Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in an untold number of IT departments on Wednesday after Microsoft installed a resource-hogging search application on machines company-wide, even though administrators had configured systems not to use the program.
"The admins at my place were in a flap this morning because Windows Desktop Search 3.01 had suddenly started installing itself on desktops throughout the company," a Reg reader by the name of Rob informs us. "The trouble is that once installed, the indexer kicks in and slows the machines down."
The blogosphere is buzzing with similar reports, as evidenced by postings here, here and here.
"The admins at my place were in a flap this morning because Windows Desktop Search 3.01 had suddenly started installing itself on desktops throughout the company," a Reg reader by the name of Rob informs us. "The trouble is that once installed, the indexer kicks in and slows the machines down."
The blogosphere is buzzing with similar reports, as evidenced by postings here, here and here.
"I'm slighly ****ed of [sic] at M$ right now," an admin in charge of 3,000 PCs wrote in a comment to the first aforementioned link. "All the clients have slowed to a crawl, and the file servers are having problems with the load."
A Microsoft spokeswoman said she was looking in to the reports.
According to Reg tipster Rob, Window Server Update Services forced Windows Desktop Services 3.01 on the fleet of machines even though admins had configured their system to install updates only for existing programs and the search program wasn't installed on any machines (well, until then, anyway).
It's been a rough several weeks for managers running Microsoft's auto update services. Last month, bloggers disclosed the existence of a Windows patch that silently and automatically installed itself even on Machines configured not to install updates. Critics cried foul on the principle that users should have absolute control over their machines. They also argued that the stealth update could hamper compliance requirements.
Microsoft said the patch was installed on machines only to make sure Windows Update worked properly in the future. Managers promised to be more transparent in the future.
The revelation that Microsoft is pushing yet more installations not explicitly agreed to by administrators is not likely to sit well with this same vocal contingent. Redmond may want to don the asbestos suits now.
News source: The Register
YO umissed the point, even if you didn't approve this update it got installed. hell i never approved it on my WSUS, and i have not got it set to install updates automatically, actually as soon as i heard it was in there i went in and disabled it
Which is good as I didn't want it and wouldn't want it. Immediately set my prefs at the update site to not show me that again.
This story isn't about Windows Update, it's about Windows Server Update Services.
We would be EXCEEDINGLY cheesed off if this happened to us. This is becoming a real problem. Microsoft is forgetting that regardless of licensing agreements, it does NOT own other people's computers and it does NOT have the right to install whatever it thinks they should have. That this is happening at about the same time as Microsoft C&D'd AutoPatcher seems not entirely coincidental.
I hate to do it, because security patches are so important, but I'm very near to advising family, friends, and associates to turn off automatic updates on their PCs and do everything manually again, at least until Microsoft shapes up.
*sigh* I'm very happy to be a *nix user right now.
Microsoft is forgetting that regardless of licensing agreements, it does NOT own other people's computers and it does NOT have the right to install whatever it thinks they should have.
...
Yep, most people fail to realize this and the fact that they DON'T OWN WINDOWS. I think the specific language that was in the XP EULA is not in Vista's though. Maybe they cleverly hid it.
@Celtic: why not use WSUS?
Because, it is WSUS that is giving IT Depts. the problem, re-read the article and all the blog posts about it.
Because, it is WSUS that is giving IT Depts. the problem, re-read the article and all the blog posts about it.
WSUS only does things like this when IT departments have their WSUS Servers set to automatically approve updates as they come in. No IT department in their right minds should be doing it that way, they should be testing updates on a small subset of machines before rolling them out company wide.
Because, it is WSUS that is giving IT Depts. the problem, re-read the article and all the blog posts about it.
yeah but this is the only time i have seen it happen, so why not use WSUS previously, i never had any probs until this crap
Microsoft is forgetting that regardless of licensing agreements, it does NOT own other people's computers and it does NOT have the right to install whatever it thinks they should have.
...
Balls to that. My computer, my licence, my money, my time. The updating updater is something that might get allowed but apart from that any clause that enables a third party (and a supplier is a third party when it comes to my stuff) to arbitrarily bugger up my machine is not enforceable thanks to my overriding right to tell them to sod off. Don't like it? Don't care. Try enforcing it. An inequable contract (that is not signed, a click-through cannot be interpreted the same) is illeagl under contract law.
Example: an update (that can be installed without your approval, knowledge, etc., according to the almighty EULA) cripples your internet connectivity because you happen to have a competing product installed. Under the "terms" they can do this with no recourse at any time.
(Hypothetical, I know that doing such a thing would cause a massive backlash. Doesn't alter the fact that they can)
Microsoft is forgetting that regardless of licensing agreements, it does NOT own other people's computers and it does NOT have the right to install whatever it thinks they should have.
...
On their software. But I have the right to set up a firewall and strand that software from the internet as severely as I choose. Just because Microsoft's software is on my hardware doesn't mean that they then now own my hardware too.
Like I said, we're on a whitelist filter at work and I'm very tempted to do the same at home, at least for Windows systems. My girlfriend has been very curious about Ubuntu since her friend at MIT told her about it; if she makes the switch, then I'll just cut off all Windows systems on my network from the Internet and require Mac OS or Linux for connectivity. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, Redmond. I'd like to see your "value-added features" get through my ProSafe box when it's told to drop anything and everything from your IP range bound for your targets on my network.
MS just can't seem to do anything right anymore... Great for new users, but once those new users get ****ed off, things'll turn a different direction. I'm no gamer, but for the sake of those who adore the Xbox platforms, I hope nothing gets screwed up there.
He who does not lose his data in the first place, and knows where to look for it.
And the laptop also likely came with McAfee, Google Desktop Search, WildTangent, and who knows what else crapware.
He who does not lose his data in the first place, and knows where to look for it.
So back to filing cabinets, then? This is just an even quicker way to access your data. I can type something into Vista's start menu search and find it a lot faster than most people can go into Documents, and find the folder they saved it in, the subfolder inside that one, and open the document.
Good organization is a must. Having a search utility is no excuse to going back to a flat file system with no subdirectories and structure. In other words, just throwing files 'wherever' without care and expecting search to be the primary file finder is a bad idea.
from the testing my company has done internally, itis actually rather unreliable, to the point we removed support for it from our software
Let this be a lesson: no automatic approvals.
It does look like the installer is bugged, rather than upgrading existing installs, it's installing on all PCs.
Well, they were -- and still are having problems -- because they are slow...you said it yourself!
1) Install Windows Desktop Search
2) Let it build it's index.
4) Confirm the existence of dxdiag.exe by going start>run.dxdiag
3) Search for dxdiag.exe with Windows Desktop Dearch
4) Watch with shock and awe as Windows Desktop Search can't find dxdiag.exe
5) Wonder about how many other files Windows Desktop Search can't find.
(For those of you who don't know, dxdiag.exe is the Microsoft DirectX Diagnostic Tool. )
Now try the same thing with Google Desktop instead. Report what you find here. I'll wait.
Last edited by Croquant on 25 Oct 2007 - 16:37
1) Install Windows Desktop Search
2) Let it build it's index.
4) Confirm the existence of dxdiag.exe by going star>run.dxdiag
3) Search for dxdiag.exe with Windows Desktop Dearch
4) Watch with shock and awe as Windows Desktop Search can't find dxdiag.exe
5) Wonder about how many other files Windows Desktop Search can't find.
(For those of you who don't know, dxdiag.exe is the Microsoft DirectX Diagnostic Tool. )
Now try the same thing with Google Desktop instead. Report what you find here. I'll wait.
6) Smack yourself in the head when you discover that WDS doesn't index the folder dxdiag is in. (Go ahead, I'll wait.)
Why would you need it to? You just ran it without having to search for it.
Why would you need it to? You just ran it without having to search for it.
LoL I was just about to say the same thing Grey. By default, WDS only indexes My Documents and Shared Documents folders. You have to add more folders if you want it to search beyond that. I'm just glad they found a way to get WLPG to work without it's dependence on WDS.
Yes it can. I have a test machine I use with the whole disk indexed, and i just tried it.
Yes it can. I have a test machine I use with the whole disk indexed, and i just tried it.
Won't do it with mine. That's Strange.
Yes it can. I have a test machine I use with the whole disk indexed, and i just tried it.
Won't do it with mine. That's Strange.
pebkac?
Yes it can. I have a test machine I use with the whole disk indexed, and i just tried it.
Won't do it with mine. That's Strange.
pebkac?
Yup I'd say it's either PEBKAC or ID 10-T errors
BTW, saying ID 10-T works out better than writing it.
When you say it they have no clue what you mean. When you spell it out they do
Yes it can. I have a test machine I use with the whole disk indexed, and i just tried it.
Won't do it with mine. That's Strange.
I actually agree with you, it is rather unrelaible, and yes my compnay has done extensvie testing.
Yes it can. I have a test machine I use with the whole disk indexed, and i just tried it.
Won't do it with mine. That's Strange.
I actually agree with you, it is rather unrelaible, and yes my compnay has done extensvie testing.
More likely than not, you just don't know how to use it.
Did you include System files with your search?
we have no need for desktop search users save to network shares and know where specific files are! if they dont and save locally and lose files/data through either hardware failure or end user stupidty guess what tough pooh pooh
for once im glad i have to manually approve updates
@Croq Id rather do without either of these items...maybe its me but why is there a need for such tools in a domain?? thats what a well organised and trained staff are for to save relevant files in relevant folders/shares no?
Google search after uninstallation leaves obscenely sized index files if you dont specifically say to remove them 1gb files + are commonplace. Its on eof the first things removed from dell systems when they come in that and google toolbar!
Last edited by Mando on 25 Oct 2007 - 15:50
It does look like the installer is bugged, rather than upgrading existing installs, it's installing on all PCs.
Let me get things straight
WSUS approves ONLY updates to software you have already approved, it will NOT automatically approve just about any update
The installer isn't bugged either, since none of the 3 WSUS Servers I run on our corporate WAN has validated WDS for installation, nor did it install itself anywhere for that matter since I expressely forbid it in the settings
Last edited by whocares78 on 26 Oct 2007 - 07:39
Between this, the whole Automagic Windows Updating itself issues (mentioned above, not really a big deal IMHO), and the worldwide WGA authentication server failure (which is a HUGE deal IHMO), a lot of people are getting to say...
I TOLD YOU SO!
All I know is that thing ran constantly and not just for the initial index building. GDS would run the initial indexing and then quietly update and things were added. The MS Search ran all of the time I ended up killing it most of the time just so I could work. As my friend's dad said: "There is not a piece of hardware that Gates cannot slow down with his software."
All I know is that thing ran constantly and not just for the initial index building. GDS would run the initial indexing and then quietly update and things were added. The MS Search ran all of the time I ended up killing it most of the time just so I could work. As my friend's dad said: "There is not a piece of hardware that Gates cannot slow down with his software."
Technically your friend's dad (really yourself most likely trying to hide your sarcasm rather poorly) is correct about any software from any vendor.
The fastest hardware is the hardware with the least running on it.
Also if your hard drive ran constantly it could be a few things.
A: Indexing caused your HD to discover physical faults and it was auto-recovering data to non-affected sectors.
B: You constantly are installing/uninstalling and/or moving around data all the time and it's defragging your hard drive.
C: You have a really old machine that couldn't handle any modern software.
The last one is fairly likely if a simple desktop search program made your machine almost unusable.
D) Windows Desktop Index Search has a failure, corrupting the original database. Instead of being able to repair it gracefully, I've seen it have to rebuild itself from scratch. For those of us with hundreds of thousands of files, this is VERY annoying. I've seen this happen on more than one system under XP, but not under Vista yet.
From the sound of it, there may be a problem with WSUS. Our people are following up on it as quickly as they can.
SearchIndexer.exe should never be consuming that much memory. At most, 60-70MB for normal configurations. If you are experiencing more than that and it is actually impacting system performance, you are likely hitting a compatibility problem (old version of eTrust, old version of Adobe Reader, etc). Since the indexer on XP totally stops when you move the mouse or press a key (and won't resume until you're idle for a while) you should never notice a performance intrusion.
I mean, honestly, not to automatically go into FULL PAUSE when a fullscreen application (or really any application starts taking more than 25% CPU) is just absurdly bad software engineering/design. Little desktop widgets and wallpaper programs can do this, for crying out loud...
Just found this on another site.
2. Since stopping the service just stops the client from indexing (doesn't remove the WDS GUI from machine), we plan on sending out the following command to machines (with SMS) early next week. This will completely uninstall WDS 3.0.1 silently :
%windir%$NtUninstallKB917013$spuninstspuninst.exe /q /norestart
Last edited by phiberoptik on 25 Oct 2007 - 21:27
As a good rule, you should only automatically approve updates for Critical and Security Updates. If you do, you won't have unwanted programs and updates installed on your 100's or 1000's of computers. WDS is in the category Updates. I am sure glade I keep that categories approval NOT set at automatic.
(Update revisions are automatically approved, as its assumed that if you've approved the first update, you don't have a problem with an update of the update going out)
The question is, what idiot decided that this was a good idea? When a server first sync's you have zillions of updates to approve so you tend to just approve them all, knowing that it only installs them on PC's that has the needed software. It does not mean "oh this PC doesn't have the software that has the bug installed, so we'll install it for them"
Why on earth they modified an existing product update and left it in the "Updates" category if its now a full installer as well is beyond me.
There are other categories they could have used for complete software installs, feature packs or tools that aren't auto approved. Although personally I'm a tad annoyed that they are sneaking in full programs via wsus anyway (I've spotted options for full installs of the Windows live suite on there!, to me it misses the point of being an update server.)
This is what I've had it set to for months, but again I must have approved the feb update when I first installed the server.
Last edited by DrCheese on 25 Oct 2007 - 22:33
Who the hell needs it anyways?
Last edited by Skyfrog on 26 Oct 2007 - 02:24
I am NOT happy, MS should not be forcing updates, especially ones that are so resource intensive. Now i have to spend half the day removing it from everyones systems.
i don't think they are doing anything ro trying to do anythign, I KNOW they probablyh stufed up adn forced desktop search, as i am still getting complaints about it. i have read the previous posts and BrandonLive said MS are workign on it, however how is that in any way helpful, the mdamage is done. unless MS comes with an update that removes it in the next few hours, it won't help me at all, but i hope they can work out what went wrong so this sort of thing never happens again
- It was a screw-up, and everyone involved is deeply sorry about the trouble this has caused
- It ONLY affects WSUS systems where admins had approved an earlier WDS Update package
- The previous packages only updated existing WDS installations, and wouldn't install it on new systems
- It was intentional to offer a package that would install WDS on machines without it
- It was NOT intentional for the approval of the previous update to be "inherited" by this package. This was a mistake in the publishing of this package to WSUS.
The WSUS blog has a couple of posts on the subject, the most recent of which is here:http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archive/2007...-follow-up.aspx
They have suspended deployment of the WDS package via WSUS while they fix the problem, and provided instructions for how admins can most easily disable and remove the WDS software.
Believe me, Microsoft and the WDS team did not intend for this behavior. There was never any secret plan to force WDS onto unsuspecting machines. It was simply an error in the WSUS publishing process, which everyone deeply regrets. As someone who used to work in IT, I feel the pain of these admins. This is also pretty embarassing for our team even though it could have happened to any group at Microsoft, as the WSUS publishing process is completely out of our control. That said, please don't think that anyone here is taking this mistake lightly. Even though our official responses may have appeared slow throughout the day, you can be sure that today was a non-stop fire drill for all involved. Once we identified and understood the problem, it took time to coordinate an official response and go through all the necessary approval processes. Unfortunate as that is, it's the reality of a business this size, and our guys did their best to push through it and get this handled as best as we could after figuring out what happened.
at least you guys are on top of it, and whoever sent you that email should be shot or at least have sent it to your work email
and yeah i believe this wasn't deliberate, i never though it was, it did freak me out when i got abused this morning for approving it. seeing i havent approved any updates for a couple of weeks, hopefully someone ass got kicked over there at MS
one question is is this sort of thing likely to happen again?
and on top of that OPtus international link gong out to lunch this morning adn all the route flopping going on casuing the whole australian web to slow to a crawl
Last edited by whocares78 on 26 Oct 2007 - 08:00
Obviously not a credible IT Tech.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.