Vista SP1 Update Locks Out Some Users 410
Echostorm writes with word that Windows Vista SP1, which began rolling out via Automatic Update, has left some users' machines unbootable. The update loops forever on "Configuring updates: Stage 3 of 3 — 0% complete. Do not turn off your computer." "Shutting down"... restart and loop. Echostorm notes having found traces of what sounds like the same bug in early beta releases of SP1. It's unclear how many users are affected. So far there is no word on a fix from Microsoft.
Re:Just desserts? (Score:2, Insightful)
I suck.
Regression testing, people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Regression testing, people (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That should show that you never (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly not what I'd call an "easy" process -- easy for me, maybe -- but it's by no means a brick.
Re:You can't make this stuff up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You can't make this stuff up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can't make this stuff up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not on windows update (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You can't make this stuff up. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:ROFLMAO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For those who say "Get a Mac" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You can't make this stuff up. (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly.
Re:You can't make this stuff up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ROFLMAO (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how the pro-MS trolls are out in force today.
Re:ROFLMAO (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a problem reported on a beta version, and so will likely be fixed in the final. The final is currently 'unreleased' to the public (although it's out there), and the beta version requires registry entries to install. In both cases you need admin rights on the machine. The summary is *completely* wrong in that SP1 is not available on Windows Update yet, and that's even assuming that the problem isn't fixed in the final.
Given all that, it seems like an awfully convienent time, '10 minutes ago' for this to happen to you (and if somehow you are telling the truth, what sort of IT department lets users install service packs themselves, let alone unreleased service packs?)
Re:Moderator's on crack (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it was the reference to "Mak" and "MakOz"? The only thing missing was "Mak f@nboiz SUXRZ!".
Decoupling is good, even if it means duplicates (Score:2, Insightful)
Major free software packages like gcc does the same, include their own copy of various utilities and libraries. Doing so provides the best of two worlds, it allows code sharing at the development plane, while avoiding the coupling usually associated with using some other projects code.
There is a tiny price in disk usage for the end user, but a price worth paying for not having to wait an additional year for new features, because release schedules have to get synchronized.
To get the full benefit it is necessary to have established clear ownership of the various components, and have a strong ethics with regard to making sure changes are propagated back "upstream". Such an ethics is evolving in the free software world.
I have no idea if the situation is similar inside Microsoft, but the basic mechanisms favoring decoupling certainly exists within a large company as well.
Re:Regression testing, people (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironic, one of the greatest abusers of standards today, being bitten on the ass because of non-standards compliance.