be productive.  Nor should have they have to perform analysis whenever their OS (you pick it - Windows, MAC, Linux) bellies up or when their devices or internet connectivity disappears.  Is it the OS, a driver, a 3rd party application, a recent update?  After 26 years - you would think everything should work right out of the box and that the OS had enough intelligence to fix itself.

Finally, most people who write code today do shit it out of their ass to rush it off to market.  Companies hire and pay big bucks to programmers who know nothing of the end users or the product but they think they know what "slick" is.  For the money some of these companies make, you would think they would hire the brightest and the best.

Retired, I am still a consultant and recommend to my friends, family and clients if ain't broke don't fix it.  If you are running rock solid under XP-SP2 ignore SP3 till hell freezes over.  In tests I have conducted, SP3 fails to install in 4 out of 5 cases.  For those dependent on their system for business, avoid Vista - it is not ready for prime time in any form.  I am running Vista Home on 2 systems for over a year and a half and in addition to a lengthy learning curve for the new UI, Vista is still to quirky and undependable to be trusted with the corporate assets.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



4 hours?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by sconeu on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:03:40 AM PDT

What planet are you on?

" it would probably have taken about 4 hours (assuming lots of time getting your apps just so) to completely reload Windows from scratch."

2 hours minimum to install windows (Win2K).  Then you add the latest service pack (assuming you remembered to burn it to CD before reinstalling). Then you add your AV.  Then your firewall.    Then you add the drivers.  One by one.  Rebooting in between each one.  Then you add your apps, most often rebooting between each one for some unknown reason.

When I wiped and reinstalled my system a few months ago, it took me 2 days (16 hours or so).  And it still isn't exactly the way I want it.

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



On my planet ...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM PDT

... we don't imply that a person is an alien for expressing their opinion.

In regards to installing the OS, assuming you have your CD handy, it take about 5 minutes of your time to install WinXP (not Win2K). If you have to sit in front of the PC and watch the OS install instead of doing something productive, well...

Same goes for the other apps. I don't generally have any problems loading various device drivers in one reboot (that's what Windows does when it installs, after all). Unless you have old, weird hardware, current drivers are easy to download. You just have to make sure you have your NIC drivers on a CD before you do the wipe, or you won't be able to get to the Internet.

Of course there are variables, but even your 16 hours is reasonable compared to the WEEKS that the original poster claimed to have spent working on it.

I know some people aren't able to do all this. Just like I can't change my own spark plugs, and I pay someone competent to do it.

I do agree that Microsoft shouldn't push their SP3 on unsuspecting users when it's been out only a few weeks. It started showing up in WIndows Update just a few weeks ago, and I advise people not to install it unless they know for sure it will fix a problem they have (or in a year or so, when we know it's not poison).

Anyway, that's just my viewpoint, base on my own experiences.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


How about stable versions of MS products.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM PDT

Instead of, or in addition to, forced upgrades, MS should support stable versions of all its OSs. There should be a stable DOS 7.0 or whatever that actually works. Same with Windows 95, 2000, and XP.

[ Reply to This ]


For those that need to, they can do this[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:57:18 AM PDT

I have a number of clients that do exactly that, the problem comes when the hardware itself fails. The old OSes don't have drivers for the new hardware.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Windows Update!?!![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM PDT

Hi: I second the comments of several folks above. I've been in the IT industry since 1980, IBM mainframes, VAXs, Novell, Unix, and every release of Windows so far except Vista.

(I'm planning to retire before I have to support Vista!)

I never allow any vendor or package to automatically update anything! NEVER! I install updates when I plan to for a reason. I never installed Windows Genuine Advantage, NEVER!

I really only update my non-S anti-virus with any frequency. ZoneAlarm is a good firewall, and there's no excuse for Windows Update to break it. There's no excuse for MS Windows to break any normal software.

That said, if you're using MS Access for anything more important than your favorite Mexican recipes, you need your head examined. Here at work, the senior users (engineers and scientists) are able to create MS Access databases. The day we find them, we move them onto a server and start work to move the data files into Oracle DB.

Most of the problems everyone listed were caused by allowing someone else with no knowledge whatsoever of their system to update major system components - you all deserve part of the credit for your problems. Don't do that!

But most of the blame is on MS for a shoddy set of work practices. They have tens of thousands of technical staff, they should be able to test nearly all commercial software with any proposed systemic update, and they don't even try.

JR

[ Reply to This ]



Im still waiting for the class action lawsuit[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM PDT

If a car manufacture had shipped even a fraction of the shoddy krap that Microsoft routinely foists upon unsuspecting consumers, they would have been dealing with massive lawsuits, fines, and product recalls.

As a software developer it is not in my best interest to foster an atmosphere of software product liability. But as a consumer repeatedly subjected to the pain of totally defective updates from arrogantly uncaring companies, I keep wondering how they can get away with it?

There is nothing new about any of this, it is the same story they have been doing since the days of Windows 2000 and possibly before. I remember once coming to work to find out that every single Windows 2000 computer had been damaged (bluescreen on boot) by an automatic update. I guess that's when I learned never to allow autoupdates.... it cost the company thousands of dollars in downtime and computer gurus running around reinstalling all of the software.

Microsoft always complains that it wasn't their fault, it was an interaction with some third party product.... well bullocks on that. I have done a fresh install of a brand new windows 2000 computer and before installing any software decided to get all of the latest security updates from Microsoft... and it trashed the machine and I had to start all over and reinstall the operating system again.... and then went through the painful time consuming process of installing the updates one by one instead of all at once, so that I could determine which specific update was trashing the system.... took about two days of tedious "your update has been installed please reboot now"... and when I told Microsoft about the problem they did nothing about it.

And then there was SP2 for XP it was exactly the same horror story all over again, large quantities of computers being trashed and needing a full reinstall of the operating system. Yes, SP2 seemed to work on some computers, but it was a game of russian roulette with half the chambers loaded. For something that high of a risk I would have thought they would have done some decent large scale testing, it not as if they can't afford it, but apparently they didn't.

So now we have SP3 and big surprise it was the same story all over again.

And I keep wondering why do people keep putting up with this krap???

Personally I am moving all of my clients (these days I'm a computer consultant) to Ubuntu just as fast as I can.....

P.S. as far as zonealarm goes, it used to be a really good program, but after they sold the company it started having all kinds of problems, so I would not be too quick to blame Microsoft for that. I gave up on zonealarm a long time ago. Besides, with Linux you don't need a firewall, Linux is the firewall.

Here is a dirty little secret for you. You know all of those fancy dancy hardware firewalls that you can buy to protect your perpetually insecure Windows computer? most of those hardware firewalls are nothing more than an embedded Linux system running it's standard routing software.

With Linux you know exactly which ports are open and why, and you can shut them all down and Linux will run fine, but I was tasked with trying to secure a Windows 2003 server and did a full port scan and found zillions of undocumented ports that were open. and I tried to shut down the services that appeared to be causing those ports to be open and the whole friggin thing became unusable, the way Microsfot designed it, their os won't run unless you allow it to have a ton of undocumented ports open. I told management that the only way we could secure that server was to put it behind a hardware firewall. When they agreed, I setup an ordinary Linux computer as the firewall and it worked great! (why pay for a dedicated firewall when a low end Linux computer costs just a little bit more?) When all the other Windows servers were keeling over from code red #2, we were just fine. Microsoft's design philosophy is a mess, all that undocumented and has to be enabled krap means that you can't secure their computers. codelsinger

[ Reply to This ]


Devil's advocate[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM PDT

"If a car manufacture had shipped even a fraction of the shoddy krap that Microsoft routinely foists upon unsuspecting consumers, they would have been dealing with massive lawsuits, fines, and product recalls."

Playing devil's advocate here, it IS notable that when cars crash, people die, whereas when computers crash the consequences are rarely anywhere near that serious.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



thank you[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM PDT

لا مكان لا وطن منتديات خوخ فوتشوب تصميم صور ترحيب عام جدل ونقاش نصوص شعر شاعر المليون نثر قصص ضحك لا للطفش اضحك حواء طبخ وصفات ازياء جميل فساتين برامج جديدة برامج حماية شاعر المليون صور حب | توبيكات | صور بنات | صور رومانسيه | صور ماسنجر | صور جديدة | صور جميلة وحساسة | صور دباديب متوحشة | ابتسامات ماسنجر ابتسامات | صور مضحكة | صور غريبه | صور للاطفال | صور فضائح | اطول شعر | المرور | برامج فيديو | برامج كمبيوتر | برامج تصفح | شاعر المليون | قصص | روائع القصص | برامج البريد الالكتروني | برامج المحادثات | برامج حماية | برامج 2009 | ثيمات xp | برنامج الفوتوشوب | طبخ | حلى الخرفان | ازياء تجميل | اكسسوارت | مكياج لأجمل عيون | فساتين سهرة | فساتين سهرة بالتفاصيل | ازياء ايلي صعب | فساتين زفاف | فساتين زفاف للمحجبات | توبيكات جديده | خوخ شات

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The suspicious death of XP support | 30 comments (30 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
4 comments

Thank you
23 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
77 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
13 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
8 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
30 comments

More The Gripelog...

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
17 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
24 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
38 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
59 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
38 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
23 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News 
 Columnists 
 Tech Watch 
 Test Center Reviews 
 Applications 
 App Development 
 E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
 End-user Hardware 
 Networking 
 Operating Systems 
 Platforms 
 Security 
 Standards & Protocols 
 Storage 
 Telecommunications 
 Wireless 
 Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search