I object to that accusation!





  • What's the problem here?

    I think maybe you're missing the context that makes this a WTF. Currently, it looks like they're just saying that they can't support a product that was made by a third party.

     Was this an inappropriate response to a problem? What was the problem?
     



  • Yes, because Firefox never fails, Windows is the real WTF! Impeach Microsoft, Mozilla for supreme ruler of the planet!



  • The current version is wrong, 2.0.0.7 was just released. (Yes I know it's probably updated manually by some intern who has thousands of products to check.)



  • I fail to see the WTF here. Are you saying it's not possible for Firefox to cause a problem? It's not like MS is saying, "OMG! Uninstall that browser! It's a virus!"  They're even providing a link to Mozilla and telling you where to get help.

    Be careful, you're sounding like one of these guys...
     



  • @SpoonMeiser said:

    What's the problem here?

    I think maybe you're missing the context that makes this a WTF. Currently, it looks like they're just saying that they can't support a product that was made by a third party.

    You missed the part where it says “This problem was caused by Firefox.” If they have enough information to make such a diagnosis, they can explain what they think is wrong with what Firefox is doing. As it is, it seems awfully convenient, doesn’t it?



  • @Random832 said:

    @SpoonMeiser said:

    What's the problem here?

    I
    think maybe you're missing the context that makes this a WTF.
    Currently, it looks like they're just saying that they can't support a
    product that was made by a third party.

    You missed
    the part where it says “This problem was caused by Firefox.” If they
    have enough information to make such a diagnosis, they can explain what
    they think is wrong with what Firefox is doing. As it is, it seems awfully convenient, doesn’t it?

    "What it's doing" is not running javascript, which Microsnot's website relies on absolutely everywhere.

    The
    reason this is a WTF is because the cause of the fault is "Not running
    javascript", which is an option that FireFox and IE both have, that
    is off by default on both IE and FF, and yet somehow it's all FF's
    fault but never IE's.  And in both cases, the cause is "The user
    turned off javascript", not the browser itself.

    P.s:  Yaarrrrrr!!! and Avast! 



  • @DaveK said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "The user
    turned off javascript", not the browser itself.

     

    Sorry, that's not quite right, let me re-word that:

     

    @DaveK said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "Microsoft's stupid website is so bloated and overladen with worthless and wasteful javascript SHITE that it won't work in a browser without enabling scripting".

     

    PS.  I thought I'd send some feedback about the incorrectness and uselessness of the page, so where it said at the bottom of the page "Was this information helpful?", I clicked on the button that says "No".

    It didn't work.

    Because I have javascript turned off. 




  • @Sunstorm said:

    Yes, because Firefox never fails, Windows is the real WTF! Impeach Microsoft, Mozilla for supreme ruler of the planet!

    To be honest, I think I preferred your troll about Europe's anti-monopoly laws in that other thread. This one was a bit too obvious for the community to take the bait -- you'll have to work on your subtlety if you want enough people to think you're sincere and bother replying.



    Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering. Someone who goes around making inflammatory comments siding with Microsoft at every opportunity on a board dedicated to software WTFs, and with a 4chan meme as his avatar, is beyond any hope of mastering good subtle trolling.



  • Not a WTF. This message probably just comes up if and/or when Firefox crashes, tells you that Firefox crashed, and gives you a link to where you can find an updated version.  



  • @DaveK said:

    "What it's doing" is not running javascript, which Microsnot's website relies on absolutely everywhere.

    The reason this is a WTF is because the cause of the fault is "Not running javascript", which is an option that FireFox and IE both have, that is off by default on both IE and FF, and yet somehow it's all FF's fault but never IE's.  And in both cases, the cause is "The user turned off javascript", not the browser itself.



    Is the fact that this was a javascript problem apparent from the original submission? Or does the point stand that the submitter did not provide enough context to see the WTF?



  • @DaveK said:

    Sorry, that's not quite right, let me re-word that:

     

    @DaveK said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "Microsoft's stupid website is so bloated and overladen with worthless and wasteful javascript SHITE that it won't work in a browser without enabling scripting".

    Sorry, that's not quite right, let me re-word that:

    @KenW said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "The stupid user is complaining because they made a choice that prevents Microsoft's website fromp working properly. It can't be Microsoft's fault, because it's their website and they have the right to choose whatever technology they want, and instead of wasting breath complaining about it the user should either turn on JavaScript or choose to go somewhere else like they chose to turn off JavaScript."

    There, that's better.

    It never ceases to amaze me. Your post is like the idiots that post here about the quality of the forum software or the content of the WTF/Error'd posts. If you don't like it, don't come here. It's your choice to visit this site. If you don't like it, choose not to visit. If you choose to visit anyway, even though you don't like it, STFU. 



  • @Irrelevant said:

    To be honest, I think I preferred your troll about Europe's anti-monopoly laws in that other thread. This one was a bit too obvious for the community to take the bait -- you'll have to work on your subtlety if you want enough people to think you're sincere and bother replying.



    Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering. Someone who goes around making inflammatory comments siding with Microsoft at every opportunity on a board dedicated to software WTFs, and with a 4chan meme as his avatar, is beyond any hope of mastering good subtle trolling.

    There's a difference. I'm all for blaming Microsoft when it's their fault. But when it's not, they shouldn't take the blame.

    "Gee, I ran my car into a brick wall because I was driving 90 miles an hour with my eyes closed. That's Microsoft's fault, because my cell phone runs Windows CE!"

    "Gee, I had a flat tire because I dumped four boxes of roofing nails on the road in front of them and then drove forward and back for an hour over the nails. That's Michelin's fault for not making good enough tires." 

    If your code causes an access violation on Windows because you try to allocate a 16GM block of memory, don't check to see if the allocation worked, and then start writing to that memory, is that Microsoft's fault? Of course not.

    Blame works when it's actually used against the person responsible. Using it for everything all  the time is stupidity. Wow! I think I've identified the Real WTF! People who blame MS for everything done wrong by everyone other than Microsoft!
     

     



  • @DaveK said:

    "What it's doing" is not running javascript, which Microsnot's website relies on absolutely everywhere.

    The
    reason this is a WTF is because the cause of the fault is "Not running
    javascript", which is an option that FireFox and IE both have, that
    is off by default on both IE and FF, and yet somehow it's all FF's
    fault but never IE's.  And in both cases, the cause is "The user
    turned off javascript", not the browser itself.

    P.s:  Yaarrrrrr!!! and Avast!

    Wrong, it has nothing to do with Javascript. That page is shown by Vista's error reporting tool when a program crashes, and Microsoft has information on the error. The part that says "Microsoft Windows Error Reporting" should make that evident. The fact that Microsoft actually went and wrote a small, sensible article to help people over a crash of a browser of the competition, complete with version information and a link for upgrade, is actually quite nice of them.

    Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering. Someone who goes around making inflammatory comments siding with Microsoft at every opportunity on a board dedicated to software WTFs, and with a 4chan meme as his avatar, is beyond any hope of mastering good subtle trolling.

    No, you see, I'm awesome at trolling. I actually got you to reply two times without even trying!



  • @KenW said:

    Sorry, that's not quite right, let me re-word that:

    @KenW said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "The stupid user is complaining because they made a choice that prevents Microsoft's website fromp working properly. It can't be Microsoft's fault, because it's their website and they have the right to choose whatever technology they want, and instead of wasting breath complaining about it the user should either turn on JavaScript or choose to go somewhere else like they chose to turn off JavaScript."

    There, that's better.

    It never ceases to amaze me. Your post is like the idiots that post here about the quality of the forum software or the content of the WTF/Error'd posts. If you don't like it, don't come here. It's your choice to visit this site. If you don't like it, choose not to visit. If you choose to visit anyway, even though you don't like it, STFU.


    If the site in question is MSDN, say (I don't see if it says which of Microsoft's sites is involved in the link in the OP), it may very well be the only place that a certain Microsoft product is documented. In that case, someone looking for information may not have an option about which site to go to to find it. Same goes for things like support.microsoft.com .



    And no large business has "the right to choose whatever technology they want" for their website. If Microsoft have advertised an online knowledge base (say) as a feature of a product they're selling, they're legally bound to make it conform to accessibility regulations, and that (amongst other things) means no reliance on javascript.



  • @Sunstorm said:

    No, you see, I'm awesome at trolling. I actually got you to reply two times without even trying!

    He has a point.

     

     



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    @Sunstorm said:

    No, you see, I'm awesome at trolling. I actually got you to reply two times without even trying!

    He has a point.

    I wouldn't consider one person replying to your posts to be indicative of an effective troll, unless you're only targeting that one person. The way I see it, the goal is to waste as much of other people's time and good humour as possible at the cost of as little of yours as possible, and 1:1 is not a particularly good ratio for that.

    Actually, what I find more interesting about that last comment is that he's acknowledged that he's deliberately trolling. As I mentioned before, no marks for subtlety.


  • @Irrelevant said:

    I wouldn't consider one person replying to your posts to be indicative of an effective troll, unless you're only targeting that one person. The way I see it, the goal is to waste as much of other people's time and good humour as possible at the cost of as little of yours as possible, and 1:1 is not a particularly good ratio for that.



    Actually, what I find more interesting about that last comment is that he's acknowledged that he's deliberately trolling. As I mentioned before, no marks for subtlety.

    I get a considerably greater level of satisfaction from responses denouncing me as a troll. The strategy required for getting those is way too subtle for you to notice.



  • @Sunstorm said:

    @Irrelevant said:

    I wouldn't consider one person replying to your posts to be indicative of an effective troll, unless you're only targeting that one person. The way I see it, the goal is to waste as much of other people's time and good humour as possible at the cost of as little of yours as possible, and 1:1 is not a particularly good ratio for that.



    Actually, what I find more interesting about that last comment is that he's acknowledged that he's deliberately trolling. As I mentioned before, no marks for subtlety.

    I get a considerably greater level of satisfaction from responses denouncing me as a troll. The strategy required for getting those is way too subtle for you to notice.

     The real problem here is that you seem to be the only person pointing out the fact that this is a feature of Vista telling you which program crashed and suggesting you visit their site.  Everyone else seems to think this is some kind of javascript issue.
     



  • @Sunstorm said:

    I get a considerably greater level of satisfaction from responses denouncing me as a troll. The strategy required for getting those is way too subtle for you to notice.

    Ah, so that was your cunning plan all along. And you wouldn't just cry "I meant that to happen!" regardless of outcome. And I'm the Prince of Wales.



    I'm done. I already made the point I set out to make, and I've got more worthwhile things to be getting on with than feeding the trolls. Nice of you to help me out in my procrastination, anyway.



  • @tster said:

    The real problem here is that you seem to be the only person pointing out the fact that this is a feature of Vista telling you which program crashed and suggesting you visit their site.  Everyone else seems to think this is some kind of javascript issue.

    I'll take a screenshot of the error reporting feature in action once I get to my Vista computer in an hour or so.

    The real WTF is what happens when you go to the root of the site: http://wer.microsoft.com/





  • @KenW said:

    It never ceases to amaze me. Your post is like the idiots that post here about the quality of the forum software or the content of the WTF/Error'd posts. If you don't like it, don't come here. It's your choice to visit this site. If you don't like it, choose not to visit. If you choose to visit anyway, even though you don't like it, STFU. 

    You have to admit that the irony of having a forum dedicated to making fun of WTFs that's running WTFfy software is pretty funny.



  • Hey look! You can fiddle with the URL!

    http://wer.microsoft.com/responses/Response.aspx/ANY4ORLOWERCODEHERE/en-us/5.1.2600.2.00010100.2.0





  • @KenW said:

    because you try to allocate a 16GM block 

    OH MY GOD!

    16 GIGA MAMBOS!!  ( or maybe its something new... maybe 16 GigaMegabytes? )

    🙂

     

     

    ah... don't ever try to install windows XP inside Vista

    http://wer.microsoft.com/responses/Response.aspx/100/en-us/5.1.2600.2.00010100.2.0
     



  • @tster said:

    The real problem here is that you seem to be the only person pointing out the fact that this is a feature of Vista telling you which program crashed and suggesting you visit their site.  Everyone else seems to think this is some kind of javascript issue.


    It's in XP, too.  Opera locked up the other day and I got an almost identical page after sending the error report.



  • @Irrelevant said:

    And no large business has "the right to choose whatever technology they want" for their website. If Microsoft have advertised an online knowledge base (say) as a feature of a product they're selling, they're legally bound to make it conform to accessibility regulations, and that (amongst other things) means no reliance on javascript.

     

    Because people with disabilities can't use javascript...

    You know, when you make shit up you become irrelevant...

     

     



  • @Morbii said:

    @Irrelevant said:

    And no large business has "the right to choose whatever technology they want" for their website. If Microsoft have advertised an online knowledge base (say) as a feature of a product they're selling, they're legally bound to make it conform to accessibility regulations, and that (amongst other things) means no reliance on javascript.

    Because people with disabilities can't use javascript...

    You know, when you make shit up you become irrelevant...

    As far as I know blind people use text-based browsers which tend to not support JavaScript. Also some browsers don't implement it period (dillo being one) even though they have the option too, generally some people use those browsers because they're light-weight which is a self inflicted accessibility issue, unless their environment prevents them from using anything more robust.


  • @Lingerance said:

    @Morbii said:

    @Irrelevant said:

    And no large business has "the right to choose whatever technology they want" for their website. If Microsoft have advertised an online knowledge base (say) as a feature of a product they're selling, they're legally bound to make it conform to accessibility regulations, and that (amongst other things) means no reliance on javascript.

    Because people with disabilities can't use javascript...

    You know, when you make shit up you become irrelevant...

    As far as I know blind people use text-based browsers which tend to not support JavaScript.

    To be more precise, most sites using javascript for navigation or animation are incompatible with a non-visual input system. Most computer-skilled blind people use a system that reads out the options, and they pick from the options using the keyboard (a blind person cannot normally use a mouse for anything). This is only possible if the page content is static while it's being read and the system can enumerate all the options, and that just doesn't work when somebody has done smart-arse javascript stuff.



  • @Irrelevant said:

    If the site in question is MSDN, say (I don't see if it says which of Microsoft's sites is involved in the link in the OP), it may very well be the only place that a certain Microsoft product is documented. In that case, someone looking for information may not have an option about which site to go to to find it. Same goes for things like support.microsoft.com .

    Wrong. It a) can't be the only place; Google indexes the web, you know, and b) makes no difference. The site can use the technology MS chooses.


    @Irrelevant said:

    And no large business has "the right to choose whatever technology they want" for their website. If Microsoft have advertised an online knowledge base (say) as a feature of a product they're selling, they're legally bound to make it conform to accessibility regulations, and that (amongst other things) means no reliance on javascript.

    Again, wrong. Any business, regardless of size, can choose any technology they want for their own website. If the choice they make leads to the site being unusable by their customers, the customers can choose to do business with someone else, or to try and find the information somewhere else. (That's the customer's freedom of choice being used, you see.)



  • @rbowes said:

    You have to admit that the irony of having a forum dedicated to making fun of WTFs that's running WTFfy software is pretty funny.

    Sure. The first few times it's mentioned. When it turns into hundreds of different post replies and lasts for months and months, not so much. If it continues to bother you day after day after day, either stop visiting or stop wasting time posting about it and move on.
     



  • @Tatiano said:

    @KenW said:

    because you try to allocate a 16GM block 

    OH MY GOD!

    16 GIGA MAMBOS!!  ( or maybe its something new... maybe 16 GigaMegabytes? )

    🙂

    Hmmm... I guess that's "GigaMillions".

    So I can't type. Sue me. <g> 



  • @Morbii said:

    @Irrelevant said:

    And no large business has "the right to choose whatever technology they want" for their website. If Microsoft have advertised an online knowledge base (say) as a feature of a product they're selling, they're legally bound to make it conform to accessibility regulations, and that (amongst other things) means no reliance on javascript.

     

    Because people with disabilities can't use javascript...

    You know, when you make shit up you become irrelevant...

     

    Makes the choice of the poster's name appropriate, though. Even relevant. <g>



  • @KenW said:

    @Tatiano said:

    @KenW said:

    because you try to allocate a 16GM block 

    OH MY GOD!

    16 GIGA MAMBOS!!  ( or maybe its something new... maybe 16 GigaMegabytes? )

    🙂

    Hmmm... I guess that's "GigaMillions".

    So I can't type. Sue me. <g> 

     

    Dear KenW,

    plz send all ur prsonal data to wannabenigerianscammer@emocamgirls.com so we can sue you

    😛


     



  • @Tatiano said:

    Dear KenW,

    plz send all ur prsonal data to wannabenigerianscammer@emocamgirls.com so we can sue you

    😛


     

    Certainly. Just do a Google search on "Andrew Suffield UK" (without the quotes). <g> 



  • @SuperousOxide said:

    @DaveK said:

    "What it's doing" is not running javascript, which Microsnot's website relies on absolutely everywhere.

    The reason this is a WTF is because the cause of the fault is "Not running javascript", which is an option that FireFox and IE both have, that is off by default on both IE and FF, and yet somehow it's all FF's fault but never IE's. And in both cases, the cause is "The user turned off javascript", not the browser itself.



    Is the fact that this was a javascript problem apparent from the original submission? Or does the point stand that the submitter did not provide enough context to see the WTF?

    I found it obvious.  The title referred to an accusation, and the post at the link said "Problem caused by Firefox".  That seemed to be an accusation to me.

     



  • @KenW said:

    @DaveK said:

    Sorry, that's not quite right, let me re-word that:

     

    @DaveK said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "Microsoft's stupid website is so bloated and overladen with worthless and wasteful javascript SHITE that it won't work in a browser without enabling scripting".

    Sorry, that's not quite right, let me re-word that:

    @KenW said:

    And in both cases, the cause is "The stupid user is complaining because they made a choice that prevents Microsoft's website fromp working properly. It can't be Microsoft's fault, because it's their website and they have the right to choose whatever technology they want, and instead of wasting breath complaining about it the user should either turn on JavaScript or choose to go somewhere else like they chose to turn off JavaScript."

    There, that's better.

    It never ceases to amaze me. Your post is like the idiots that post here about the quality of the forum software or the content of the WTF/Error'd posts. If you don't like it, don't come here. It's your choice to visit this site. If you don't like it, choose not to visit. If you choose to visit anyway, even though you don't like it, STFU. 

    Feeling better now?

    In your eagerness to denounce the blatant and venal stupidity of everyone-else-in-the-world-but-you, you've missed the point.  Totally.  So let me try and make it a little clearer for you.  It's not about whether MS have the right to use JS on their site.  Of course they do, and I never said they didn't.  (I said I didn't like it, but that was incidental to the point).  The point is that they blame Firefox, when, as you so rightly (and temperately!) point out, it's a user choice that has nothing to do with whether they're using Firefox, Internet Explorer, or any other browser in the world.  Microsoft, in their web page, have pointed the finger at a third party who even by your account is blameless.


    Is that clear enough for you?

     

    P.S.  You coined a great phrase with that typo - I think "website fromp" is an absolutely brilliant term to describe all that gratuitous flash and javascript and pointless marketing-driven bloat that infests so many websites!



  • fromp sounds like that foam packaging they sometimes pad packages with. The airy stuff.



  • Maybe I'm the only one to see this, but I get the feeling that what spxsa was complaining about was it sounding like he was part of a support group. (it has different connotations normally)

    I could be wrong, of course, but that's what I'm seeing from it...
     



  • @DaveK said:

    @SuperousOxide said:


    Is the fact that this was a javascript problem apparent from the original submission? Or does the point stand that the submitter did not provide enough context to see the WTF?

    I found it obvious.  The title referred to an accusation, and the post at the link said "Problem caused by Firefox".  That seemed to be an accusation to me.



    Yes, but there's no reason to believe that the problem wasn't actually caused by Firefox in the submission. It was just "Hey, Microsoft blamed Firefox for something, WTF?" The javascript theory came later.



  • @SuperousOxide said:

    @DaveK said:
    @SuperousOxide said:


    Is the fact that this was a javascript problem apparent from the original submission? Or does the point stand that the submitter did not provide enough context to see the WTF?

    I found it obvious.  The title referred to an accusation, and the post at the link said "Problem caused by Firefox".  That seemed to be an accusation to me.



    Yes, but there's no reason to believe that the problem wasn't actually caused by Firefox in the submission. It was just "Hey, Microsoft blamed Firefox for something, WTF?" The javascript theory came later.

     And as several posters have since pointed out, the problem actually WAS with firefox and had nothing to do with javascript, but whatever.



  • @Morbii said:

    @SuperousOxide said:
    @DaveK said:
    @SuperousOxide said:


    Is the fact that this was a javascript problem apparent from the original submission? Or does the point stand that the submitter did not provide enough context to see the WTF?

    I found it obvious.  The title referred to an accusation, and the post at the link said "Problem caused by Firefox".  That seemed to be an accusation to me.



    Yes, but there's no reason to believe that the problem wasn't actually caused by Firefox in the submission. It was just "Hey, Microsoft blamed Firefox for something, WTF?" The javascript theory came later.

     And as several posters have since pointed out, the problem actually WAS with firefox and had nothing to do with javascript, but whatever.

    I can't see where anyone here has actually said what the problem was at all, apart from the baseless speculation that it's javascript being disabled. 



  • I don't know how many of you actually use Windows, but when a program crashes, a dialog comes up that allows you to choose to send an error report to Microsoft.  When it's done, you get a link to more information which looks like that screenshot.  Sometimes it has useful advice, but most of the time it says something like "The problem was caused by $program_name, read the manufacturer's website for support."



  • @Random832 said:

    @Morbii said:
    @SuperousOxide said:
    @DaveK said:
    @SuperousOxide said:


    Is the fact that this was a javascript problem apparent from the original submission? Or does the point stand that the submitter did not provide enough context to see the WTF?

    I found it obvious.  The title referred to an accusation, and the post at the link said "Problem caused by Firefox".  That seemed to be an accusation to me.



    Yes, but there's no reason to believe that the problem wasn't actually caused by Firefox in the submission. It was just "Hey, Microsoft blamed Firefox for something, WTF?" The javascript theory came later.

     And as several posters have since pointed out, the problem actually WAS with firefox and had nothing to do with javascript, but whatever.

    I can't see where anyone here has actually said what the problem was at all, apart from the baseless speculation that it's javascript being disabled. 

     

    Maybe you should read the responses then.... Start with http://forums.worsethanfailure.com/forums/permalink/130604/130659/ShowThread.aspx#130659



  • I actually wasn't going to go ahead with starting this thread. Oh, well/


Log in to reply
 

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