Microsoft Quietly Previews PC Advisor Repair Tool

notthatwillsmith writes "On Friday, Microsoft invited members of the Windows Feedback Program to try out a preview of a new application, the Microsoft PC Advisor. The new tool promises to 'continuously monitor your PC for problems and give you the solutions to fix them, in real time.' After testing on several Vista machines with a variety of problems, Maximum PC has written a full report on the Microsoft PC Advisor. The short version? Like every other 'PC Repair' tool they've tested, the new apps signal-to-noise ratio is quite bad, and it misses the obvious and important problems, like out-of-date videocard drivers."

Oh, come on...

Such a perfect set-up, is just asking for:

Did it detect the problem that Windows was installed, and recommend replacing it?

Re:

I've been using the Ubuntu install CD to fix Windows problems for years now; never fails ;-)

Re:Oh, come on...

"PC ADvisor has determined that your machine is unacceptably slow. You have probably installed, uninstalled and re-installed too many programs in response to PC ADvisor's previous suggestions. Now your Registry is hosed.

PC ADvisor recommends you now re-format your hard drive and do a fresh install of Windows.

Please have your credit card handy as I can assist you with repurchasing any software for which you have lost the appropriate paperwork.

Remember it was YOU who accepted all those terms and conditions without reading them, don't blame PC ADvisor.

And do not call and complain to those hard working programmers at Microsoft, they are far too busy innovating new features like PC ADvisor to have to deal with your silly little printer issues. Windows and Office together probably cost as much as your entire PC, but that DOES NOT include the manpower to listen to you bitch and moan over the telephone. Suck it up, admit you are the cause of your own problems and do as I say.

Do it NOW or PC ADvisor will punish you further!

I wonder what they were expecting.

This tool seems to be made to improve user experience for non technical users and the whole review goes on and on that technical user could already do these things by himself.

Not exactly.

The tool did NOT find the problem that was causing their crashes. Which was that their video drivers were to versions behind.

What the tool DID "find" was mostly meaningless (empty IE's temp folder and such).

Re:

(empty IE's temp folder and such)

I prefer to use CCleaner [ccleaner.com] for cleanup like that. My only gripe is that it isn't Open Source.

Re:I wonder what they were expecting.

where exactly does the review say that?

the author's major complaints against the tool seem to be:

• PC Checkup diagnoses non-problems (UAC being disabled, desktop shortcut pointing to wrong version of a program, the use of a custom power profile)
• offers useless tips (empty Temporary Internet Files, enable IE's phising filter, turn on Windows Firewall)
• missed obvious problems like outdated drivers which were causing actual system crashes
• rest of the menus were just shortcuts to the control panel or other pre-existing Windows content/features

it sounds like the author's evaluation that this program offers non-fixes for non-problems seems like a pretty accurate one. he does give the program benefit of the doubt and states:

...the PC Checkup functionality could deliver some interesting functionality, especially if it develops the ability to suss out real PC problems...

i think they were just expecting what MS tried to promise--a program that would actually help troubleshoot computer problems. but in the end, Microsoft's PC Advisor Repair Tool suffers the same problem as other PC repair programs--they don't work.

Re:I wonder what they were expecting.

The new version much simplifies the interface and should fix this. The core routine is :

print "Have you tried rebooting?\n";
return(O);

Works every time (or at leasts keep users off the phone, which is the point, really).

Im sure..

That MS would surely get in trouble for this, but MS could very well use a repository, along with MD5 hashes of recommended programs.

They could provide what we Linux users have with Synaptic and dpkg. They could provide "MS Legit Software", "Driver Repository", "3rd party Software", and "GPL and derivatives". There's 6 branches of Windows to do right now (98, ME, 2k, XP, 03 server, Vista), and most of them are rather outdated.

But really, can we really say how bad this tool is by it not catching somewhat out of date drivers? Where exactly can a bot get the filename for the specific driver you need? nVidia, ATI, and Intels websites are rather hard to find drivers IF you screen-scrape.

Re:

I remember something similar, in that it messed my video card driver up.

There have been very few times that MS Update has gotten the video card drivers right.

Re:

That's simple. Do it the Debian Way.

Stable, Testing, Unstable.

Drivers in that order.

Stable are the ones that have been tested and vetted and work 99.99999% of the time (6sigma).
Testing drivers are the ones that work rather well, but have occasional problems. Not quite a Work in Progress, but not bug free.
Unstable. Yummy. Kernel Panic warnings and such abound. Ye civilized people not belong here!

Debian has it right, at least in the driver department. Stuff they say works just works.

The popup repair bot

You appear to be trying to install Firefox as your primary Web browser. I've deleted the downloaded installer and alerted the authorities. Is there anything else you'd like to do today?

As I've always been saying:

If you have to use a whole bunch of programs that consume a whole chunk of the computer's processing power just so that the computer can function properly, then something is damn wrong with it, on the very basic level.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier to fix the reasons of those common problems if they're so common, than it is to make some bizarre problem-solving applications?

Error Reporting

...is good at advising to upgrade out of date drivers if they cause problems.

I've had it diagnose a bunch of dodgy drivers with success before; I'm not quite sure what the angle on this tool is.

Not enough useless software running in the bckgrnd

...so it's time to add another. ;-)

The REAL problem is that these tools have a different agenda to the end user. The end user just wants the damn thing to work. The vendor wants to sell them more software, do a security theatre dance around the PC. The geek coding isn't able to step back and work out what the user will and won't understand (and none of these tools have really good help explaining the technical gibberish in plain English). So what these tools invariably do is just throw up technically correct but obscure messages that the user just clicks to get rid of. Half the time if the user does bother to take the suggested action, the outcome is bad because the software was never smart enough to make the decision, and the end user just never understood the problem in the first place.

No soft is know it all: change the paradigm

I'm getting a bit frustrated waiting for the industry to realize they need to make those applications a little more interactive.

For example, from the article, the tool suggested a number of IE fixes when the primary browser used on the system is Firefox. The tool detecting the default browser is easy, but IE may still be used while not being default.

The solution: just damn ask the user, does he use IE despite it's not the default browser. Just make the process more like a dialog, let the user add some input to the process.

When a collection of solutions is formed, don't just spit them to the user, but ask him what problems he has, what apps he uses, and dynamically trim/modify the proposed solutions according to that. It's still faster than waiting for an actual person to show up and fix the problems, and that person would still ask the user a lot of those questions.

Re:

With IE being embedded into several applications(Intuit's come to mind) a bunch of users to whom this tool is aimed at might think _wrongly_ that they don't use IE. Better fix it... Kinda hard for the tool to guess if a perf problem is due to a third party app calling a part of the os in embedded mode is causing a slowness of the app...

Error messages that crop up in the near future.

The new tool promises to 'continuously monitor your PC for problems and give you the solutions to fix them, in real time.' After testing on several Vista machines with a variety of problems, Maximum PC has written a full report on the Microsoft PC Advisor.

PC Advisor: "I noticed you are running Vista. That is probably the reason for your variety of problems. Would you like to downgrade to Windows XP, for this limited time offer of $99.99? Cancel or Allow?

Windows Firewall: "PC Advisor Repair Tool is trying to reach the Internet. Block or Unblock?"

Windows Defender: "I noticed you are running a program called "PC Advisor", Windows Defender does not recognize this program. Would you like to remove or disable "PC Advisor"?

preview

Clippy:

Hey, it looks like you're trying to install a FOSS operating system.

I can help you to:

• reinstall Vista from scratch instead
• click helplessly around until whatever your problem was goes away
• PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST STOP IT OK? DELETE THAT ISO. I CAN CHANGE.

Misleading Article, Product Not "Launched" Yet

The thing that seems to not be addressed is that this tool is specifically targeted for a small number of people. The software itself is not "beta", however the issues and problems that it searches for and repairs should be considered beta. The whole point of releasing this to a small, specifically invited group of people is to fine tune and make the detection and repair database much more useful before it is ready for the general population. The following is taken directly from the invitation email:

"As part of this study, you would download and install the Microsoft PC Advisor application and provide feedback on the impact on your Windows Vista PC through 3 brief surveys over the next 6 months"

For a product that is at least 6 months away from being released to the general public, this article is no more than a misrepresentation of the goals of the software at this point in time. And as the "invited" users use the tool, they will have the chance to provide feedback to help improve the capabilities of the utility.

That being said, this tool will never be a useful tool for power users that already know how to tweak their systems and update software, and the final release database may not be much better in the end anyway. But if that is the case, write an article at that point Will Smith, not when a product has barely begun building a database and is on an invitation only basis. I like to bash Micro$oft as much as anyone else, but this article is FUD. I'm guessing that Will had this passed along to him from a third party with some missing information, at least I hope, it is the worst piece of "journalism" I have seen from the man.

Look to mirror MS

They choose to spy user more (possibly asking for money later) instead of fixing their OS.

Even Apple with dedicated and trusting userbase can't dare to offer such thing. Apple has almost hidden from user "Send system information to Apple" in "System Profiler" (in Utilities). What it does is produce a XML file, bzip2 it and send that plain compressed file to Apple without and cryptic stuff. A complete opt-in thing promises nothing! That is the way to go. You can't promise user to "enhance".

If MS suspects third party stuff (devices) for Vista problems, they should travel to the building providing these:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/default.mspx [microsoft.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHQL_Testing [wikipedia.org]

I have seen 20% CPU using WHQL certified network drivers, programs certified by MS developed by people who doesn't really know how MS Installer arch works etc.

While spending my time writing this, MS already knows a lot about the users computer. They just make it official now. Also they have stolen concept of http://www.pcpitstop.com/ [pcpitstop.com] (lame looking but clean). PC Pitstop _does_ suggest really meaningful things in return.

What's an "ATHIEST"

It seems to be someone who's more "ATHI" than anybody else, but what's exactly an ATHI?

Re:What's an "ATHIEST"

An athiest is like an atheist, except dyslexic. They don't believe there is a dog.

Re:Pretty useful

---Firstly, this is a pretty useful utility for those that aren't very computer savvy. Everyone knows that most "slowness" can be resolved by simply maintaining the computer every now and again. Clearing temp files, defragmenting, cleaning off viruses, trojans, and other malware. So for the people that are prone to these types of problems, this is a pretty useful utility.

More likely, its due to install-ism (where they install anything and everything), fragmenting, and garbage-ware either in the form of shovel from the OEM or malware. The install-ism is rather bad when they just click yes/ok/stfu button to get the windows to go away. This is a major state of mind issue and can be hard to break. Losing their files would be a rather wide wake-up from this. Fragmentation should be handled by the OS and should NOT be a standard user activity. What? The OS isnt smart enough to connect disjoined files? Linux does. OSX does. FreeBSD does. Why not Windows?

And we get to the garbageware. Even the box guys are charging for a "complementary garbage removal" on the crap they put on there. They evidently make a lot from this garbage. But the worst offenders are the trojans, spyware, adware and so on. Even multiple tools cant remove it properly. When the spyware gets in as local admin, they then set themselves firmly in the system and can usually only be completely removed via a reinstall. Wrong.

MS could have done this the Right Way. Chroot is your friend. Programs that whine about XYZ not being where it is, then throwing up a UAC prompt is not the right way to do things. Instead, they could have made a default CHROOT environment for each program, with access to the users home directory. The "Programs and Files" directory could have been symlinked back to the home directory. Programs that are aware (announce as such to OS) could be given a proper environment in which to interact. This is the right way, but MS botches it up again and again.

---Their alternative is either "the friend" whom has now grown up and gotten a real IT job and doesn't want to be bothered by them, or Best Buy's GeekSquad who will try and tell you your ram is broken and your hard drive died, all the while copying your personal album off of the PC to their internal servers.

The Box Stores lie. Just like the little guys. Big surprise.

---Now, the more "OMG anti M$" side of the argument is that Microsoft needs to do something to help improve its image with consumers. Right now, consumers just don't like Windows. In fact, quite the opposite is true. There is a growing movement of disdain for Windows. While every day normal Joe might not care either way, the people he or she asks for computer purchasing advice does care.

I like the Linux way of things, yet I still wonder about one very critical issue: executables.

My example: I wanted to install Rockbox 3.0 on my 5th gen iPod. Ok. I can do it the manual way, or I can use the automated installer. I elect to use the installer and go download it. Once I get it, I need to go into properties (or commandline) and go set the executable bit. If I dont do this, the OS refuses to run it. Now, is his a bad program? Nope. But it solves the "run_anything_from_email" and related issues in MS based systems.

Setting an exec bit lets ME know that I have the intention to run it.

Now, this relates to all those nasties on the net. Now, IE will open up and run whatever. Lookout Express (now, windows mail) will execute anything in the preview pane (or it use to, havent used it in years). In Windows, it runs from damn near everywhere. As a point of absurdity, I can open up Winamp, look at my MP3's, find an executable in program files, and right-click and run it. That's broken. Open file should mean open file, not run everything.

---Microsoft, after years of keeping hands off on a lot of issues with Windows due to the whole "antitrust" thing, is finally taking charge and trying to improve their image with their software. A "We Care(tm)" approach to a person's computers. Tha

Re:Pretty useful

Fragmentation should be handled by the OS and should NOT be a standard user activity. What? The OS isnt smart enough to connect disjoined files? Linux does. OSX does. FreeBSD does. Why not Windows?

Not only does Linux know how to deal with fragmented files, it knows how to avoid letting it happen in the first place. Instead of cramming each file into the first open spot on the disk, even it it's just one cluster, Linux tries to find a place on the disk where there's room for the file to grow. That way, until your disk is getting very full, or you've got a lot of files that you're constantly updating and re-writing to different places (e.g., large databases) you'll never have to worry about defragging. Over the years, Microsoft has been very good at taking technology developed elsewhere and making it part of their OS, and they'd be doing their customers a good turn if they re-wrote the algorithm used to decide where on the disk the file goes.