Dell's downgrade suggestions


  • :belt_onion:

    • Why the hell are inapplicable things marked with a green checkmark? Oh, because they are up to date. Why the fuck does it say inapplicable then? Shouldn't inapplicable be for stuff that's, I don't know, not there, so installing the driver wouldn't make sense?
    • Why the hell are downgrades recommended? I understand you might want to downgrade shit due to regressions, but all of them?
    • Why are there older versions anyway? Oh, 2013. Let me rephrase then: why is this stuff from 2013, I only downloaded it yesterday!
    • How does the repository have older shit than I currently have anyway? Oh, by "repository" you mean stuff on the disk? Yeah, ok, technically correct, sure, but not really expected, is it?
    • Why the hell did you style the downgrade icon to look like a download icon? Or is it just me imagining things?
    • And, just noticed this, why the fuck are there Daemon tools on this thing? Can't you mount an ISO without additional tools on Windows these days? Or is it just burning them?

    Oh, it's also in Java. Yes, I know, so it's multiplatform (the "repository" has Linux drivers as well). Ugh. I'd rather take CLI on Linux than deal with Java. Do the Windows one in .NET. Everyone happy. Except Oracle.



  • @Onyx said:

    Why the hell are inapplicable things marked with a green checkmark? Oh, because they are up to date. Why the fuck does it say inapplicable then? Shouldn't inapplicable be for stuff that's, I don't know, not there, so installing the driver wouldn't make sense?

    They should have used the more standard "N/A" for that column. Since there's nothing to do, there's no criticality involved, so Inapplicable makes sense to me, if a little clunky.


  • :belt_onion:

    @boomzilla said:

    They should have used the more standard "N/A" for that column.

    "Up to date" sounds good to me.



  • @Onyx said:

    "Up to date" sounds good to me.

    If the column was something like, "Action," then I'd agree. But the pedantic dickweed in me rages at the non sequitur that "Criticality: Up to date" is.



  • I can confirm that 2012 R2 can mount iso files natively. I'm not sure about plain 8.1; the one machine we have here with that version came with the CyberLink crap on it.


  • :belt_onion:

    @SirTwist said:

    I can confirm that 2012 R2 can mount iso files natively.

    Apparently, no one tried before I got there then. That's how I found it, and I'm pretty sure it was 2012 R2.



  • @SirTwist said:

    I'm not sure about plain 8.1

    it can



  • @Onyx said:

    And, just noticed this, why the fuck are there Daemon tools on this thing? Can't you mount an ISO without additional tools on Windows these days? Or is it just burning them?

    I seem to recall doing it natively in Windows 8, although that might've been a fever dream. It's certainly taken long enough.

    Edit: 8. Not 8.1. My only Win8 machine is an Asus Taichi, and if I upgrade it to 8.1 I break the entire reason for having it. That deserves a new thread.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Onyx said:

    Why the hell are downgrades recommended? I understand you might want to downgrade shit due to regressions, but all of them?

    Could the Current Version and Latest Version column headings just be the wrong way round?

    What happens if you allow it to "update" the affected items?

    That updater is full of fail.


  • :belt_onion:

    @DoctorJones said:

    Could the Current Version and Latest Version column headings just be the wrong way round?

    Nope, the green icon thing really means "Downgrade". There's a tooltip if you hover over it.



  • @Onyx said:

    Why the hell are downgrades recommended?

    Because the spec given to that tool's offshore author said that the tool's job was to make sure the server was running the "correct" driver versions i.e. those supplied with the tool?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.