Posted on 09/12/2002 1:30:54 PM PDT by paul544
Typically software makers like Microsoft provide a simple means of uninstalling software--particularly software such as Media Player 9 Series that has yet to be officially released.
The Redmond, Wash.-based company released the public beta version last week amid much fanfare in Hollywood.
Windows Me and XP users must rely on a feature called "System Restore" to roll back their Windows installation to a time before they installed Media Player 9 Series if the want to uninstall it. The clunky alternative doesn't really remove all Windows Media Player 9 Series files and could potentially wipe out other system changes.
David Caulton, a Windows Media product manager, said the uninstall issue isn't a bug or mistake: Microsoft intended the software to work that way, and the company warns people before they install the software that it's hard to get rid of it.
"We tried to make this clear on the download page. It's the method we use to get the OS back to the previous state. As with any OS component you might upgrade, everything has to go back sequentially together. If I install Windows Media Player 9 Series beta and Office, and I roll back, that would be to a pre-Office state," said Caulton. "The more users that can be informed that's the method for going back, the better," he said.
Users running Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000 can easily uninstall the media player using the operating systems' "Add or Remove Programs" feature, a typical means of getting rid of unwanted software. This option is not available on Windows Me or XP because of the media player's deep integration into the operating systems, Caulton said.
"Windows 2000 doesn't have the issues with deep media integration into the shell, the way Windows Millennium Edition and Windows XP have," Caulton said.
"This is really an OS upgrade," Caulton said of Windows Media Player 9 Series. "If you imagine a situation with an XP user who has got all these links into media capabilities...and you updated to Windows Media Player 9 Series and removed it, all those become dead links."
Analysts said the uninstall issue will most likely cause problems.
"That will be a real big pain for folks," Gartner analyst Michael Silver said. "With beta software, problems don't just crop up the first day. If a problem crops up in two or three weeks or a month and you have to roll back, that's going to roll back whatever else you installed in the time frame."
Some people may find good reason for going back to an early version of the media player: Windows Media Player 9 Series doesn't support older portable music devices that use serial or parallel connections. Under Windows XP, the media player does not support CD burning using Roxio's popular software. These changes are documented in the product's release notes.
Another problem for Windows Me and XP users: If they're unable to use "System Restore" to roll back the system to an earlier state, they may be out of luck entirely.
"Windows Media 9 Series is still in beta, and until the final version is released, technical support is not available for these components," according to Microsoft's Windows Media support Web site. Microsoft refers users to the microsoft.public.windowsmedia.beta newsgroup for assistance.
The situation also shines yet another light on Microsoft's strategy of bundling what had been standalone products into the operating system. Until Windows Media 8, Microsoft offered a separate version of the software for other versions of Windows and some competing operating systems, such as Mac OS. But Microsoft more tightly integrated the media player into Windows XP, offering no separate download for other operating systems.
With Windows Media Player 9 Series, Microsoft appeared to fall back from that position, offering the player also for Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Me and Windows 2000. The company currently has no plans to release a separate version for the Mac OS and other operating systems for which the media player had previously been available.
Several readers contacted CNET News.com to complain about the lack of Media Player 9 Series uninstall option. Brad Spry, a Webmaster from Charlotte, N.C., also criticized Microsoft's bundling strategy.
"Microsoft continues tying new products such as Media Player to the OS," he said. "They are 'commingling' the player so deep into Windows, the two cannot be separated. This is an intentional programming strategy. Technically, software can be programmed to be standalone, making it separate from the OS and uninstallable. However, that would be bad for (Microsoft's) business."
Gartner's Silver also didn't buy Microsoft's integration argument; particularly given the software is still testing and could cause problems on some computers.
"I'm not sure how much it is the excuse of integration vs. one of not wanting to spend the money to develop the uninstall capability," he said. Service Pack 1 removable
On Monday, Microsoft released Windows XP Service Pack 1, the first collection of updates and bug fixes for the OS launched in October. The update, like the Windows Media Player 9 Series installation, makes changes that go deep into the operating system. But Microsoft provided an "Archive" feature with Service Pack 1 that would allow people to restore Windows XP to its previous state.
With "the service pack you can go back to the original state, why not Media Player?" Gartner's Silver asked.
To that, Windows Media product manager Caulton said, "I'm not sure what the answer to that question is, so I would hate to speculate."
Using the "System Restore" to roll back a system does not necessarily remove files Windows Media Player 9 Series places on the computer during installation--and issue that could potentially cause future problems.
According to Windows XP Help: "System Restore does not replace the process of uninstalling a program. To completely remove the files installed by a program, you must remove the program using Add or Remove Programs in Control Panel or the program's own uninstall program."
Another option would be to use the new middleware control added to Windows XP with Service Pack 1. But that feature would only hide access to the media player, rather than remove it.
"The words 'standalone' and 'uninstall' have themselves been uninstalled from Microsoft's vocabulary," Spry charged. "They have been replaced with the term 'program hiding.' Products that appear to be standalone are actually an OS upgrade."
But Caulton argued third-party software developers have come to depend on the presence of the media player in Windows, particularly XP. "If you completely remove the media components from the operating system, suddenly other apps (that) you expect to continue working suddenly stop working," he said.
No they aren't. They just roll back to an even earlier state (wiped drive), and install Lycoris, Linux for the Desktop.
Nonsense. As a grey-haired programmer, the technical reasons they give ring entirely true to me. The days of "standalone" software are long gone. While it may be easy to de-install, say, a solitaire program without much fuss, anything that integrates more intricately with the operating system (and these days that's practically everything, because customers *want* it that way) is going to be a bitch to pull back out of the system without leaving a lot of dangling loose ends. Integrated software alters hundreds of registry settings, system DLL files, file extension hooks, etc. It's not as simple as in the old days where you could just erase an offending *.exe file.
MS Media Player handles practically all video and audio for MS WIndows, I'm surprised it's even optional *at all* -- again, for purely technical reasons.
If you're concerned about version 9 still being in Beta, then just don't download it now. I fail to see how making it available for people who want to get an early jump on the application somehow makes Microsoft an Evil Empire.
Ultimately, if you want a fully functional MS Windows system, you'll need to install the MS Media component when it's released. It's a free upgrade. So why the screams of anguish?
There are some other good reasons to bitch about Microsoft (just as there are good reasons to bitch about Linux, Apple, and every other alternative), but this ain't one of them.
But it's bad for my teeth.
Microsoft started out as a company trying to serve its customers. Now Microsoft has decided that to keep its revenue up and to continue to grow income, it will try to make customers serve Microsoft. What that is called is a DUMB MOVE. Every company in the history of business that has tried it has failed. Balmer makes Nasser look like a man who knew how to run Ford.
The computer industry is maturing. Here in Ohio computer superstores are selling used computers. You can do spreadsheets, documents, presentations on a 4 year old machine running windows 98SE very nearly as well as you can on a new XP. That is why there is for the first time a market in used computers.
When we first started selling computers and software a buyer could pay for the computer and software out of savings in less than 8 months. It was an easy sell. Companies could and did buy computers and software as a means to increase profits. Something that increases profts sells well in a downturned economy.
A couple of weeks ago the president of Intel said sales of new computers would not pickup until profits rose. Fifteen years ago a company could improve profits by buying computers and software. Buying new computers in a mature line produces no new profits. That is what the INTEL statement realy says. In a mature markety companies buy new when the old ones wear out. Kiss the 3 to 5 year cycle bye bye. Those expecting the return to 3 years cycles of new software and hardware are living in a dream world.
It is not going to happen.
Unless software and hardware companies can walk into a customer's office and show clearly how new hardware and software will increase profits, the boom is over. INTEL says the boom is over when it says sales will not pick up until profits increase. They in effect admit their products consume profits. They do not generate them..
Heh -- after immersing yourself in the alternative OS's for PCs, I predict that it is you who shall have received the "attitude adjustment".
All existing OS's have their pro's and cons, and I predict that you'll sing a different tune after experiencing the downsides of the alternatives.
The grass may always look greener on the other side of the fence, but in the end it just has a different crop of weeds.
You nailed it. Microsoft used to provide cheaper, better, good-enough solutions. Now they want to nickel and dime every user and turn a PC the customer owns into a media vending machine Microsoft controls. Thanks, but I'd rather have my toenails pulled out with vice grips than have Jack Valenti probing my PC.
Only Microsoft could seriously damage Microsoft, and it looks like they are doing a good job. Their tombstone will be made of Palladium.
Because Micro$oft's road to world domination is not paved on the Mac and the OSX system is based on *NIX, which really doesn't allow the sort of nonsense M$ uses with Winders to force conformity.
It's called Mac OS X. The power of UNIX with the ease of Mac--what Windows GUI was based on.
What a bunch of CRAP. With hard drives soon to be in the 1000 gig range and ram in the 100 Gig range there are zero reaons to intergrate an application into the operating system. In fact will soon be possible to make applications that do not need an operating system as you know it. That is what has Gates scared to death. GATES has seen the future and he wants to stop it.
Jeff Richter told me a few days ago that the registry will be history in LONGHORN. The Registry like most of the crap in Windows was designed to keep the government from breaking Microsoft up. It has nothing to do with making a great operating system. UNIX has none of these problems because each application and module keeps its configuration in its own text file. That is what LONGHORN will do too.
The huge problems of Windows you mention were caused by Microsofts need to make a multi user operating system run on top of of a single user single tasking operating system called DOS.
DLL 's were invented when computers only had 640k or less of ram. Dynamic Linked Libraries are needed when code has to be loaded and unloaded as needed because ram is in short supply. With little memory, libraries had to be linked at run time because they had to be loaded and unloaded into different memory addesses over and over. With dozens of gigs you can create special code for a single app ... load it an have plenty of room .. to just leave it there as long as it runs. There is no need to write a one size fits all DLL to perform tasks. Each application have have code that meets its own exact needs. Compilers will create what operating systems used to provide. There will no longer be a need for the compromise demanded by shared code.
DLLs were used so only the modules of a program needed at the moment would be in memory. They are of little value to a computer with 300 gigs of hard drive and 5 gigs of ram. There is no future for DLLs. There was never a need for the Registry. Look at how a clean operating system like UNIX was construted. It was invented in 1972 and is a 1000 times better than any variant of Windows.
Tight integration of software and the operating system has nothing to do with interoperability. Real interoperabiltiy comes from very loose coupling with only the data being transfered among processes. All data needs to be expressed in a universl language understood by all processes and networks independant of operating system or hardware. Dot that and one has interoperability in spades.
XML is a an attempt for simple text files to be used as the communications language between applications and networks. XML can also provide complete integtration for the user.
The day when an application can be 3 gigs of code accessing many gigs of data will soon be upon us. Applications will have no contact with code being rung by other applications on the same hardware. With gigs of ram there is no need for shared code and all the problems it creates.
That day is not far off. Applications in the future will be as isolated from the operating system as possible. Gates with his P-code for an operating system he calls Dot NET is trying to get into the 21st century on the back of the idea he uesd to create the BASIC interpreter he wrote for TANDY in 1976. It is an idea whose time has passed.
As Gates and Microsoft reveal their plans for the future, they only give proof they MS have next to nothing to do with where the computer world is going to go.
GATES and Balmer are asking "How do we make more profits?" The real question is "How do we make better software that better meets peoples needs?" Asking only the first question will cause massive failure... as many before have proved.
MS isn't the only software co. that makes it almost impossible to uninstall their product.
I tried a Norton's Suite a few yrs. ago. Kept getting crashes and decided to uninstall it. Guess what, I couldn't do it. Many files were corrupted with Nortons stuff. I limped along for more than a yr. having to perform extra steps(windows can't find disk doctor, etc.). Finally reformatted the drive. Needless to say, I'll not put a Nortons product on my computer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.