Programs Cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista? 469
Corson writes "I am surprised that nobody seems to have mentioned this here yet. Possibly after one of the latest updates in Windows Vista, two strange things happened: first, the Uninstall option is no longer available in the Control Panel when you right-click on older programs (most likely, those installed prior to the update in question, because uninstall works fine for recently installed programs — the Uninstall button is also missing on the toolbar at the top); second, some programs are no longer shown on the applications list in Control Panel (e.g., Yahoo Messenger). A Google search returns quite a few hits on this issue (e.g., one, two, three, and four) but everybody seems to be waiting patiently for a sign from Microsoft. But the company seems to have no clue or they would have fixed it already. I am just curious how many of you are experiencing this nuisance."
Technical support (Score:5, Informative)
Is this from last patch Tuesday? (Score:2, Informative)
This is only a minority problem... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not annoying and I'm not suggesting it's acceptable, but for this to be on the front page of slashdot seems a bit over the top. Why?
- There is a known workaround (re-run the installation of the application you want to uninstall - the vast majority of the time you will be propted to select from adding features, repairing features or uninstalling the application)
- It's a pretty trivial bug which doesn't affect any critical systems or features
- It doesn't affect that many systems - I'm running 3 Vista x64 systems and none of them have this problem
This all seems a bit knee-jerk.UAC is the cause... (Score:3, Informative)
Best answer I can give; try logging in as Administrator (proper system administrator on Vista) and seeing if the uninstall buttons are there. Remember, if a program was written pre-UAC, chances are that it might misbehave and need full admin privs to remove. The other option is just to disable UAC for the duration of the uninstall, then re-enable it. I'm assuming you've researched and tried these simple fixes already though. Right?
No worse than OS X (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, sure, if your app is entirely self-contained, you can just drag it from Applications to Trash and be done with it -- at least that's no worse than Linux, where per-user preferences are left alone, but nobody really cares, since it's only a few K of disk space and doesn't affect anything else.
But what do you do about the random app that installs kernel extensions, browser extensions, and generally insinuates itself among all your stuff? You know, the cool stuff like Insomnia, the SMS-to-HID driver, or the force-any-window-to-fullscreen extension? Or even multi-desktops, or something as simple as a VPN?
Often, the uninstall instructions for these are at least as complicated and unnecessary as anything you hear people complaining about for installing software on Linux.
Oh wait, I forgot -- there's a proud Mac tradition of making you pay $20, $50, or $100 for random bits of third-party software to implement stuff that should have been in the OS to begin with. In the past, it was things like dynamic RAM allocation and swap space [lowendmac.com], and now, it's an uninstaller [lifehacker.com].
(You could complain that Windows is the same way, needing third-party stuff like anti-virus, but most of what you need on Windows is either bundled with the OS or available for free, often open source. And you don't really need anti-virus. On the Mac, it's always this truly basic functionality that I guess isn't needed by people who want it to "just work".)
In any case, mod me offtopic if you will, but maybe this proves that Apple was right not to include an uninstaller. Maybe most people just don't need to uninstall anything, ever, so it's too much work to include yet another feature that may confuse grandma, even if it makes us geeks grind our teeth at the mere thought...
Power (Score:4, Informative)
This is one of the major problems with proprietary software. You're entirely dependent on the copyright holder and need to wait for them to find and fix any bugs. If you run Windows, you don't even have control over the basic functionality of your software.
Free software empowers users. We all know that if you're a coder, you can fix free software yourself, but more importantly, if you run an organization that depends on the software, you can pay someone to fix it. When university department heads and corporate IT managers start realizing how they can get what they need done, when they need it, they'll make the switch. Waiting for a monopoly to get it's shit together means billions in lost revenue. Letting several companies bid and compete to find the fastest, cheapest, and most effective solutions means a more efficient IT industry as a whole.
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:3, Informative)
Me since Windows NT 4. I had a friend of mine who worked for large company call me and say, "don't install the latest fixes! One of them will trash your drive!" Apparently, their IT people were checking the latest hotfixes on their test system, prior to deployment, and discovered the problem. Of course, he tells me this right as I was trying to reboot after having installed them on my goddamn server and was wondering why I was getting a BSOD.
Yeah, I was pissed, and when automatic updates came around, it just seemed like a good idea to let everyone else test them first.
Re:No worse than OS X (Score:5, Informative)
You sound like the type who, back before OS X, when a single app could bring down the whole system because there was no memory segmentation, would say "Good job of blaming the OS for developer problems." While meanwhile I'd be sitting over on Windows or Linux or even Solaris, watching the same "developer problems" simply result in a segfault or illegal operation, crashing that one app.
Easy to use doesn't mean standard. On Windows or Linux, I can open up a central list of installed packages and uninstall from there. Apple's encouraging the old Windows way of doing this, which is to have a separate uninstall program -- hopefully somewhere near where the app is installed -- that's developed along with the app, or licensed from a third party (InstallShield)...
You know, maybe you should think about why the pkg format exists in the first place. Why have a standard format?
Well, it's simple: When I get any OS X app, in any form, unless it's some crazy custom script, I know that to install it, I either doubleclick on the .pkg, or open the .dmg/.zip/whatever and drag the .app to Applications.
But when I uninstall, if I can uninstall at all, I have to think about where I put the .pkg (if there is one), or hunt around for an uninstaller, or drag the .app to Trash and go hunting around for whatever crap it left behind.
Compare that to Linux, or even Windows -- add/remove programs, click "uninstall". Done.
Given that no OS I know of actually enforces one option over the other, I'd say you're talking out your ass.
I'd much rather have the choice of an OS-maintained, or at least common, database of installed apps and how to uninstall them -- without having to keep the original pkg around (how retarded is it that you have to pop in the original install disc in order to uninstall? Maybe the whole REASON you want to uninstall is that you lost the disc needed to run the app?)
No worse than OS X? (Score:5, Informative)
I recently went through my old PC to remove the unused software it has collected over the years. Not only was this a long and painful process involving questions about shared DLLs that no end-user is even remotely qualified to answer, but nearly half of the uninstallers failed out-right. On top of that, my PC was still littered with registry settings, program files, and cache files from applications that were supposedly uninstalled successfully.
Do you think the App-Zapper people will develop a version for Windows? I'd pay $20 for that!
The reality is that most Windows uninstallers do little more than what is accomplished from dragging an application bundle to the trash. The reason it works on OS X (and NEXTSTEP) is because the program files and system configuration settings are contained entirely within the application bundle, as opposed to being scattered throughout the file system and registry. That is why Windows needs an uninstaller.
The reason the situation is better on OS X is because OS X doesn't obfuscate the file system the way Windows does. For people who are paranoid about a clean computer it's relatively trivial to go into ~/Library/Caches, ~/Library/Application Support, and ~/Library/Preferences and clear out stuff. Average users do this, and it's this simplicity that allows programs like App-zapper to exist. Writing such a tool for Windows would be practically impossible.
Given the choice between Application/Framework Bundles vs. requiring an installer/uninstaller program for even the simplest application, I'll choose bundles every time. It's a valid point that OS X could include a catalog of legitimate uninstallers for applications that do provide them, but on the other hand, I've been getting along just fine with
But if that's all too much for Grandma then perhaps she should stick with Windows.
(By the way AppTrap [versiontracker.com] does what App-Zapper does, and it's free and open source.)
Re:why would (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, Windows Update contains three "kinds" of updates, Important, Recommended, and Optional. Unfortunately almost all of them are titled "Update for Windows Vista (KB991234)", leaving you with no idea what they do and forcing you to individually decide whether or not to risk the patch. (In fact, it's probably an optional patch that broke the Programs control panel, given that not everyone who's "fully patched" is encountering the problem.)
Re:This is only a minority problem... (Score:1, Informative)
Anything can be uninstalled (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.tindlescomputerrepair.com/dont%20shoot
Re:why would (Score:1, Informative)
There's also the fact that tests have shown that using Aero actually increases CPU usage by 3%. Using the Aero compositor should increase performance, but unfortunately using it also wastes CPU time with excessive eye candy. Animations will always require more CPU than not having animations, since the CPU has to wake up more often to send redraw commands to the GPU. So while in theory you might be right that it'd increase performance to use Aero, in reality you're wrong.
Working around an issue does not mean the issue doesn't exist.
Submitter needs to read more (Score:3, Informative)
Just because a program has an installer is NO guarantee that it will have an uninstaller. And frankly, this is not Microsoft's fault. Some programs have a legitimate reason to not be uninstallable (DirectX is a good example of a program NOT to uninstall) because it would destabilize the machine.
The problem is obvious (Score:2, Informative)
Vista has a lot of security features that can be turned on and off. This whole Slashdot story is a waste of time, written by a Luddite that doesn't know how security in Vista works. I think they should have been using OS/2 or eComStation [ecomstation.com] instead, which are easier to use and configure than Vista will ever be.
Re:No worse than OS X? (Score:3, Informative)
Thats how it is supposed to be.
Thats not how it is, even for the Apple-produced iLife apps. Garageband is a great example. If you drop the application bundle in the trash you are still left with a few gigs of (now useless) files 'scattered' throughout the filesystem. Ok 'scattered' may be a bit extreme but the point stands that by dragging the garageband app bundle to the trash you have *not* removed all traces of the app.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
I think I seen this happen on windows 98 and with ME when the installer stuff was updated. I'm suspecting that this is the same and it only effects people who used the older versions of the programs with the older installer that are seeing the effect. I was told once and I don't remember were, that the incompatabilities have to do with the uninstall.ini which is generated during the instal process. It either calls something that is no longer present or the formating of it no longer works corectly. If you have been around MS computers long enough, you will eventually see it. Sometimes it crops up as cannot find uninstall.ini or something simular with it in the corect folder and there when you check. It isn't a conspiracy, probably just an old problem creeping back.
Re:WHO CARES (Score:1, Informative)
A Speak and Spell is an educational device designed for an extremely young demographic.
It only seems like a toy once you've outgrown the need for it.
Re:FUD Article (Score:3, Informative)
I killed the install, reinstalled only vista and haven't seen it happen since.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
How many alleged Firefox vulnerabilities affect the integrity of non-Windows systems? For that matter how many serious problems of any sort have you, personally, ever experienced with Firefox that weren't directly related to certain Web sites that were written specifically for IE, rather than generally accepted WC3 standards? The only major problem I've noticed with Firefox that actually bothered me much was when several earlier versions suffered a significant memory leak over time under heavy use. I won't even try to list the dozens of critical issues that have existed with various versions of IE since it was first foisted upon the largely unsuspecting marketplace. I simply avoid using IE -- I don't even use MS Update, but I can get all the patches (and there are a *lot* of them...hehehe) from other sources that I trust most than I do using IE to access MS's Web site. Firefox isn't perfect, but it isn't the open invitation to malicious hackers that IE is, especially when ActiveX is enabled on the latter. If you want to give your computer away, just use IE on it to access a few pr0n or warez sites -- someone else will own it soon enough!
You don't need more staff (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:4, Informative)
End users on production networks should be the LAST to see the patches. First, they should go through a quarantined test lab. We use VMWare for that. If that passes, we release via WSUS to our development environment. Every application has an "owner," a person ultimately responsible for the support and maintenance of a particular program, even if it is "off-the-shelf." App owners are also responsible for developing and maintaining a test script that exercises all areas of the app, and running through that script as part of the patch testing process.
After quarantine (24hrs) and app test, (target 48 hrs), we release to pilot networks using WSUS. After two days with the Pilot users without problems, we release to our production WSUS for general roll-out.
If your a publicly-traded company in the USA subject to SOX, or ISO-27002/BS7799(Part 2) or PCI-complaint, or if you deal with personally identifiable information related to financial transactions or healthcare, your generally expected to have documented test processes with evidence of control and review that the processes are being followed. Many large, multinational companies require the same standards of all their partners (consultants, development houses, outsourcing Other businesses might not be legally compelled to do this, but depending on your size and the complexity of your environment, you would be foolish to simply throw out patches to "a few 100 PC's" without a bit of due diligence.
The insanity is to make sweeping changes to the fundamental foundation of your entire technology infrastructure without so much as even reading the technical notes for possible counter-indications or caveats. Zero-day attacks are mostly due to poor network security at the border. With perimeter and internal firewalls, transparent proxies, email security gateways, antivirus/antispyware, limited user rights and proper administration, the risks associated with virtually any unpatched vulnerability can be reduced to acceptable levels.
As far as I'm concerned, you are a trainwreck looking for a place to happen. I hope that your not one of my company's partners in India.Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:2, Informative)
The main problem now with VPN is the damn Norton Internet Security or McAfee Personal Firewall that comes with most new laptops. Gateway has a custom version of McAfee that, for the life of me, I cannot find a sane way to turn off (probably could if I ever actually got my hands on it).
Thankfully we have a PPTP VPN server that still does ok.