IE 9 BOMB

[Soundguy]

yep.. just hitting google and ssearching Ei PROBLEM GETS YOU ENOUGH HITS TO NEARLY CRASH A COMPUTER

YEAH.. THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE...

whether or not the person who used to service the software wants to admit it... as the old saying goes. tons of people can't be wrong.

there are help boards out there chok FULL of posts on what to do with their failed IE upgrade.

I'm just supremely glad i was able to roll back.

no 'ill' will toward MS.. I still generally like the platform.. thought I will, as stated, call them out when they deserve it...

soundguy

 

[Scooby074]

Its not "calling anyone out" when there are MILLIONS of installations that update correctly.

The problem is you cant write an update to cover ALL possible permutations of both hardware and software.. hence the strong recommendation to disable ALL 3rd party software, particularly during a major update. If you want a tightly controlled environment where almost everything is controlled by the OS maker, Buy Apple.Windows openness is the reason that a PC is half the price of an Apple product.

Given the sheer numbers of machines out there and all their respective configurations, the updates are overwhelmingly successful. But those huge numbers of installs, mean that there will be the occasional failure. These failures are usually caused by something unforeseen.. such as installed programs or hardware or trying to update a corrupt OS installation.

 

[Soundguy]

THANK YOU for finally acknowledging that ms isn't perfect and every bit of goo that falls out of their corporate orifice is not nectar of the gods.

you stated exactly what i stated. that they should simply AUTOMATICALLY disable all add in's if they can't ( and i do think it's alot of work ).. to know what is or what is not compatible.

PS.. my add ons were not corrupt.. they simply were not compatible with the incoming IE.

ms installer should be default.. just remove add ons, then do the install to be safe.. instead of going on the shakey ground and trying to divine what ones work and what ones don't.

MS shouldn't put themselves inthe position where it can fail like that.. just make it automagic and go.

and yes.. i realize that thousands of problems out of millions of situations is a small (er) percentage.

that's not an excuse.. it's a statistical failure rate that could be MUCH less if they just auto disabled the add ons during instalation.. which apparrently MS has the technology to do, as they DO remove some that they know will be issues.

just remove em all.. less issues.

that's all I'm saying...

 

[kco]

In every software world EXCEPT microslop - it is done and done very effectively.
dpkg, apt-get, MUON, whatever all else you use KNOW about dependencies and conflicts.
I am not sure HOW it is done, but I am fairly sure that MUON will temporarily remove what needs to be removed, do the updates/upgrades you asked for, then put back what it temporarily removed.

This is barely higher tech than manufacturing BoM and "used on" trees and tables, compatibility matrices - which pre-date Bill Gates by many decades.

I sometimes don't use a particular Linux distribution for several months, when I do there can be a hundred or more updates in 300 or so meg of downloads. I can click on it and KNOW that it won't blow up or give me mysterious symptoms days or weeks later.
Vax/VMS by dec (RIP) managed it too.

MS quality control seems to still be massively parallel field test, by PAYING customers.

As the thread progressed I was recalling the VMS subject too. I worked with those systems for years before switching to mainly NT support as I saw VMS's impending decline. It's amazing what happened to DEC and VMS as architecture still has not caught up to some of what they developed in the mid '80's. They also failed to capitalise on an advantageous deal with Microsoft due Microsoft's wanting to avoid a lawsuit.

Microsoft stole much of the VMS's architecture and also the VMS architect, Dave Cutler, who was the project lead for NT. It was interesting managing NT and seeing the underlying VMS architecture in renamed and stripped-down form.

While they aren't perfect, I think Microsoft does an excellent job of providing upgrades in a difficult environment. Hackers are continually attacking the system and the internet assists in their communicating possible vulnerabilities to other hackers.

As Soundguy mentioned, the rollback feature is great. In the NT 3.x/4 days failed upgrades often resulted in hours of server downtime as unrecoverable servers were rebuilt from scratch.

As others have mentioned I also think it is impossible to anticipate all circumstances that will avoid all crashes. There are infinite software and hardware combinations, plus users make security and other changes that compromise the system. Users are the main problem and often those who are more "knowledgeable" are a bigger problem. In the VMS days we always noticed the systems NEVER failed when the IT department was busy with staff meetings, holiday periods, etc.

I also follow Reg's suggestion of waiting months before upgrading if possible. But that is a luxury one can't afford for vulnerabilities like Internet Explorer.

I am not as confident with my limited Linux upgrade experience (I changed my Windows 2000 server to a Synology linux-based server 1.5 years ago). There have been a few upgrades and virtually all of them have resulted in some users experiencing "hung" servers. Likely it is due to hardware not on Synology's "approved" list. But here I have the luxury of watching for several months (they have a good users' forum) and waiting until I know the bugs are worked out. But from a "number of users" and complexity standpoint, I imagine the Synology upgrade problems are much worse than Microsoft's.

I think most good companies provide great products and support at reasonable prices.

 

[Scooby074]

THANK YOU for finally acknowledging that ms isn't perfect and every bit of goo that falls out of their corporate orifice is not nectar of the gods.

you stated exactly what i stated. that they should simply AUTOMATICALLY disable all add in's if they can't ( and i do think it's alot of work ).. to know what is or what is not compatible.

PS.. my add ons were not corrupt.. they simply were not compatible with the incoming IE.

ms installer should be default.. just remove add ons, then do the install to be safe.. instead of going on the shakey ground and trying to divine what ones work and what ones don't.

MS shouldn't put themselves inthe position where it can fail like that.. just make it automagic and go.

and yes.. i realize that thousands of problems out of millions of situations is a small (er) percentage.

that's not an excuse.. it's a statistical failure rate that could be MUCH less if they just auto disabled the add ons during instalation.. which apparrently MS has the technology to do, as they DO remove some that they know will be issues.

just remove em all.. less issues.

that's all I'm saying...

firstly comparing the MS environment to any of the other other players is an unfair comparison.
MS is the big fish, and as such the target of most hackers. Also it has the most machines out there with the most potential combinations of hardware and software.. its a pure numbers thing. This makes updates much harder.

It also makes them the #1 target of legal action. Things like automatically disabling AV or removing all ad-ons to facilitate an installation would open them up to a world of legal hurt.

And I never said they were perfect.. Just to direct the blame where it belongs, most times it's the user and changes theyve made to the system.

 

[MossRoad]

The MS system restore is nice.... if it is not already infected. That's one of the main disappointing things to me about system restore... how easily it is infected. Another disappointing thing about it is you cannot save off a restore point of it to, say, a CD for safe keeping, because it is an incremental backup.

I hate MS. It is not an elegant operation system at all. It is a brute force operationg system. It only works because of the huge processors and memory that are available. The easiest way to prove that is to look at how disk fragmentation is handled by MS compared to, say, unix. A unix based system rarely has fragmentation. It put things back where they belong. Now look at a MS based system after a month of hard use. Good grief, the hard drive looks like an episode of Hoarders!

The only reason it is so prevalent is because of marketing. MS did a better job of convining people it was the best tool for the job. It is the Harbor Freight of operating systems. :cool2:

 

[MossRoad]

Soundguy,
Regarding people that point out typos....
Every time this is brought up, I always think of one thing that I saw a few years ago and it has never left my mind....
Enjoy!
:thumbsup:

 

[2manyrocks]

:shocked:HF of operating systems......

 

[Soundguy]

The only reason it is so prevalent is because of marketing. MS did a better job of convining people it was the best tool for the job. It is the Harbor Freight of operating systems. :cool2:

now that's just too funny.

way funnier than a typo I make because I have a small keyboard and screen..!

 

[Soundguy]

Soundguy,
Regarding people that point out typos....
Every time this is brought up, I always think of one thing that I saw a few years ago and it has never left my mind....
Enjoy!
:thumbsup:

way cute!

yep.. apparently a type, spelling error, etc, psycologically upsets some people dramatically..

i find it even more strange that some would start an entire thread about it.. or pelt me with PM's about it, and / or complain that I don't find humor in their picking...

oh wait.. just got anoth while typing this post...