IE 9 BOMB

[rsewill]

The latest version I can run still works fine. IE5 on my Mac.

 

[Soundguy]

Where the heck did that come from? So much for having a sense of humor.

I lost my sense of humor on that subject about 4000 messages ago, when someone thinks it's funny to talk about a darn typo.

Now i know what the vauge private message was about that you sent me ... a link there would have helped me figure out that you were complaining about my reply here.


soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

The latest version I can run still works fine. IE5 on my Mac.

there are a few sites that require higer versions. for instance.. to fully use amazon.com's 1-click buy feature, you need to be on ie 7+.... it works, MOSTLY on ie6, but some features are disabled.

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

understand that disabling all AV,running applications and add ins before a major update, which ANY IE update is, would be a smart thing to do.. matter of fact, it usually IS spelled out in the installation instructions and/or during the install. Relying on the installer to search out all the possible interactions with 3RD PARTY add ins is not advised.. Do you know how many obscure add ins are out there that could be missed?

Then why didn't the install just simply do that, instead of ATEMPTING to figure out if there was a conflict. just remove all possible conflicts and go??

again.. a 'FAIL' on the part of the code or the programmer.

if it's hard to figure out what will or will not be compatible ( and I've no argument that it would be difficult ).. then the installer should just simply globally disable the add ons before the install, and be done with it. simple.. effective.. robust. Instead.. MS opted to release it with some software that.. more or less was useless... in telling you that it would disable incompatible plug ins, it lulled the user into thinking there would be no issues, and that the installer was handling it. If nothing else, don't even have the installer do it and just tell the user to do it. again.. fail on the part of MS. neither of those occured.

as for my lack of humor.

I lack humor after hundreds of message laughing at me for a typo ? really? that's all there was to post about?

and I lack humor dealing with software from a co that should be -the- expert on the subject of THAT SPECIFIC SOFTWARE.

this isn't the late 80's with no plug an play, and back when you had to set jumpers on add in cards to address them and then load up drivers manually after bootup.. this is 25ys later where the parking meter outside work runs java... and my fridge can order it's own filter replacement thru my home network...

soundguy

 

[Western]

SG, I'm betting the update from MS, (or most updates), likely will never have a program for disabling all the add-ons, or other 3rd parties programs on an individual PC, mainly from a security standpoint. The task of coding for so many programs would be monumental, not counting most programs change with updates, so previous MS code may not be possible to keep up with the ever changing code of the add-ons and such.

I had a similar issue with Firefox and the new "update" as have 1000's of others if you Google it or visit the FF forums. I new better, I dont like to use any "betas"since I prefer to not be their "guinea pig".

Big , or major updates I will run in "safe mode" to help eliminate most background junk

 

[Bird]

Being a computer dummy, I sometimes have a variety of problems with this contraption, but I'm running IE9 with Windows 7 and I think it's working properly. Of course I'm one who usually figures every upgrade is actually a downgrade.:laughing:

 

[Soundguy]

I'm -guessing- that if i had win7, it may not have been an issue. but i'm on xp.. so....

in any event.. all is good now that i've roleld back to 8. just need to hold out to 10 I guess. that looks about like the way my luck goes with IE versions. 6 good, 7 bad, 8 good, 9 bad... am putting my $$ on 10...

 

[IslandTractor]

I have IE9 but it crashes daily. Didn't like Firefox when I tried it. I also use Chrome which doesn't crash and is generally faster than IE. I go back to IE9 only because I am so familiar with it but as I get used to Chrome I may just dump IE.

(Edit: just realized I posted this using Chrome so I must be getting used to it:thumbsup

 

[Soundguy]

i would have stayed with 9 if I could have gotten it to run. I read the faq and details on it in the updates section and it sounded nice.

more viewable area for pages.. better compatibility modes.. etc. too bad, for me, it was a pipe dream. it just kept loading my home page, crashing, auto restarting, trying to load again.. if you manually 'x'ed the home page just as it loaded, it would try to relaod your last session instead, and then.. still crash... quite unfortunate.. half expected.. but still unfortunate...

soundguy

 

[Reg]

SG, I'm betting the update from MS, (or most updates), likely will never have a program for disabling all the add-ons, or other 3rd parties programs on an individual PC, mainly from a security standpoint. The task of coding for so many programs would be monumental, not counting most programs change with updates, so previous MS code may not be possible to keep up with the ever changing code of the add-ons and such.

I had a similar issue with Firefox and the new "update" as have 1000's of others if you Google it or visit the FF forums. I new better, I dont like to use any "betas"since I prefer to not be their "guinea pig".

Big , or major updates I will run in "safe mode" to help eliminate most background junk

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.

 

[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...