Not Good Enough

I had to update a Windows 2003 server that hadn’t been updated in a fair while. The server gets its updates from WSUS. Each time I clicked on the Windows Update icon in the task bar Windows went off and downloaded and installed updates from the WSUS server (including Service Pack 2). After the updates had been installed I was invariably asked to reboot the server. After each reboot there would be more updates to install.

So far I have had to reboot the server five times. That means that its gone off to WSUS and downloaded five sets of updates (actually six, it also downloaded and installed the latest RDP client but that didn’t require a reboot).

Why do I need all these reboots? Why do I have to update it multiple times? Why can’t it download and install all the required updates together – like Linux does? If this server had been running Red Hat or Debian or Ubuntu I would have only needed to update once – and rebooted once. Instead it’s taking me hours.

It’s just not good enough!

I have a PC running the 64 bit edition of Windows 7. The PC has an ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro with two 19″ HP LCD screens attached. I have a problem where the left screen reports no signal in the following scenario:

1. The screens are put to sleep by Windows
2. I connect to the computer using Remote Desktop

Some time later when I attempt to use the computer the left screen doesn’t appear to wake up. The screen itself reports that it has no signal. The right screen works – I can see the mouse cursor. The only way I can resolve the issue is to restart the computer (via a remote restart of windows using the shutdown command).

I have a colleague with an almost identical PC . The only difference is that he has an Intel graphics card. He doesn’t get this problem.

I have tried the latest ATI drivers but it made no difference. I have also tried an update from Microsoft which didn’t fix the problem either.

It’s just not good enough!

Update: A workaround is available at http://www.tipsandscripts.net/archives/68

Opened up SQL 2000 Enterprise Manager the other day to look at a performance problem (which turned out to be someone purging WSUS of old updates). Anyway, I went to look at Process Info (under Management –> Current Activity) to see what was happening. Process Info displays details on various SQL process IDs (e.g. Open Transactions, CPU, Physical IO, Memory Usage). It also lets you sort by various columns – which can be quite useful. I say “can be”, because, unfortunately, Enterprise Manager seems to do an ASCII or alphanumeric sort, rather than a numeric sort:

Process Info sorted by CPU

What bright spark went to all that trouble to provide all this information in Process Info, and then didn’t do the last bit to allow us to sort it in an intelligent manner. I mean, it can’t be that hard.

It’s just not good enough!

Ah, criticising Microsoft is a bit like picking on the disabled kid.

Anyway, one of the issues we have with Windows is when a user accidentally moves a directory.  How do you accidentally move a directory you ask. By moving your mouse across the screen. Sometimes, for one reason or another, as you drag the mouse the left button gets held down and suddenly you’ve moved a directory. If it’s a small directory the user may not even be aware that they’ve done it – and sometime later we get asked to restore the “missing” directory.

This has happened often enough that I’ve been asked to modify permissions on directories so that users can’t do it. The problem is I can’t – the permissions on the directories are fine. The users concerned are supposed to be able to do what they do.

Really this isn’t a security issue, it’s a usability issue. If Microsoft had provided an option in Windows so that the user would be asked to confirm a move then we would all be happy. Unfortunately, they haven’t.

You might be thinking “so what – it’s the user’s fault, they should have been more careful”. However, it’s easy to do. Browse to your favourite search engine and enter Windows Explorer move confirm and you’ll see that plenty of other people have the same problem.

So, Microsoft, why haven’t you fixed this issue? It shouldn’t be hard – you only need to provide a tick box under the Folder Options menu and then, if it’s ticked, ask the user to confirm a drag and drop move. One of your gun Windows programmers could probably knock it up over lunch.

It’s just not good enough!

In virtually every application I use, including Lotus Notes, Control-F brings up the Find dialogue. This seems to be the default behaviour for Windows applications. There is an exception though – Microsoft Outlook. In Outlook 2007, Control-F is the keyboard shortcut to forward a message. So, Microsoft has broken their own UI standard. Why? They didn’t need to, they already have a keyboard shortcut for forwarding – Alt-W.

Unfortunately, it appears that the User Interface Hall of Shame isn’t being maintained any more. Otherwise this would rate a mention.

It’s just not good enough!

I currently use Microsoft Outlook 2007 at work. On the whole, it’s ok, but sometimes I do find it frustrating. The problem I’m having at the moment is when I try to reply to an email and I want to make inline comments.

Now it appears that Outlook replies in what ever format the original email was sent in. That’s fine if the original email was plain text. Then each line in the original email will be indented and prefixed with the “>” character. I can just add my comments where I want:

However, if the original email was sent in HTML, then my reply will be in HTML. The problem with that is that it’s less obvious where my comments are:

I can convert the reply to plain text. But that’s even worse as I don’t get the indenting:

It shouldn’t be this hard. It’s just not good enough.

Group Policy allows Windows administrators to centrally control many settings on a workstation. Generally speaking, it’s a good thing.

Group Policy works by updating the registry. It normally does this by setting the appropriate value under one of the following four keys:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Policies
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Policies
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies

When the policy is removed, the corresponding values are also removed. When the user runs an application that uses group policies, the application should look under the appropriate key above for the policies.

Group Policy can also write directly to the registry. This is common for security settings, or where an application isn’t policy aware (and so won’t look for its settings under the Policies registry keys above). However, when writing outside the Policies keys, the changes are permanent – the settings won’t be removed if the policy is removed. This is called “tattooing”. More information on tattooing can be found in the excellent FAQ at gpoguy.com.

Now, Internet Explorer proxy settings can be configured using Group Policy. This is good as it means that an enterprise can easily configure all its hosts with the appropriate proxy settings. Unfortunately, these settings are tattooed. Why is this unfortunate. Because, when a user leaves the network, the proxy settings still apply. So, if a user takes their laptop home, to a client, to a hotel, etc. and then attempts to browse the Internet they’ll have a problem. They will need to manually disable the proxy.

Why did Microsoft decide to tattoo these settings? I don’t know, but it’s just not good enough.

By default the Start menu in Windows XP looks quite different to Windows 2000. I quite like the new menu – I find it increases my productivity. However, some people prefer the old style Start menu. Nothing wrong with that – Windows XP has an option to change to the “Classic Start menu”.

Now, to reduce training costs (or because the management in IT don’t like change), some organisations want to make the Classic Start menu the default. Again, nothing wrong with that. The problem is that the normal way of doing this is to set the Explorer option NoSimpleStartMenu via the registry or Group Policy (where it’s called “Force classic Start Menu”). Unfortunately, when you set this entry you don’t just make the classic the default, you also disable the new “Simple Start menu” so no-one can use it.

Now I get given my new PC at work. I log in and see the classic Start menu. I then go to change it to the new simple Start menu and I can’t because that option isn’t available anymore. Not happy Jan.

I mean didn’t someone at Microsoft think that perhaps there should be an option to set the classic Start menu as the default but allow users to choose the simple Start menu if they wanted? Would that be such a revolutionary idea?

It’s just not good enough!

Why is it that when I select my location as Australia during a Windows XP install, the installer sets my default language to US English? I mean, wouldn’t you think that just because I’m in Australia I might want to default to Australian English?

It’s just not good enough!