This project is read-only.

WER Customer Advisory Panel Meeting Notes 7/08/2008

Jul 9, 2008 at 9:13 PM


·         Kevin Hill (khill)



·        bigfix

·         mcafee

·         hp

·         symantec




1.     Business Problem

a.     Background

        i.    WER has been collecting applications’ unhandled crash data since Windows XP SP2

b.     Business Opportunity

c.     Success Criteria

d.     Customer or Market Needs

e.     Risks/Unknowns

2.     Solution Vision

a.     Vision Statement

        i.    ISV’s are able to quickly response to unhandled exceptions in the Windows ecosystem as a result of actionable data presented through Windows Error Reporting Properties.

b.     Feature Areas (How to Enable the Vision)

        i.    Business Decision Makers (BDM) Scorecard

1.     Problem Description

a.     Only one real way to look at business problems, by # of hits against a bucket

2.     Desired Change;

a.     Metrics to show:

         i.    Per File

       ii.    File grouping (Application)

      iii.    Per OS

     iv.    Per Machine Type (RAC)

         ii.    Advanced Cab Analysis

1.     Problem Description

a.     Currently we only show bucket signatures and provide cab files

2.     Desired Change

a.     Analyze cabs for failure information

b.     Provide onsite solution for symbol based analysis

          iii.    Premier Notifications

1.     Problem Description

a.     Currently we have a person compiling all the data and communicating with TAM’s about customers that have a high crashing events within the Windows ecosystem

2.     Desired Change

a.     Integrate with a http://premier type system that would actively track TAM’s for companies, generate emails to TAM’s for customers that are contributing to large numbers of crashes.  This will give companies a single source or at least minimize the amount of touches they need with MS.

           iv.    Advanced Mapping

1.     Problem Description

a.     The current mapping for ISC’s is done throught a mapping tool where they have to map their own binaries.  This method is not full proof.

2.     Desired Change

a.     Update the current process to include all mappings much be approved

b.     Add ranking system to show potential owners for files

          v.    Search

1.     Problem Description

a.     No requirements exist today to define how search should return valuable results

2.     Desired Change

a.     Create the search criteria definitions to help users get to the appropriate information faster and more predictably

c.     Q&A


1.     Are you planning on providing any of the binaries or the source codes for Advanced CAB Analyst?

a.     We are providing the binaries and the source codes, so the Codeplex is an open source initiative we have to provide the source code, we want you to have that information.


2.     Shorter turnaround time?

a.     Currently working 3 days behind schedule, and working on getting a quicker response.


3.     Pieter commenting on Integrations with VC Compiler, speaking for their team he wouldn’t use…they use post processing on the binaries after compilation. So the Cataloging tool needs to run on the post processing binaries not the compiled binaries.

a.     Bigger value would be to have a web service for mapping if they needed to be integrated out in a different ID or a different part of the build process, you could do that.  Trying to get development resources from Visual Studio to try and help build some of this infrastructure.  


4.     Further Analysis of the cabs – Would you intend on to do anything to group similar areas together?

a.     Yes, right now we look at the bucket signature, 6 parameter on the site ….other teams going through analyzing looking at the possibility of fixing 10 buckets you will be then fixing the 100 that are attached to it.  Essentially you would have two views, bucket view and failure view which will show that if you fix this problem in this file, then you fix these 10 or 12 buckets.


5.     In the mapping portion, the mapping tool supports the file that check yes we own or no we don’t.  Is there an ability in the mapping tool delineate, I ship the file, but I don’t own it?

a.     We are looking at doing different ways or mapping, seeing it from a hardware stand point is a great suggestion.


6.     Currently searching for dll’s through .exe’s, is there any way to search within cabs? Enhancing tool to search directly within the Cabs     

a.     We are currently looking at the mapping portion of our site, to see how to make it more effective once our October release is done.


7.     Latency of Data? 

a.     Working on getting that caught up, we have been trying to get caught up and fix the bugs associated with this issue of getting data processed and published live.  Fixed in about a month.


8.     Product Rollup, v2.0 of a product, multiple files…I now have version 3.0 mapping a response and tell them to upgrade to v3.0…can we do a batch response for a batch rollup.  Crashes against v2.0 automatically sent to go to v3.0?

a.     Right now, live on the site we don’t have the ability to do that.  We can do that internally and would be more than happy to help you with that rollup.


9.     Requesting additional CAB data….I want to pull from a specific file…can’t specify a sub directory.

a.     Manually answer that via When our site was coded, they were worried about hacking the site.  As of right now, feel free to email us for a manual workaround.


10.   Metrics – contract metrics on mapping responses, how many times does that response page pop up?

a.     In our October Release, We will have that available Customer Satisfaction %, # of times the response has been viewed, and the # of survey responses we have received.