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."
This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:5, Interesting)
other tools (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:No worse than OS X (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why would (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Should we double-guess what Microsoft tells us in their tech notes, and manually check every single patch? Every patch Tuesday, we get about 8 patches on average, how can any end user co. be expected to test out all these on their production networks? How exactly can sysadmins go about checking all these patches themselves? Does it add to their 'experience' or job value? I don't think so, and the sysads can't be bothered to verify what Microsoft ought to know.
End result - we have a WSUS server which handles all the updates, and that server is set to automatic, sothe sysads get back to their task of configuring new PCs, setting up changed environments based on changing project needs etc.
A separate vetting process and a delay of a week is insane IMO - with zero day attacks and little info. to work on - sysadmins are better off doing Automatic Updates. The other problem here in India is that there is no direct support from Microsoft even for Corporates who are willing to pay - support issues get routed to some VAR, the engineers there know little better than the sysadmins, and often merely pretend to help out. In reality they couldn't be bothered less.
Poor Vista adoption will actually accentuate his problem I guess - the smaller userbase will mean lesser bugs reported until it's too late.
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
My PowerBook came with OS X 10.2, and was upgraded to 10.3 then to 10.4 without any issues. Over the three years that it was my primary machine, I never re-installed the operating system. After one year, it was sent in for repair. Apple lost it and provided me with a replacement. Fortunately, before sending it in, I'd imaged the disk onto an old QuickSilver G4 (desktop), which I used in the intervening period. When I got it back, I just moved the disk contents back over. The next time I sent it in for repair, I moved the contents of the disk to a G4 Mac Mini and did the same thing. The OS install, over three years, was resident on three machines and went through three major OS versions.
The FreeBSD box under my desk has gone from 4.7 up to 6.2. At some point in the 6.x series, I moved /home onto a software RAID 1 array.
My OpenBSD box has gone from 3.7 to 4.1, again, without any problems.
Windows is the only operating system I've used where you expect upgrades to break things. Upgrading is almost always preferable to a clean install, since you keep all of your settings. If it isn't reliable, then that's a very bad thing.
The short answer is "yes, you should". (Score:3, Interesting)
By planning for it.
By testing them.
Knowing what is on their systems is part of their job. As is maintaining those systems.
Yes, there are admins like that out there.
So you automatically accept and deploy the patches Microsoft sends out
My opinion is the opposite. But then, my opinion is based upon my experience with vendors releasing patches that broke systems.
Re:No worse than OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
We turn on and off services and administer other aspects of OS/X using OS provided tools in most other respects, so why not manage software in the same way? Even if a package should "come with an easy to use uninstaller" perhaps this uninstaller should be exposed to a central software management facility so it can be easily found. I say this as people typically delete the installer once the application has been installed, so the idea that users should look for the original package and use it to provide the service of uninstallation makes little sense, conceptually (why should an installer uninstall?) or practically.
I've never found Fink or MacPorts to be all that usable on OS/X else I'd certainly prefer to use these apt-like systems to manage software (especially after my recent failed attempt at upgrading to Python2.4 on OS/X 10.4 and later deciding to uninstall it
In my experience the task of uninstalling software is simply easier on Windows and Linux (best of all an apt-based system) than on OS/X. While Windows tends to leave files scattered around and leaves scars in the registry at least I know there is one graphical tool that is supposed to take care of the job. On OS/X I never know quite how to approach the problem - especially when I'm uninstalling software of a newer version than found in
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course most corporate users wouldn't notice thing since most companies are staying away from Vista like the plague but on occasion when a user calls in saying they got a new persona computer from dell and need to VPN or use OLWA or a legacy app... Well...
Office 2007 on the other hand is great, but you can run that on WinXP. No need to upgrade.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Those sysads should be retrained or fired.
Agh! Easy for you to say. I'm not sure what experience leads you to so callously dismiss a group of people who are usually understaffed to start with, dealing with seemingly endless stupid user tricks and have to accommodate the buzzword-of-day in IT. I heard a management person say, and this a quote, "I think we should do that SOA thing, don't you?"
So, no, based on what I've seen working with companies across the size spectrum, unless you're willing to pony up for the staff resources, the poor people on the front lines have to cut corners where they can. And it would not seem unreasonable to me that MSFT should be able to get the patches right the first time.
Otherwise, what are we getting for our money? MSFT is one of the richest companies on the planet...rich from our $$$. Why don't they dip into those billions and provide those poor people in IT a little relief. Perhaps then they'd have enough time to go out at a decent hour and actually have a chance at reproducing.
Find another vendor then. No one forces Microsoft's products on you.
We agree on that. Unload your MSFT environment. Your costs will go down, your users will be happy. You will make money.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many systems that are more tailored for geeks, and then you have Ubuntu and some other systems that are really tailored to end-users. Overall, they're doing a great job with it, and it is getting to be better as time goes on.
Having run both Windows Vista (both the 32-bit and the 64-bit, beta and release versions), I must say that there really is no comparison to Ubuntu. Windows still has many problems that it hasn't really gotten over yet, mostly due to problems that still haunt them from the past, but also because when you install a retail version of Vista, the drivers that you need have to be sought and everything else. Contrasted with Ubuntu, which has drivers for everything on all of the PCs that I manage on my own personal network, and on other systems that I have installed it onto (which at this point exceeds 100). Other distributions of GNU/Linux are more lightweight, but you don't really need to be <em>that</em> lightweight on today's PCs, either: Windows Vista seems to require way more resources than an updated and heavily customized Ubuntu Feisty box running an up-to-date version of Compiz and Emerald.
Here's an experiment for you to run on your own, if you are able to do so: Take a relatively modern PC and a Windows Vista Retail disc and an Ubuntu Feisty disc. Have someone install both of them. To be fair, make sure that it is a computer that has hardware that is supported under both operating systems by either a third party driver or the operating system itself. See which one is easier (and takes less time and black magic) to get working. I'm willing to bet that the outcome will surprise you. I know for sure that the outcome will surprise you on the machine that I have as my primary workstation (a HP Pavilion Slimline s7700n PC). Ubuntu supports the hardware in this system even better than Vista does pre-installed, and runs quite a bit faster (one such example: <em>Guild Wars</em> runs like utter crud on this system under Vista, but runs perfectly under Cedega on Ubuntu. Windows XP runs it better than Vista on this PC, but not as well as I can run it under Ubuntu.
It might be pertinent to do some fact-checking before spouting off next time... but then again, this <em>is</em> Slashdot.
Vista is garbage (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Redundant testing of MS patches for the extremely unlikely event of having a patch cause real damage is wasteful. I have had MS patches screw up systems plenty, but the cost of fixing the problem after the fact has actually been considerably less than all the work that would be required putting tests through vague tests of my own design. Consider the bug in the topic post. I wouldn't have caught it, even if I did have time to verify every single patch. What would the procedure be?
4.3.4.594393 (c) Verify that programs still have uninstall button in Add/Remove programs.
Now what I've argued here doesn't apply universally. For desktops in what I consider a typical MS environment, however, the amount of time spent fixing problems caused by patches is so low that I could never, ever justify the cost of in-house testing. I read the patch synopsis and caveats, maybe hold off on scarier ones, do a minor amount of verification, and have very few problems.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
The trouble with this one is that cars, planes etc are self contained. With software it is running on a near infinite combination of machines that are anywhere from barely capable to super charged overclocking wetdreams. Now given that a lot of windows problems could be attributed to some unexpected intolerance in the application software and/or hardware it is being run with it is very hard to know when it is faulty.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:3, Interesting)
At a minimum, -any- sysadmin who is doing their job should be setting up a wsus server with all the patches disabled by default. On patch day, the admin then comes in and reviews/installs all the patches on his own PC. Assuming his PC isn't a paperweight by the end of the day, then you could consider opening -specific patches- up to the company at large.
Anything else is just begging to be sacked.
PS: In said last job, the people who administer our centralised deployment server let some application (not a patch, some tiny app designed to monitor net usage) slip through without adequate testing and BSOD'd 2/3rds of those 50K workstations. Now, they -were- having a very bad day.
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
I solved the problem by replacing that Vista with a clean installed one.
It still puzzles me how they (Dell) did it, but haven't had the time to check it myself.