Slashdot Log In
Programs Cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista?
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:45 AM
from the hardly-a-feature dept.
from the hardly-a-feature dept.
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This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Programs Cannot Be Uninstalled In Vista?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 469 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday August 22 2005, @11:02AM)
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.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.cnycomputerservice.com/)
Absolutely... just as you would with any other vendor patch to a production system.
That's not an end user's job. That's the IT staff's job. End users shouldn't be applying patches. Period. End of story. That's what the IT staff is there for.
Those sysads should be retrained or fired.
If you allow things like that to happen automatically, you're going to have to deal with the consequences.
Find another vendor then. No one forces Microsoft's products on you.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 13 2005, @03:45PM)
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:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The world isn't always as black and white as we might like it to be.
Re:This is why you turn off updates.... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Friday November 02, @08:43PM)
Not to criticize, but when was the last time Microsoft successfully responded to a 0-day within 24, 48, or 72 hours?
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.Would your "vetting" process have spotted this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see how a "vetting process" would spot major problems with a patch but would you honestly have spotted "uninstall button missing for some applications"?
To me it seems like the sort of thing people only notice weeks or months after an update.
Nope (Score:4, Funny)
other tools (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday July 11, @08:27PM)
Technical support (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 29 2005, @02:22PM)
new microsoft user conversion program (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.iatse129.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 18 2007, @09:41PM)
Bashing? (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday April 18 2007, @12:56PM)
When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical. Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.
Re:Bashing? (Score:5, Funny)
When I was younger my best tactic for fixing a computer issue was to format. As I got older I realized that solution is impractical. Just like switching to another OS is impractical for most of us.
So on that train of thought switching from XP to Vista is considered impractical, you'll get no argument from me on that one.
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.Re:This is only a minority problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.infinadyne.com/)
It is stupid application problem.
If the application screws up the uninstall - something that hasn't really changed since 1995 - then the publisher should be the one blamed and complained to.
Microsoft built a framework. If the application doesn't follow it and requires you to "reinstall to uninstall" or some such nonsense it is hardly a Microsoft problem.
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)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 30, @10:59AM)
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...
Re:No worse than OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Install cool app
3. Use cool app... it works, cool
4. Guess I don't need that installer anymore
5. Ya know, I don't need this, how do I uninstall it?
Yeah, it's obvious from the OS that I should go re-download the original installer and hope that it has an uninstaller.
Pushing the problem to the developer is essentially pushing it to the end user, because the end user has to manage this stuff, and Apple doesn't even trust its users to organize their own Music folders, etc. They've got these amazing frameworks for implementing common parts of most programs, but not tracking which program does what?
I hope it's just because they're trying for a revolutionary way of tracking these dependencies, or its because of patent licensing or something... and not that they don't think it's necessary
Re:No worse than OS X (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 30, @10:59AM)
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)
(http://tron.lir.dk/ | Last Journal: Friday November 02 2001, @02:17PM)
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.)
Power (Score:4, Informative)
(http://unixclan.no-ip.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 27 2006, @12:59PM)
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.
FUD Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: a grand total of 5 users say they are experiencing this problem, probably including the author of this story.
After reading the posts linked in the article it seems the problem might be related to Yahoo toolbar crapware being installed on the PCs. You can use use system restore to fix the problem. Stop clicking "accept" when UAC warns you not to install crapware. Stop posting Vista FUD stories to Slashdot. Thank you.
Submitter needs to read more (Score:3, Informative)
(http://bsdg.org/ | Last Journal: Friday March 21 2003, @03:12PM)
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.
what are you smoking? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You do realize you are talking about a monolithic block of code for an OS from a gigantic software company and not a small, open source app, right? Things don't just change on the fly, especially not small inconveniences such as this. They've probably known about it for months and just haven't taken the time to fix it, since there are many other pressing issues out there.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 11 2005, @05:50PM)
Yes, just because you're not having problems, that obviously means that nobody else with a different hardware configuration, different software installed, or a different version of Vista could possibly be having issues with it. That would just be silly.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the very first post saying 'mine is OK' is modded as Redundant.
Re:why is this on slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday May 18, @10:04PM)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 09 2006, @05:02PM)
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:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://clete2.com/)
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://b100dian.lx.ro/)
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.
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.headfuzz.co.uk/)
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Funny)
Oh wait, that's that other Microsoft product... Sorry.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday July 11, @08:27PM)
Maybe the big image problem MicroSoft is having as far as bugs and quality control is a matter of people expecting more from computers as they get ever more integrated in our lives. If 5% of a new model of HD-DVD player wouldn't eject the DVD, there would be a recall. When PCs were novelties it was OK for them to be "quirky". That time has passed. MicroSoft, and much of the software world in general, need to step up and produce goods with real craftsmanship, not patched together. Yes I know modern software is all terribly complex, but if it's too hard to do well, go into a different line of work.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
The problem with software is the license crap. The part that makes it impossible to return it as defect, even if it contains thousands of critical bugs. We need more consumer protection there. Just like any other items, if it has more than a low number of non-critical problems, one should be able to return any software for a full refund.
Pass that as a law, include that no license, EULA or any other agreement can void that right, and within record time, software quality would go up.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.trausch.us/)
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.
I guess Chutulu is playing Cthulu's advocate... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @11:57AM)
The obvious one (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Wednesday October 31, @11:57AM)
Re:I'm not experiencing this at all... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://mp3bat.com/)
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.