537876
story
Comments: 278 +- Vista SP1 Is Even Less Compatible on Saturday February 23 2008, @12:59PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Saturday February 23 2008, @12:59PM
from the preemptive-diasabling dept.
from the preemptive-diasabling dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwindows.gif); width:49px; height:65px;
windows
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicos.gif); width:66px; height:49px;
os
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsoftware.gif); width:65px; height:65px;
software
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Microsoft is now saying that Vista SP1 disables some 3rd party applications. The KB article on SP1 incompatibility states: 'For reliability reasons, Microsoft blocks these programs from starting after you install Windows Vista SP1.' It does link to several vendor support pages with updates or workarounds. Unfortunately, at least one of the suggestions consists of merely disabling part of the program, which could leave you with half an anti-virus solution."
Related Stories
Submission: Vista SP1: Now Less Compatible Than Before by Anonymous Coward
Vista Service Pack One Almost Here 286 comments
The Marines:
The few, the proud, the not very bright.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Increased security. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Increased security. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Blocks or warns? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Blocks or warns? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It's normal (Score:5, Insightful)
People are quick to slam Microsoft again here. For those reading TFKBA, most of the apps are either:
In conclusion, move along, nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's normal (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bit of a catch-22, isn't there? (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd be wrong.
A couple of years ago, a study were performed using XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, OSX (Panther, I think), and some version of Red Hat.
In the study, the computers were connected to the net and timed to see how long each would be compromised. XP and XP SP1 were compromised within seconds (like 12 or so, IIRC), but XP SP2, OSX, and Red Hat systems ran for two weeks without being compromised, at which point the test was ended. The study showed that XP SP2 was attacked orders of magnitude more than OSX and Red Hat, but the attacks failed.
Parent
Re:It's normal (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Vista again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are we still even talking about Vista? Is anybody really using Vista these days? Governments and Organizations have spoken out against Vista, Office 2007 and it lives in infamy everywhere else. Even Microsoft's Eric Traut [youtube.com] has somewhat spoken out against Vista and Windows in general.
Everywhere I go people say I'll stick to XP for as long as I can, even in the Enterprise. These type of /. submissions are getting really old really fast since they all repeat the same message: stay the hell away from Vista.
Re:Vista again? (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry but this is slashdot. Sticking it to Microsoft NEVER gets old.
Are you new around here or something ?
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but this is slashdot. Sticking it to Microsoft NEVER gets old.
I'm about as anti-MS as they come, but even I'll stop sticking it to Microsoft the day they start making good products and start using quality as their primary market differentiator instead of strategy, deception and lock-in. It is as simple as that and the bashing will stop.
To Eddy: Vista may be a joke but it's huge and is selling by the million because most people get it with their new computers and don't know better, and crap as it is, it's the platform of the future that will run the majority of computers sold for quite some time to come ... also, ISVs (of which many of us develop for) HAVE TO use it to make sure our apps run on Vista for our customers --- so yes, here in the real world, all these Vista messes ARE news on a tech site where many of us will have to deal with the fall-out in one way or another (whether it's on the corporate side or just helping grandma with her computer etc.).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vista again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time one of these comes out there's someone ranting about the downfall of Microsoft and Windows and blah blah blah, and it never happens. They usually get Insightful mod points and everyone has a circle jerk over it. You've been doing it since Slashdot came into existence. It's ridiculous and it makes me laugh to see it keep happening over and over again and people don't even realize that they ARE doing it over and over again. Is Vista perfect? God no, not by any means. Is it a step down from XP? For the time being, perhaps. It has it's merits...I use it on a daily basis so I've got a pretty good leverage on the subject, unlike 90% of the people bitching who are using Linux at the moment and have spent all of 5 minutes on Vista. Shit changes from release to release...it happens. It sucks...it's annoying. It frustrates the hell out of me when they arbitrarily move things around just because they think it looks pretty. Was there a point in renaming "Add/Remove Programs" to "Program and Features" really? No...is the world going to come crashing down because of it? No probably not.
Also I keep seeing you guys whine about RAM usage...have none of you even read what the features of Vista are? It uses lots of RAM and caches your most frequently launched programs there...no matter what you are doing, you will always have high RAM usage...why are we even debating that? Furthermore, again, this happens every time they release an OS. It always requires better hardware. Trying to run it on an old piece of shit computer probably causes at least half of the problems we see. They can't forsee every conceivable hardware configuration...they just can't. It's impossible. I mean for christ's sake...Apple has problems too and they've got an EXTREMELY limited amount of hardware to accomodate for. What does that tell you? It tells you that it's REALLY hard to account for these things and if you think Linux does it so much better, I'd have to laugh at you. Linux still supports a laughable amount of hardware compared to Windows. Not necessarily Linux's fault, but it's still not there and people still have problems with it.
What I'm really trying to say here is that I really wish people would take a realistic and logical look at this kind of stuff. The rampant fanboyism disgusts me sometimes. If you like Linux, good for you. That's awesome. I like it too. I like Windows as well...for different reasons. They both have their merits...so does MacOSX (it's quite sexy I'll admit). Just because you like one thing though...does that mean you have to have fangasm and go apeshit about every competing product's flaws while completely ignoring the flaws of your favorite? Furthermore honestly...who even gives a shit? I'm sure most people here that aren't rabid fanboys are really getting sick of seeing the same shit like this over and over again, you know?
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my college days and for a while after, fiddling with hardware and building a working box with linux really interested me. Now, I'm tired of dealing with drivers and all the b.s. I just want an OS that lets me do what I need to do. I don't have unusual needs for hardware so I don't give a shit if Vista won't support this or that. I whipped up an order from Dell and it showed up and it works and that's that.
Vista isn't perfect and never will be. But neither is any OS from any vendor. And certainly, Vista needs some work in the short term. But, when some linux distro is robust enough to unseat Windows, it will. That's the way markets work. Until then, I just don't have the time to pretend anymore that Windows is soooooo inferior for the vast majority of users that just surf the web, read e-mail, play DVDs and other typical stuff.
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to build a MythTV box from scratch? That's the biggest pain in the balls I've ever experienced. Sure, I obviously didn't hand pick the correct hardware. But that's the point. I don't want to. Same thing for virtually every linux box I've ever built. Some went better than others. Things that have caused me headaches over the years include getting modems to work, getting video card drivers to work, getting lirc to work, and a host of other things. On the flip side, Windows boxes I've built went a lot more smoothly.
Of course, Windows isn't the answer to everything and it certainly has problems.
I write software for a living. Where I work, we don't use Vista. At work, I deal with XP, RH EL4, and Solaris 8/9. When I get home, I'm doing the simple shit. I don't care if Ubuntu gives me my e-mail in a snappier fashion, I only care that it's fast *enough*. I don't schedule my day down to the same granularity as you, I guess. I can spare a few milliseconds to wait for Thunderbird to give me my mail while it's being handicapped by Vista.
Sorry if I'm not geeky enough for this place, but if you'd step out of your mom's basement for a few minutes, you'd realize that the general public feels mostly like I do. Please spare me the "but but but but but we love computeeeeeeeeers!" routine.
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the price of compatibility is closed-source software. To recognize how little value both of these conditions have, consider that I can still compile current versions of tcpdump or fvwm or openoffice on RedHat 6, FreeBSD 5 and Solaris 8. While you ably demonstrate that a reasonable argument can be made for Windows improving over the years, your point boils down to the fact that Windows used to be worse than it is now. This is not a glowing endorsement and speaks little of the standards that they should be held up to. Microsoft's problems are due only to their own policies, and "compatibility" is only an indicator that they've built a fence that they have trouble climbing.
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:4, Interesting)
Heck, they could do this for each generation of windows too. Like "C:\Compat2K\", etc. In fact, I could see this as a very nice upgrade path as well. There are tons of opportunities here to keep the legacy optional and very functional. I just don't see why no-one at MS seems to have thought of this.
proxy
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or take the fact that Internet Explorer now runs as a different user. It's no
Re:Vista again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Vista again? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Microsoft is being extraordinarily abusive. (Score:5, Informative)
Customers are being pushed toward buying Windows Vista, even though it is clearly not a finished product, and maybe even not a desirable product.
If a company needs to buy 1,000 new computers, it is placed in a terrible position. Will it buy Windows XP, a product that Bill Gates, software's Dr. Death, has declared is Mainstream Support Retired [microsoft.com] on 4/14/2009? If it does, it will be forced to pay extra when Microsoft desides to stop supporting Windows XP. And every Microsoft customer needs official support because of the huge, huge number of vulnerabilities that are found in Microsoft products.
Operating systems don't naturally have so many vulnerabilities. Users of Mac computers don't even bother to run anti-spyware and anti-virus software because they don't have problems. Large numbers of vulnerabilities are a built-in shortcoming of Microsoft products; apparently Microsoft doesn't let its programmers finish their work. Huge numbers of vulnerabilities force an unnatural connection with the supplier; the user is dependent on the supplier for patches; that creates opportunities for control. Vulnerabilities make more money for Microsoft because people are forced to "upgrade".
When Windows XP was first released, it was very, very buggy. Windows XP became relatively usable without hassles 3 years after its introduction, with the release of SP2. Service Pack 2 for XP fixed more than 330 problems, if I remember correctly, and some of those were not documented.
We have seen numerous reasons to believe that Windows Vista will also be full of hassles at least until Vista SP2.
Microsoft's customers were forced to upgrade to Windows XP because Windows 98 had an unstable file system, an unstable registry, and lots of problems with "DLL Hell" and the "Blue Screen of Death". Customers had to endure 3 bad years with Windows XP pre-SP2. Since the release of SP2, there have been only 3 relatively good years with Windows XP, and now Microsoft is arranging pressure to have bad years again.
That's ugly in my opinion, and I'm only one of many who think that way. This is all being done by billionaires who want nothing more than more money; that's sick.
Remember, Microsoft managers are sinking the company over the long term to get short-term profit.
With operating systems, there is lock-in. Linux is not an easy option because re-writing software and re-training is too expensive in most cases. But once a reasonable alternative is available, Microsoft will have difficulty finding customers, it seems to me.
It's fine if Microsoft introduces a new product. But there should not be pressure to buy the new product until it is stable. The "new" OS product should not be designed to require users to buy new hardware, as it seems is true with Windows Vista. Remember that Microsoft serves the system builders, who want everyone to need more hardware; the final customer can be dis-regarded and dis-repected because of OS lock-in.
One of the biggest and most respected IT magazines is rejecting Windows Vista: Save Windows XP [infoworld.com]. Quote: "More than 75,000 people have signed InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition in the three weeks since it was launched - many with passionate, often emotional pleas to not be forced to make a change."
ReactOS (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Sadly optimistic was: Re:ReactOS (Score:3, Insightful)
Once that hits there will be a Windows alternative with absolutely 0 Microsoft code. It has the potential to make them irrelevant.
Even if ReactOS is capable of running 100% of windows software, it would be nearly impossible for them to reach the level of market saturation that microsoft enjoys. And it would be very difficult to describe a product with such high presence as being so easily made irrelevant.
With that said, I'll also say that I would be first to celebrate any such falling of windows. I run any OS I can in the place of windows, anywhere I can. But saying that ReactOS has the potential to make windows "irrelevant" i
Wine for Windows (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the vendors mentioned (ironically, with the exception of Novell) already have fixes/workarounds either ready or in progress.
I kind of doubt there are any antitrust implications when MS contacts the affected vendors in advance. TFA even notes that "this step was taken with the consent of the affected vendors."
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Interesting)
AV vendors have been claiming antitrust for eight months. SP1 causes great inconvenience to their customers, what a suspicious coincidence. If the vendors were really cooperating SP1 would have contained their improvements, not a little note or a lock out.
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see how there can be an issue, but where is the issue YET?
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if the AV companies legitimately do NOT have enough time before SP1 is pushed to the public, then I could see getting up in arms.
Otherwise, isnt this just common sense? Fix whats insecure and broken, advise the third parties of the changes, then release after a suitable dev delay?
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda like how people who write web pages by testing with IE and seeing it broken in Firefox etc. because the app they tested with wasn't quite obeying the standards, really...
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read an interesting article way back when about how Microsoft has had to bend over backwards, replicating old bugs and inconsistencies so that existing software won't break when users upgrade. At this point, I think it's safe to say that all those efforts, combined with the other political stupidity microsoft has done (like integrating IE into the OS) is now starting to bite Microsoft in the rear. Vista is just the critical mass of all bugs piled on top of bugs on top of API changes, etc.
I think Apple had the right idea when they made OS X. Redo the whole OS, and then include the old OS in a compatibility VM. That way you get a clean start while still supporting older apps.
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, Microsoft listened to the complaint and fixed it which requires that the antivirus companies change their programs to adhere to the published API. Exactly what is the problem again?
Oh yeah, Slashdot. You have to complain otherwise people might notice that you're 45 and still living in your parents' basement.
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, speaking as a customer of one of the affected vendors who uses Vista SP1, I'd have to disagree with you. I've been running Trend Micro Internet Security 2008 since December, and when I upgraded to Vista SP1 2 days ago I had no problems. Trend starts and runs just like it should. From everything that I've read, all it takes to fix the issue is for the affected vendors to release an update to their application. Since most of the applications in question are security applications that should (if installed correctly) be downloading regular definition updates anyway, it's likely that the vast majority of users will get their applications patched before they are able to download SP1. In my example, Trend Micro apparently released the fix before I downloaded SP1. Since SP1 wasn't available from Windows update at the time (the only way I know of to get a legit copy is via MSDN), then it's doubtful that many people have seen the problem at all.
I know that this particular KB article has gotten a lot of press lately, but I haven't seen one case of a user complaining that they've had the problems described. All of the press seems to be based on the fact that Microsoft found a potential issue and made a KB article about it. That hardly constitutes "great inconvenience to their customers".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trend Micro [fsf.org] works but Novell [fsf.org] does not. Let that be a lesson to those who would cooperate with Microsoft, it never lasts. They may reward you today but they will punish you tomorrow.
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find that ironic, considering their industry is based solely around the insecurity of Windows.
False. The primary purpose of AV software is to deflect the bullet when the user tries to shoot himself in the foot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
SP1 actually has some changes in it to placate the AV vendors. Windows x64 introduced a feature called Kernel Patch Protection [wikipedia.org] which as the name implies blocks (at least as much as humanly possible) attempts to patch or otherwise hook things in to the kernel. This has been something that Windows has been needing for some time since it stops certain malware/rootkit vectors along with lazy software authors dinking around with the kernel causing it to crash. But most of the AV vendors simply keep brining their
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:4, Funny)
Debian! Debian! [debian.org] SUSE! SUSE! [suse.org] Hippopotami! Hippopotami! [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubuntu is not the solution in this case. Going back to XP is. (Since I want to keep my games and all the other cool stuff that Ubuntu just can't do.)
Parent
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Informative)
You could have read the article. AV vendors were locked out of the kernel with Vista, for security reasons, which are valid for all Operating Systems and not smoke-up-the-ass reasons. After complaints, SP1 *adds* a more secure API support so the AV vendors can screw with the kernel again (more carefully). This is Microsoft bending to the AV vendors' collective will. Necessarily, this means AV vendors have to change their support. So they do, and consent to this because this is precisely what they asked for.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:AntiTrust concerns? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's at the bottom, where it should be, so you read all the comments in the thread before posting one of your own, thereby reducing the likelihood of redundant comments.
Of course, there is still the possibility of posting a comment similar to one which was posted after your copy of the page loaded. Hey, it happens.
Also, seemingly redundant comments on separate branches of a thread are not redundant. They're in response to entirely different comments.
Comments which restate