 |
|
|
peterchen wrote: see no difference if someone calls me a fag for liking trees, or a nazi for being from Germany
Abusing ones contry is not a personal thing, you would not care about you been called nazi, but some other german may find it offesive and jump into contry abusing posts.
-prakash
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I missed the joke...
-- modified at 18:45 Sunday 16th October, 2005
Unless you're saying that Afghanistan would be the default entry on the list.. But that's currently US, so...
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | 5.00/5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Afghanistan is usually the first country in a drop down alphabetcal list.
That said, a lot of lists tend to default to USA, as that *was* where the
majority of internet users are from. I suspect its still the biggest
minority.
Iain,
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting idea, but I actually prefer nationality to be either unknown or incidental, like it would be if we met in person. It's usually just an accident of birth anyway, and such a small part of who we all are. Also, it usually comes up in conversation eventually, and, in a way, I think the information is more interesting when revealed as part of a more organic process of discovery.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this after a lot of Googling, so I'd like to share the solution. Yep, this may not be new or even advanced but it surely helped me...
Anyone who is running Windows XP SP2 know what I'm talking about. That stupid, annoying, most ill-designed dialog box ever invented in the history of the computer science that asks "Updating your computer is almost complete. You must restart your computer for the updates to take effect. Do you want to restart your computer now?"
And there are only two options: Restart Now/Restart Later. "Restart Later" means that this stupid thing will ask you again in 10 minutes. Yes, if you're willing to work for the next 4 hours until lunch before rebooting, this means you'll need to answer this question 24 times. Did I mention that the dialog steals the focus?
Now, to get rid of it:
Start / Run / gpedit.msc / Local Computer Policy / Computer Configuration / Administrative Templates / Windows Components / Windows Update / Re-prompt for restart with scheduled installations
You can configure how often it will nag you (I re-configured it for 720 minutes, which means I'll be asked twice on a work day), or completely disable it.
[edit]Oh, I almost forgot: this setting is only loaded when Windows starts, so a reboot is needed. If that stupid dialog is on your screen now, just stop the "Automatic Updates" service (but keep it as Automatic, so it gets reloaded on the next start) and you won't see it again  [/edit]
I don't see dead pixels anymore...
Yes, even I am blogging now!
-- modified at 3:20 Sunday 16th October, 2005
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | 4.27/5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote: I normally just drag it off the screen
That's what I always do too.
-- LuisR
Luis Alonso Ramos
Intelectix - Chihuahua, Mexico
Not much here: My CP Blog!
The amount of sleep the average person needs is five more minutes. -- Vikram A Punathambekar, Aug. 11, 2005
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that's typically the best option. Each file is possibly scheduled for a reboot individually and groups of files are not treated as a unit. If a DLL was updated in-place and required new functionality in a DLL that was updated but scheduled to be moved after a reboot, if an app uses the former DLL the application will fail.
I understand an fully appreciate that now isn't always the best option, but you shouldn't wait too long because in some cases you could start to see problems especially as you run new processes that depend on the updated DLLs.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Software Design Engineer
Developer Division Customer Product-lifecycle Experience
Microsoft
[My Articles] [My Blog]
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote: And that's typically the best option. Each file is possibly scheduled for a reboot individually and groups of files are not treated as a unit. If a DLL was updated in-place and required new functionality in a DLL that was updated but scheduled to be moved after a reboot
That'd be true if:
1. The reboot is tipically necessary because the patch is replacing files under System File Protection, not because they're in use.
2. A *LOT* of patches are simply IE patches. Why do I need a full reboot? Can't just explorer.exe be restarted while I work normally?
3. Is there "new functionality" in security patches? MS often asserts that not. Most security fixes are only validation for buffer overflows, not a full-blown re-design of the whole subsystem (as it was the case with XP SP2).
Heath Stewart wrote: but you shouldn't wait too long because in some cases you could start to see problems especially as you run new processes that depend on the updated DLLs.
If this is true, the whole update process could be very dangerous. Even an immediate reboot could present a problem in a system that is so unstable, potentially leading to data loss. If this was *really* true, why MS didn't schedule the whole update process to the next restart, when almost nothing is running, like some AV do?
I don't see dead pixels anymore...
Yes, even I am blogging now!
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Turini wrote: 1. The reboot is tipically necessary because the patch is replacing files under System File Protection, not because they're in use.
Most reboots are because of files in use, not because of WFP. WFP files can only be replaced by update.exe patches and CMI that Vista will use. If those files are in use then a reboot is necessary.
Daniel Turini wrote: 2. A *LOT* of patches are simply IE patches. Why do I need a full reboot? Can't just explorer.exe be restarted while I work normally?
IE isn't just iexplore.exe. Most of it is files like shdocvw.dll, mshtml.dll, etc. Windows Explorer and other applications use those files heavily. If iexplore.exe was shutdown and that's all that was patched a reboot wouldn't be necessary. Also keep in mind that with terminal services - including XP Fast User Switching - someone else may have those files in use.
Daniel Turini wrote: 3. Is there "new functionality" in security patches? MS often asserts that not. Most security fixes are only validation for buffer overflows, not a full-blown re-design of the whole subsystem (as it was the case with XP SP2).
To my knowledge, no. But I deal mainly with .NET and Visual studio patches (and related SKUs). Check-ins are very controlled and the triage bar is strict. Several bloggers on http://blogs.msdn.com/[^] have talked about that on occasion.
Daniel Turini wrote: If this is true, the whole update process could be very dangerous.
Which is why you're asked to reboot. Keep in mind that the update process isn't all about files, but can also be about registry settings. There's no way to update those after reboot before many processes are started, including services. To treat all those atomically isn't currently possible.
Now, NTFS does supportmoving in-use files and then placing the new files with the correct names. When the moveed in-use file is released and there are no more references it is removed. When new applications start, they pick up the new DLL. It just depends how the files are loaded.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Software Design Engineer
Developer Division Customer Product-lifecycle Experience
Microsoft
[My Articles] [My Blog]
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heath, I do understand why MS asks for a reboot. What I'm trying to say here is that there is another option, harder to code, that is to see a reboot as something bad, so it should be avoided as much as possible. And that doesn't seem to be the case with MS patches. Most users, me included, see those "reboot warnings" every single patch, and they notice that the machine is still stable, so they end up simply ignoring them. If a "reboot warning" were something rare, users probably would immediately reboot after seeing it.
You see, one thing is a reboot on a desktop machine, which means that I won't be able to work for a couple of minutes. The other thing is a reboot on production servers. One could argue that in this situation a cluster would help. Ok, but first, there's a cost. And, even on cluster setups, a combination of patched/unpatched machines can be more dangerous than no patch at all, so it may be necessary to bring the whole cluster down on some patches.
Heath Stewart wrote:
IE isn't just iexplore.exe. Most of it is files like shdocvw.dll, mshtml.dll, etc. Windows Explorer and other applications use those files heavily. If iexplore.exe was shutdown and that's all that was patched a reboot wouldn't be necessary. Also keep in mind that with terminal services - including XP Fast User Switching - someone else may have those files in use.
Ok, so we agree that there are probably no services using those DLLs. Why not a logoff/logon?
Not to mention that it's pretty straightforward to determine which processes are using a file. Why not asking the user to restart those processes? There are installers today that do this.
Heath Stewart wrote: but can also be about registry settings
This is *very* rare. And, almost always, it's trivial to check which processes need to be restarted.
The funny thing is that I'm preparing our software (Crivo) to apply for Microsoft Platform Test for ISV Solutions.
I was reading yesterday the "Application Test Specification", on the Server section and one of the requirements is:
"1. Does not require a reboot during installation, operation or removal".
I don't see dead pixels anymore...
Yes, even I am blogging now!
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Turini wrote: "1. Does not require a reboot during installation, operation or removal".
Hahahahahah I like that.
But then, even Microsoft doesn't obey thier own HIG[^]. *grumble*
Sincerely,
Someone very annoyed with having to deal with skins [which are never appropriate!]
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logging off and back on does not process the pending file rename operations, and update.exe - the current Windows patch installer - will stop and restart services that are specified. Windows Installer is a little smarter about it and can display a list of applications to be shutdown before proceeding and more is planned for the future.
Detecting which applications use a certain registry key is not trivial. Any application can use, for example, Internet Explorer settings and there's no way to determine which applications might use. Low-leve code could detect which processes have an open handle to a registry key, but applications shouldn't be keeping handles to registry keys open - it would be pointless to do so.
Part of the reason that so many patches require a restart is because the patches are installed silently by Windows Update / Microsoft Update. Would you like your Word process shutdown or killed with an unsaved document open? To avoid many of these reboots as many applications as possible should already be shutdown and installing patches directly off Download Center may give you more options (like the Files in Use dialog that Windows Installer does use, at least for processes associated with a window handle and a window caption). Both update.exe and Windows Installer currently require the patch author defining which services to stop and restart, however, so if you have a service that such a patch would not know about you'd best shutdown those services as well.
Platforms like linux are no different. If I were to update Apache I need to shutdown the daemon to do so. I did that a lot in college along with many other daemons.
The fact is that very few patches actually, explicitly require a reboot. The ASP.NET GDR did for very good reasons (I was in the war room when this was decided). Most patches that require a reboot only require it because files are in use and could not be moved as I mentioned in my previous reply because of the share flags used to open the file.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Software Design Engineer
Developer Division Customer Product-lifecycle Experience
Microsoft
[My Articles] [My Blog]
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, there'll be some exciting new innovations made in Vista to also help solve these problems. Keep an eye on my blog[^] in the coming few months for details.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Software Design Engineer
Developer Division Customer Product-lifecycle Experience
Microsoft
[My Articles] [My Blog]
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heath Stewart wrote: but you shouldn't wait too long because in some cases you could start to see problems especially as you run new processes that depend on the updated DLLs
I wanted to say this but I wasnt too sure.
circumventing the "rules" always put you in wrong place.
-prakash
-- modified at 12:43 Sunday 16th October, 2005
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no problem with it. I interpret this to mean, do you want to reboot right now or do you need to finish something up and then reboot. Often, I'll do an update and if I don't need to reboot, I just keep on working. If I do, I shut down my apps and reboot.
The problem with disabling it is the updates are often security updates. In a corporate environment, you probably shouldn't even be given a choice. (At my company, you learn to save your work at night since sometimes IT simply forces all systems to update then reboot. I wish they'd warn us, but I understand why they do it and don't blame them.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine.
- P.J. O'Rourke
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | 1.00/5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you post this... On Friday I get a new update box - this one had a 5 minute timer on it...!
I was settling down into a long late-night game of full-screen Chuzzle and I kept getting kicked out of FS mode because that damn box.
Thing is, I do not remember getting an update that would have changed that dialog box before (with the timer).
Anyone else get that one with the timer before?
Peace!
-=- James
If you think it costs a lot to do it right, just wait until you find out how much it costs to do it wrong!
Tip for new SUV drivers: Professional Driver on Closed Course does not mean your Dumb Ass on a Public Road!
DeleteFXPFiles & CheckFavorites (Please rate this post!)
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've got 8 PC's on a KVM that I do so love. It's a PS/2 KVM by IOGEAR and it does a nice job. The problem I'm having is one you wouldn't ever think of before buying an 8-Port KVM. 8 PC's put off a lot of heat and as I don't have cables longer than 10' (4, 6' cables and 4, 10' cables) they sit right below me and around me. Not only is it a lot of heat but it moves a lot of hot air right up into my face (no jokes please)  and dries them out.
I've considered getting longer cables as one solution. I could move them to the other side of my office (which is no problem to do) if I could find some 20' KVM cables. I've never tried to daisy-chain KVM cables I imagine you can...
Or I could wall off the areas under me and put the machines in cabinets and let exhaust fans move the air out the far wall of my office into some duct work and outside. To give you some idea of what I'm faced with... It's a 11' x 13' office with 8' ceilings. If I turn the PC's off the room will maintain about 70 degrees on it's own (this time of year). If I turn the PC's on with no A/C the room will climb up above 80 to around 84 degrees and stifle you.
Any experts out there have some ideas for how to make this problem better? The two ideas I've mentioned are all I have. How would you go about addressing the problem of A. Heat and B. Hot air drying your eyes out?
Thanks,
Rex
Some assembly required.
Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
outside of doing just what you said, you don't have much choices. with heat there are two primary possibilities:
1) move the heat or heat source
2) cool the heat source (which in effect is #1, but through thermal mechanics rather than physical location)
You could liquid cool the whole bunch and run the radiator tank(s) outside, it would look really wierd with liquid cooling tubes running outside, but would be very effective.
In my case, I have only about 5 machines in my office, though there are dozen outside my office. we use air conditioners that strain to keep up (mine is the smallest and it just broke last week).
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
| Sign In·View Thread·PermaLink | |
|
|
|
|
