Thanks but Solution 1 is not applicable and Solution 2 relies on me being able to change the Startup Type of the Windows Installer Service to Disabled but this field is "greyed out" and cannot be changed from Manual.
I am a local administrator so I have no idea why this service cannot be changed while most others can.
I'm not even sure if it is an MSI-related issue as no MSI logs are produced before it gets to popping up the dialog. I think it has something to do with the way the JDK 9 installer works (given that JDK 8 installers continue to work perfectly).
I'm not sure that it is a Java Installer error. In my case, I'm running Java 9 on Ubuntu 16.04 and it's working perfectly.
You can get response quickly in Microsoft Windows forums.
Take a loot a those solutions.
It is *definitely* an issue with the JDK 9 installer itself for the following reasons:
1. Installing or uninstalling any other Windows software works fine.
2. Installing or uninstalling JDK 8 builds work perfectly.
3. It never even gets to the point of running the MSI within the JDK 9 installer (as verified on another machine).
4. I have asked the same question on StackExchange, Expert's Exchange and in Java Community forums and no one has a solution.
Something must have changed between the installer for JDK 8 ad JDK 9 that has introduced this problem. As I said, I was also *previously* able to install JDK 9 builds but then "something happened" and now I cannot install any of those previous JDK 9 builds either.
I can *uninstall* JDK 9 without any issues but, after that, there is no JDK 9 on my machine and I'm in real trouble!
This is now a mission critical problem and I really hope someone can help me.
Is there *anyone* out there who can offer at least some suggestions as to how to fix this?
My job is focused on using JDK 9 but I am still unable to even install it.
jdk-9+177 successfully installed in Windows 7.
Well, for me, jdk-9+177 gives exactly the same error message, even after I have successfully uninstalled b174 from the Control Panel. Thanks to a colleague, I can install this build because they managed to unpack the contained MSI file from the JDK 9 installer.
THIS IS NOT A WINDOWS/MSI PROBLEM!
It never even starts to run the Windows Installer. It is something in the "new" JDK installer that thinks another JDK installation is in progress. Who knows, it could be a file somewhere or a registry entry that should have been removed but hasn't been cleaned-up.
Only someone intimately involved with the JDK 9 installer will be able to tell me what I need to remove or change to stop the installer believing another installer is running.
Is there anyone there at Oracle who can answer this? If not, I am forever in b174 "Groundhog Day"...
Surely SOMEONE must know why the JDK 9 installer does not work but the JDK 8 installer does work?
What other forum could I post in to get an answer?
I am in a very, very difficult predicament as I need to keep up-to-date with each early release of Java 9.
Dalibor.Topic-Oracle Can you suggest anything???
My manager has filed a bug report in relation to this issue today.
After filing the bug report, how am I or my manager to know if it is actually a defect and if/when it has been resolved?
I really, really need to be able to install the latest JDK 9 on my machine as matter of urgency.
Take a look at Java Bug Database - FAQ Bug Database FAQ
4. What happens when I submit an issue through bugreport.java.com ?
When an issue has been submitted successfully, a record gets created in the Java Incidents Database. After an initial triage process, it may be transferred to be an issue in the JDK project. When such a transfer occurs, an issue gets created in the Java Bug System (JBS) and a bug id, JDK-8YYYYYY, will be sent to you.
Any bug report which is abusive will be deleted. Bug reports that are unclear or incomplete should not be submitted and may be deleted.
An Oracle engineer will contact you if additional information is required to proceed with the analysis of the bug report / enhancement. A bug's life cycle is explained in this blog
Thanks! The instructions provided by Locke have enabled me to resolve this issue.
Much appreciated :-)