back to article Microsoft sends a raft of Windows 10 patches out into the Windows Update ocean

Microsoft has released a second raft of fixes for Windows 10 following the monthly Patch Tuesday excitement last week. It has also issued some fixes for its latest Windows Insider build. The latest tokens of affection from the gang at Redmond come in the form of KB4480976, KB4480967 and KB4480959, which cover the 1803, 1709 …

  1. phuzz Silver badge
    WTF?

    Jet

    IIRC the main Active Directory database (ie the lynchpin of a Windows network), is a Jet database.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    (I suppose the rationale is simply 'if it ain't broke...')

    1. Philip Storry

      Re: Jet

      A different Jet. There were two streams of Jet - Jet Red was the Access database, and Jet Blue was the enterprise variant used in Active Directory and Exchange Server (amongst other products).

      Jet Blue became ESE (Extensible Storage Engine), and is very different to Jet Red - in that it's actually reliable and half decent.

      Fun fact - sharing a database engine is why Small Business Server died. The AD team and Exchange team used different versions of Jet Blue/ESE. Neither liked the idea of being forced to upgrade to a later version of it because of the other team, and it made support difficult as patching one product might break the other.

      This is why it's not at all supported to install Exchange on your AD controllers - it will likely result in issues with your mail databases or - worse - your AD database.

      1. DJV Silver badge

        Re: Jet

        I suspect there is also a Jet Yellow - well, MS do seem to be pissing on almost everyone with their latest releases/patches!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jet

          Oh Har har har. NOT

      2. phuzz Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Jet

        Well, I've learnt something.

        1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

          Re: Jet

          "And how", as they say in the classics. I seem to remember msdhcp using some kind of jet database.

          Back to the point though, quite a few db's are small enough where dbase is sufficient. I hear MS ODBC does a pretty good job with dbase files too. And the advantage over MSAccess (97) databases is that you can actually list your tables!

          That's what they tell me anyway.

          1. J. Cook Silver badge

            Re: Jet

            DHCP uses the ESE, just like AD, Exchange, and other 'small' services where the admin is not supposed to fiddle with the database directly, but through the tools MS provides.

      3. gerdesj Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Jet

        "sharing a database engine is why Small Business Server died"

        I do not think that is the reason that it died - there are far better reasons. Customers bought it once and then stuck with it for many years without upgrading (often out of fear) - not enough built in obsolescence. It was too hard to upgrade from. I recently did one and getting to Exch 2016 from 2007 involved an intermediate migration to 2010 and the full horror of each step. Took ages.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Jet

          It didn't have a great upgrade path anyway (at least the earlier versions that I had seen). Once you went one over the max user/device limit it all became expensive and messy. As the typical admin of an SBS may not be used to multi-server environments it meant that the upgrade often left remnants of SBS around forever more.

          Anyway wasn't SBS rename Server Essentials and dropped the 'exchange' component?

          1. katrinab Silver badge

            Re: Jet

            "Anyway wasn't SBS rename Server Essentials and dropped the 'exchange' component?"

            And pretty much every other component.

        2. katrinab Silver badge

          Re: Jet

          Any upgrades I've ever done of Exchange involve installing the new version on new hardware or a new virtual machine, then to transfer data across, I backup each individual mailbox in Outlook and restore onto the new server.

          Doing an actual in-place upgrade seems to be just asking for trouble.

          1. Lorribot

            Re: Jet

            Its very unliely you would do an inplace upgrade of Exchange as the versions are generally tied to an OS, 2010 for example only works on 2008r2, 2013 on 2012r2 and 2016 on 2016.

            The chances of something not working after an OS upgrade and Exchange upgrade is so large it would fall in to the category of seeing how much of a mess you could make of it and possibly AD as well. Apocolypse springs to mind.

            Far better to just have good backups and migrate mailboxes to a shiny new server, no down time and nothing will break. Honest.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jet

            By upgrade I meant upgrade from SBS to non-SBS multi server style when you get employee number x (pushed you over the SBS licence limit) joined your company. Then the self-trained IT guru of the company (the MDs Nephew) would have to take on the role of a system admin and try to learn about proper stuff.

      4. smot

        Re: Jet

        And there's JET Green - made from Real People!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Jet

      "What could possibly go wrong?"

      AD supports atomic transactions and full transaction logging with multiple copies and snapshots with roll back. As well as a last known good copy. It's pretty hard to corrupt AD at the database level. As well as performance its one of the reasons it's so much better a solution than text files.

      1. J. Cook Silver badge

        Re: Jet

        Been there, done that. (The dreaded "USN Rollback" message in the event log, along with the afflicted domain controller absolutely *refusing* to authenticate anyone not logging locally.)

        ESE isn't all that bad, considering it's roots. the heaviest use I've seen is down in the very core of Exchange; there's an ESE instance for each mailbox database a mailbox server has, and anyone who's dealt with a busy exchange server knows it gets pounded on hard by it's users.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: Jet

          "Been there, done that. (The dreaded "USN Rollback" message in the event log, along with the afflicted domain controller absolutely *refusing* to authenticate anyone not logging locally.)"

          That's pretty rare though - usually a corrupt disk or something extreme. So you just set a reg key, reboot, and it will update from another DC. Or demote / promote it.

    3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      FAIL

      I wish they'd fix remote desktop

      We had a bunch of PC's update themselves to 1809 in the last few weeks and remote desktop basically does not work with them anymore.

      1. J. R. Hartley Silver badge

        Re: I wish they'd fix remote desktop

        The fix is to set them to connect using 'less secure authentication'

        Not ideal, but there it is.

  2. Philip Storry

    MDBs? Really?

    To use Access databases 15 years ago was an offence, but to use them today is unforgivable sin...

    1. steviebuk Silver badge

      Re: MDBs? Really?

      "Tell management that who refuse to pay for upgrades." I bet some will say as its sadly all too true.

    2. Ochib

      Re: MDBs? Really?

      Move them to a Excel spreadsheet What could go wrong

      1. Philip Storry

        Re: MDBs? Really?

        @Ochib - there is a special place in Hell reserved for you.

        (And it probably involves patching Windows XP machines that haven't been powered on for over two years. A never-ending stream of them...)

        1. J. Cook Silver badge

          Re: MDBs? Really?

          nope- There was a small business I went to once in 2002; the 'server' they were using was a windows 3.11 for workgroup machine acting as a file server and I think a database server for some in-house app they had build on dBase or FoxPro for windows.

          (After I did what I could there, which was also advising that customer to upgrade to something that's at least year 2000 compliant, I let the bosses know that I didn't want to go back there.)

          That is hell.

      2. chivo243 Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: MDBs? Really?

        ...What could go wrong? LOL

        They start saving attachments within the workbook, each cell getting its own vacation or cat photo... or worse yet, they've been running the whole business out of it! Document archive, accounting DB etc

    3. Spazturtle Silver badge

      Re: MDBs? Really?

      Then you will be happy to know that Amazon Logistics runs on Access databases. And they didn't even exist back when it was acceptable to use Access.

      1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

        Re: MDBs? Really?

        It was never acceptable to use Access. Otoh, in its time it provided a relational view of your database which was pretty rare. And the OLE2 format allowing for the bundling of multiple streams--making a copy of your database became CTRL+C & CTRL+V (obviously with NT mandatory locking). If they only had a 'show tables' command I'd probably seldom need anything else (as I mentioned above).

    4. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: MDBs? Really?

      They got embedded in all kinds of products thanks to VB and you know the old saying — if ain't broke don't fix it — well, some of the boxes will be running those systems because there is no easy alternative as the supplier is no longer in business. I'm sure there's still a reasonable base of DOS-based systems for similar reasons.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "to work out exactly what in patch Tuesday made Jet"

    As it fails with more than 32 chars, maybe an out-of-bound check, or something alike?

  4. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

    Access 97

    Access 97 still works fine in my Windows 2000 virtual machine.

    Although to be fair, I only keep it around for nostalgia purposes, and in case I come across some old files I can't open any other way.

    1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

      Re: Access 97

      Some say

      set n = createobject("adodb.connection")

      n.open "provider=microsoft.jet.oledb.4.0;data source=filename"

      set w = createobject("adodb.recordset")

      w.open "select field1,field2 from table1 inner join table2 on table1.pki1=table2.fkitable1", n

      But that's hearsay.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Access 97

        Yeah, the Windows ODBC driver will let you get at the data with the programming language of your choice. Handily, any passwords can also be easily recovered: don't think they're even encrypted but it is a long time since I had a look.

        1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

          Re: Access 97

          I've read a lot of hate over ODBC... but is there anything with as general a scope? As you indicate all other db abstractions are language specific.

          I know very well it can be finicky.

  5. Howard Hanek Bronze badge
    Happy

    Oh Look!

    ...they just created the world most gigantic global jumble puzzle.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Father, forgive me ...

    ... for I have written Visual Basic applications with MS Jet engine, some 20 years ago.

    1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

      Re: Father, forgive me ...

      Back when MS hadn't jumped onto the class library naming shenanigans and had a simple interface to COM, instead of a roundabout one (aka .NET) and made no apologies for it not being CORBA...well I lost my hate for VB some time after they ditched it.

      And boy did they ditch it.

      1. martinusher Silver badge

        Re: Father, forgive me ...

        Visual Basic was a half decent third party applications language when it first appeared (it was certainly better than traditional BASIC). Then it got bought by Microsoft.

        1. #define INFINITY -1 Bronze badge

          Re: Father, forgive me ...

          That was something I didn't know, thanks.

    2. jelabarre59 Silver badge

      Re: Father, forgive me ...

      ... for I have written Visual Basic applications with MS Jet engine, some 20 years ago.

      I wrote a project tracking tool in Lotus Approach. Perhaps not a sin, but certainly a punishment.

      1. jvf

        long live Access 97!

        Yes,

        Access 97 was (is) great for simple databases with the newer versions slower and clunky. With MS Office 97, VBA and VB 5 one could easily and inexpensively get a hell of a lot of useful work done with no apologies for not being a "real" programmer. I am still studying C (OK, so I'm old) and have a great admiration for programming as a profession but, since I wasn't getting paid to "be a programmer", I used the tools at hand with great success. Too bad jerks, a**holes and other neer do well script kiddies have made these programs (and most others even today) a hell hole of security risks.

        jvf

  7. J. Cook Silver badge

    Access is ok for... simple things that aren't expected to get a lot of use ever. It's a terrible way to learn RDBS design, though- start directly with a SQL of some form (MySQL, Orkable, SQL Swerver Express, PostGreSQL, etc.). You'll be happier in the long run.

    1. Antonius_Prime

      "You'll be happier in the long run."

      Mad as a badger and muttering under your breath, but happier...

  8. Kev99 Bronze badge

    Access EOL

    "However, as we discovered ourselves while researching another story, a distressing number of organisations still rely on databases using the technology." There's a saying ion the real world. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  9. sinsi

    Windows code name

    Windows 10 (aka 19H1)

    Why am I reminded of some sort of flu-type infection...ah yes, it's Windows 10.

  10. martinusher Silver badge

    The Ultimate Upgrade

    I finally gave up and upgraded my Windows 10 machine. To Linux.

    If you're a non-Microsoft developer then you'd be amazed at the amount of stuff that doesn't work properly under Win10. If all you do is Office and Web then Win10 will work OK but the rest of the time its just pure frustration, made worse by the inevitable 'antivirus' solutions. I've been struggling with MSFT's offerings on and off since 1985 and they're still making the same basic mistakes that they made back then with MS-DOS. Now I'm more or less retired I can just decline to have anything further to do with this shambolic heap of code.

    1. J J Carter Silver badge

      Re: The Ultimate Upgrade

      A poor workman, blaming his tools once 1985.

      1. Spanners Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: The Ultimate Upgrade

        No. He used someone else's tools when he had to. Now that he is retired, he feels able to use his own, better, tools.

    2. julian_n

      Re: The Ultimate Upgrade

      I have just been told off by our support people for not doing a daily reboot on my new Windows 10 machine.

      Can't think when I previously had to do this - maybe 1995 and Windows 95 - or maybe earlier?

      1. Fading Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: The Ultimate Upgrade

        You don't have to do this - thankfully with all the updates being released MS does this for you........

    3. J. R. Hartley Silver badge

      Re: The Ultimate Upgrade

      I'm sticking with Win7 til the bitter end.

  11. JBowler

    Oops

    There were problems installing some updates, but we'll try again later. If you keep seeing this and want to search the web or contact support for information, this may help:

    2018-11 Update for Windows 10 Version 1803 for x64-based Systems (KB4023057) - Error 0x80070643

  12. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Access was already a bad idea in 1997, it didn't get better with age.

    1. Tim99 Silver badge
      Windows

      Not really. I came from an Rdb, Informix, Oracle, Sybase, etc background. Access 97 was fine if you were a professional developer. It’s problems often came from the failure/i ntransigence/l ack of resources of larger organizations’ IT departments - Users just wanted to put together something to get a “simple” job done. The job then became mission-critical and was required to be adequately supported, that’s when “professionals” were brought in - The professionals were (usually rightly) horrified as to what had been produced.

      We would use Access 97 to prototype systems for small/medium businesses as we could quickly develop something to show how it might/would work. One customer said that what we had produced seemed to work, so why couldn’t he use what he had seen rather than wait for us to produce a “proper” system - So we looked at what he was trying to do and realised that if we split the system so that the data was separate from the user interface/forms/reports it would be robust enough for his 10 user $2million dollar business. We had already produced a range of single-user shrink-wrap solutions that went back to Access 2.0. I am retired now, but the company still has many hundreds of customers who use Access based applications (The bigger/multi-user ones have a SQL Server backend, but the interface forms and reports are still separate Access clients for each user - These are OK for tens of million rows of data and at least 50 concurrent users, the server does the heavy lifting and Access gives a nice friendly interface).

      The historical background of Access is that it owes a lot to MicroRim’s R:Base from the 1980s: Wikipedia link. Microsoft used to sell R:Base with their own sticker in Europe, and when MicroRim got into financial difficulties developing a VAX based product, Microsoft acquired a number of their staff that helped produce Access 1.0, and then Access 1.1 which included Access Basic. Access 2.0 ran on Windows 3.1 was quite fast (contained a fair amount of assembler?) and generally worked fairly well unless the PC crashed/was powered off with an open database. Access 95 was a major rewrite (all in C?) and available as part of the Microsoft Office Professional suite - It ran like a badly crippled dog for anything but a very simple application. Access 97 worked (Very well, if you knew what you were doing).

  13. Andy Denton

    Easy to criticise....

    As a break from the usual Microsoft-bashing, can we at least give them some credit for still fixing software that's over 20 years old? How many other companies would do that?

    1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Easy to criticise....

      Fixing, like a vet does? That'd be handy.

  14. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    Anybody havening fun and cursing games with the latest update for Win7?

    1. julian_n

      Actually, yes - seems to be issues with my sound - Viber and Skype and Youtube videos.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge
  15. Antonius_Prime

    "Something that will make the preview OS a good deal easier to test for Enterprise customers."

    NOOOOOPE. No way. Nu-uh. Ni-hai. Nein. Heck no.

    I'll be a dynamo in hell before I let general pop test an OS update...

    Unless you're flush with cash AND time AND space AND can set up a test lab, off on its own segmented network where any thing that goes wrong won't kill anything, there is no way in any hell an "Enterprise Customer" (Read: Businesses) will or should be installing test builds regularly.

    Best practices aside, it's support suicide. I for one am *very* glad of the fact that there's a six-month delay on "patches" being issued to general pop now. It at least means I can research, properly test and roll back any "features" before it goes out worldwide to the company. Meaning less angry* emails, phone calls and walk-ups for me.

    (*angry=idiotic)

  16. adam payne Silver badge

    It is those enterprises that Microsoft really wants to get onboard with the firm as the release of 19H1 creeps ever closer.

    19H1, isn't that a strain of the zombie virus?

  17. Scott 53

    Ah, Access

    I spent the 90s building applications in Access and a lot of the time since getting rid of other people's Access databases and replacing them with something more supportable. It's the gift that gives twice.

    1. Hargrove

      Re: Ah, Access

      Ah. Yes. I remember it well; well vaguely. I'm older than some of the dirt in my garden. . .composting being another gift that keeps on giving.

      I remember Access as the proximate cause of losing one of my best employees. He was an undergraduate IT intern at the time, exceptionally bright, and fluent in English, Japanese, and German.

      We had a contract that specified a database deliverable in Access that he was assigned to work on.

      The data base was largely comprised of blocks of text. I don't recall the details, but the functionality required that sometimes the data element needed to be handled as a variable, and sometime as the literal text string. (Apologies. I'm not sure that "string variables" are even a term in use anymore. At this point I had already gone from being an engineer to being a system engineer--a function for which customers were willing to pay handsomely despite it being, as we used to say back on the farm, "as useless as tits on a boar hog.)

      The bottom line was that the coding didn't always work as described in the documentation. As deadlines neared, angst increased, and he appealed to me for help.

      I believe I mentioned I was older than dirt? Twenty years of programming, one develops an intuitive feel for things. I hadn't been a system engineer that long at this point, and some real skills were still in the memory bank.

      The short version is that under some conditions, some functions would work with the data element variable name; others required the literal string enclosed in quotation marks. It appeared that the program at times performed manipulations that converted from literal string to a variable name, such that in some cases, the documentation showed literal strings enclosed in two sets of quotations.

      Being old school, I did the trial and error thing, eventually generating a matrix of the diverse functions, and where, when, and how many sets of quotations the data base software required and did block search and replace on the code. (If aging memory is correct, four or five was the max I needed to get a function to actually work.)

      The intern demanded to know "how did you know that would work?" He was not satisfied with a shrug.

      Unfortunately, by the 1990's IT professionals were already fully indoctrinated fundamentalists, with unshakeable faith in the inerrant infallibility of "the system." It was apparent that he was firmly convinced that I was withholding information and was just messing with him by telling him that I didn't--that it was just trial and error.

      We made him an offer for full time employment when he graduated, at a rate that left no profit margin on our negotiated contract rate. A local government laboratory offered him $5K more per year plus a 5K bonus before graduation, so maybe his Access Angst wasn't the problem.

  18. ske1fr

    Schadenfreude

    Access. You know those human evolution pictures, ape to Neanderthal to: yeah you know. Well, I've been using Access since 1.0. Yes, the one that didn't work, then 1.1 that worked if you begged for 8 megabytes of RAM...and it was all I could get after dBase IV so cut me some slack! So back to the evolution metaphor. Access 2010 represented the peak of evolution, thing is, I could get stuff done with it...and then came Access 2013.

    Access 2013 is the Devo of Databases. Clearly Microsoft thought so little of the program that they said "We need to throw out a new version of Access for Office 2013. Here, Booji Boy, see what you can do with it!"

    So now I'm learning R.

    Actually, come to think of it...

    "Are we not men?"

    "We are Microsoft."

    This explains a lot...

  19. hayzoos
    Joke

    Am I biased?

    "monthly Patch Tuesday excitement"

    Did anybody else misread the above snippet as "monthly Patch Tuesday excrement"?

  20. Roger Mew

    Hmph

    I found that the update ruined my printer connection and because the thing had stopped administrator my printer settings all went to cock and also altered the way the colours were attributed. After several conversations with MS, a complete new reload, and still no colour correction this being over 5 days, I discovered that as my colour was not correct that my screen colours were no longer correct and had to manually reset them. I wasted 5 days, it must have cost MS $1000's just for mine all due to someone's incompetence. Had I not my Win 7 computer as well then I would have been "dans le merde". Pleas MS get your act together or at least give us a chance to resort to our last trouble free version, in my case 7.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019