Windows Vista SP1 Meeting Sour Reception In Places 501
Stony Stevenson writes "A day after it was released for public download, Windows Vista SP1 is drawing barbs from some computer users who say the software wrecked their systems. 'I downloaded it via Windows Update, and got a bluescreen on the third part of the update,' wrote 'Iggy33' in a comment posted Wednesday on Microsoft's Vista team blog. Iggy33 was just one of dozens of posters complaining about Vista Service Pack 1's effect on their PCs. Other troubles reported by Vista SP1 users ranged from a simple inability to download the software from Microsoft's Windows Update site to sudden spikes in memory usage. To top it all off, the service pack will not install on computers that use peripheral device drivers that Microsoft has deemed incompatible."
And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously it'd be better if no such incompatibility existed, but if you have to deal with such a situation, this seems like the best way to do it, by far.
Time to disable auto install of updates (Score:5, Insightful)
A bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's know that anytime an update is released there will always be some problems. http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/19/some-vista-sp1-early-adopters-reporting-problems-how-about-you/#comments [engadget.com]
12 blog comments = news ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vocal Minority, as Usual (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it news that a few dozen people have issues with a service pack installation? Oh, that's right... this is Slashdot.
Slashdot should just get it over with and change their slogan to "News for people who hate Microsoft. Stuff that we made up."
How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or rather, how about installing the parts that CAN be installed and skipping anything else?
This is about getting PATCHES in place. Not whether you have an unsupported CD-ROM and, therefore, you will not be allowed to apply the OTHER patches.
Re:How about ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the FUD Wagon Roll (Score:3, Insightful)
There are specific drivers versions that the update will not work with (and will prevent installation until they're updated), and specific application versions that break too. Shocking, it's true.
Someone remind me how many binary proprietary drivers break in Linux when you upgrade the kernel? All the nvidia drivers come to mind...but I digress.
This isn't a troll, these are facts...maybe it sucks that drivers are binary proprietary blobs that get shipped with Windows, but because they are, I'd say "dozens" isn't a bad percentage. I've been running SP1 just fine for weeks btw...
Perhaps the real news here is Vista should've shipped only when SP1 came out? Win2k8 did.
Re:12 blog comments = news ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dozens? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I'm backing Microsoft, but if they only have dozens of complaints on something with an installed base that large - then I'd consider the release a rather large success.
More people had problems downloading the NIN album.
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've had no problems (Score:1, Insightful)
SP1 has met and exceeded my expectations. I haven't tried it in an Enterprise environment BUT, as a person would has worked in large corporate enterprises, it wouldn't be an authorized patch until it passed QA.
So what's the problem? As I see it - General Microsoft woes.
Apple's updates also cause instability and incompatibilities.
Prepare, Backup and Install - a good practice.
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
-1, Flamebait (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dozens" of users of unknown levels of technical knowledge (out of millions of users) issued anecdotal complaints.
Firstly, is 'seem' a technical term? How do we know whether it went slower or not? Secondly a little reading would have told this guy that SuperFetch was basically rebooted by the install, which will make things slower for those using it until it catches back up.
There are several reasons for this, the most important that a previous update allows Windows to scan for drivers incompatible with SP1 and prevent download so as not to break the system (which TFA mentions).
So? What is with this obsession with memory usage? Idle RAM has a slightly negative value - it does nothing while still consuming a non-zero amount of energy. How RAM is used is much more important than whether or not it is used. Now, it may be that this guy only has 1 GB of RAM. It could be that this is the result of a problem. But who knows? Not the author.
Some had 'insightful' comments complaining about increased memory usage. Memory usage is a worthless metric! How memory is usage is more important than how much - and really, would you rather have that RAM in use making your system respond faster, or would you rather have it sit there doing nothing? There's some give and take here, but complaining about memory usage without context is meaningless.
A legitimate (if unsubstantiated by the article) complaint, but well known before SP1 and really even before Vista.
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
I sense a double standard.
If someone loaded a driver that was known not to work with a given linux kernel and then it didn't work and caused kernel panics, what would we hear? Something like -- you're an idiot, you brought this on yourself, linux even warned you it was incompatible when you installed it, how much of a dipshit are you? What exactly did you expect?
The same thing happens on Windows and we'll hear chants of "Vista sucks because it crashes all the time" followed by a slashdot "Amen!" The fact that its crashing because the user loaded a driver Vista warned him not too? Well its still Vista's fault for some reason.
Re:Time to disable auto install of updates (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not positive on this, but I would presume that in order to install XP, you would need to format the drive and do a clean install of XP. So if by "screw up the computer" you mean, "Lose any data which wasn't backed up to another medium or another computer), yes. The only other thing I'd be slightly worried about is just verifying that all the hardware in the laptop is supported by XP - but that is pretty likely to be the case. Still, it's not guaranteed, so it might be worth taking a few minutes to check.
You may also want to download the XP drivers to a CD-Rom or something, so that, if e.g. you can't get on your network right away after installing XP, you can install the network driver from the CD. You might also want to put video drivers on the CD, so you can install the latest driver first thing, to get XP out of "VGA" mode, and into a more usable video mode right away.
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, that's what you get for pioneering and dominating the market for an OS that's supposed to run on thousands of hardware configurations?
Or, to put it another way, maybe those guys over at Apple aren't so crazy after all
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the important thing here, and whether or not Ubuntu, or any other OS on earth, can manage it is 100% irrelevant. The fact that it's possible in another setting doesn't prove it's possible in this one.
I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:4, Insightful)
And that most Linux distributions can. For free (as in beer).
But feel free to claim that a company with BILLIONS of dollars and hundreds of programmers at their disposal MAY NOT be able to duplicate that feat.
And that's the best you have?
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, "may not be able" is the best I have because it's the truth. We don't know how exactly what the service pack's code structure looks like, so we can't make an actual judgement as to whether or not the offending portion can just be cut out. Anything's possible with the proper amount of time and effort, but there's a huge difference between "just don't install that part", versus "not installing that part would require a total rewrite of the service pack". Both are possible scenarios, and without having looked at the code ourselves, we simply don't know what's the truth here!
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:2, Insightful)
When a Windows update goes haywire, Microsoft is blamed.
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
However I'll note that the double standard partly arises from a "Windows vs. Linux" myth. That is, Windows is supposedly "compatible with everything" and there are "drivers for every device." According to the myth, Windows isn't supposed to have those kinds of problems; only Linux has trouble with "strange hardware."
For those of us who know that it's a myth (and that both operating systems support a plethora of devices, though obviously not every single one), it's at least interesting to see a concrete example. Windows has driver problems too. In both Windows and Linux, non-existent or buggy drivers can ruin the user experience. And in both cases, if a user loads potentially unsafe software, they must accept the consequences.
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be true if there were enough competition in the OS market for Microsoft to be concerned about it. For most people, if you have a PC, you use Windows because that's all that's available. It's not that they wouldn't know how to install Linux, or are afraid to try something new, they're not even aware of it. And, as long as that's true, Microsoft won't care about pissing off their customers because for all practical purposes they have a monopoly.
Bias via experience and disappointment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dozens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers.
Re:How about ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely it is because Linux remains "the geek's OS." You are expected to dig yourself out of whatever hole you've dug yourself into.
The geek maintains the distinction between the computer and the operating system only when it is convenient.
The Windows PC has no standard configuration.
It can be customized endlessly by a billion end-users who have no understanding of the underlying technology.
The modem is rented from a cable service. The video card purchased from the bargain bin at Tiger Direct. The RAM from eBay.
But, according to the geek, Microsoft is expected to tie all this together and make it work 100% of the time.
From a vista user's perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a handful of drivers (there is a list on technet I believe, but Im too lazy to dig a link up, but check one of the first posts in the last SP1 post on slashdot) which for one reason or another install themselves in such a way as SP1 makes them inoperable. The solution is to reinstall the drivers after SP1. Microsoft is trying to make this smooth - with Vista's reputation, what do you think would happen when Joe Public installs an update and their sound driver goes bad? Simple solution or not it is only going to hurt the reputation further.
It is very good to see that at least SP1 backs out cleanly when it sees it cannot complete the update, and from what I have read and heard from customers (mainly Joe Public types) that SP1 is installing without real issue for the majority of people. Personally, I installed last night without any issues - I actually noticed that my machine feels more responsive in a number of areas.
With that said, it is a service pack.. sometimes there are compatibility issues, look at XP SP2 when it came out but nobody bitches about that anymore; if the negative impact is minimized, then good for them.
Put away your pitchforks for once.. I've had enough updates on my Linux boxes go wrong that I find the "Evil Microsoft, Linux perfect" comments being hypocritical - but then, this IS slashdot..
(I know I'll be modded into oblivion because of that last comment, but I had to say it)
Funny, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:5, Insightful)
You've inadvertently highlighted the reason that Microsoft is having problems with this service pack. Microsoft has a problem with this service pack because it doesn't write all (or even most) of the drivers for Vista. Instead it created an set of APIs that allows Windows to load random binary drivers that may or may not be very good (or even completely compliant). So when Microsoft makes a major change things break.
Interestingly enough in your case Ubuntu fails because it is doing the same thing. ndiswrapper is nothing more than a tool to allow you to run binary-only Windows drivers on Linux. There's no way that the Linux developers or the Ubuntu packagers can know what those drivers are going to do when you update the kernel (and most parts of userspace). When you think about it carefully you'll realize that it is amazing that the drivers work at all, much less that the work after upgrading the Linux kernel.
I think that you would find that Linux works much better with hardware that is supported natively.
As a gamer... (Score:2, Insightful)
No issues came up. Like others have pointed out, the fact that dozens had issues, I would consider this release a major success.
Now time to go play some COD4.
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
ROFL (Score:1, Insightful)
SP1 works fine.
Not installing on systems with incompatible drivers is a sensible thing to do (and would be praised if Apple was doing it or if some Linux distro did that).
Vista is good, get over it. Most people bashing it don't even know why they are other than it's "in" to do it. Here's an example, complaining about UAC... when it's just doing what OS X/*NIX ALREADY DO.
I must be a Microsoft fanboi!!!
Oh wait. I'm typing this up on a Linux machine omg.
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, silly, I expect to be able to change the oil without my car breaking down! It's pretty sad if that's too much asking.
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Though, that might happen anyway... There seems to be some real fear that if we don't figure out how to make parallel architectures go fast, the industry will just get sales for replacements. There is little instruction-level parallelism left to exploit and power/heat issues are making it difficult to just throw transistors at a problem. Hopefully the guys at ParLab (and me too, if I can help, haha) can figure things out.
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The driver writer was doing something that was specifically not supported in windows, but for some reason didnt actually fail in the RTM version, but did fail in the SP1 version, as things are tightened up. The driver writer did something wrong, should MS continue to support broken drivers?
2. The driver writer was relying on an implementation bug in Vista RTM, which was fixed in SP1.
3. The driver writer was directly modifying kernel data structures in memory. These data structures can change with new service packs. If allowed to continue, they would basically clobber other random memory structures.
It just goes on like that. This is software business 101 stuff, that Microsoft has been dealing with for over a decade.
The reality is, most driver authors (and most ISVs in general) are utterly and completely incompetent. They dont read or follow the guidance MS puts out on how to make an application or driver function correctly in windows. They dont follow best practices.
In the bad old days, MS used to put hacks and special cases in their operating systems to support buggy applications. With Vista, and especially with the x64 version of Vista, they've been alot less lenient.
This is good in the long run because it forces IHVs and ISVs to clean up their act. But it can cause some pain in the short run.
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not entirely likely to be true. What seems to happen over here in reality, is this:
Kernel (or X) update shows up, and the user is prompted to install it.
After installing it, the system doesn't fucking work anymore, because nothing ever checked to see if the update would break with the installed hardware.
One of two things then occurs:
If the user has another computer handy they get to research and attempt to solve the problem in the comfort of a web browser.
If the user does not have another computer handy, they get to try to puzzle it out themselves using arcane command line tools that they've never seen before, with text-mode documentation they've never had to find before. If they're really clever, and can get to the network, they might install and use Links and be able to search forums for help, but chances are they've never used that before either.
In both cases, after pissing away several hours or evenings trying to make it work, they either succeed and their computer again works just as well as it did last week, or they get frustrated and abandon Linux altogether. (Maybe they'll try it again some day, maybe not.)
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft to Realtek:
"Heres the driver API!"
Realtek:
"Argh this is hard. Fortunately I'm clever and can use this undocumented function."
(time passes)
Realtek:
"Ack, fuck. What happened to my fucking undocumented function?"
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is more like having the dealership's mechanics change the oil using oil and parts supplied by Ford, then having the car blow up while still in the dealer's parking lot. Microsoft's Service Packs are designed for Microsoft products by Microsoft programmers and installed using Microsoft's preferred delivery mechanism. Consumers have the reasonable expectation that the computer will still boot after completing the process. The company cannot blame the consumer for having changed the windshield wiper blades, adding an air freshener, and plugging a cell phone charger into the lighter socket. The car should still move under its own power.
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you see, this often used to be Microsofts approach to such matters. It doesn't work well (so I'm glad they figured that out). Some of the reasons have already been explained by others in this thread. I'd like to add that basically, the system would be asking a question to which there is no correct answer. "Using this driver may affect your systems stability or not work at all. Continue regardless yes/no?" is a question that I, as a user, should never have to answer.
I mean, how should I know!? Maybe I'll say yes, and my system may not boot the next time because the driver crashes. Then again, if I say no, the system may not boot the next time, because it might have been the video driver, and without one there's not much one can do in Windows.
Adding such a dialog would only make matters worse.
Re:How about ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not long ago I thought I would give Vista a look. I then found out that my Soundblaster Live! 5.1 had no official drivers available. Well, that card works fine with the several other OS's on that machine so I saw no point in replacing the card. I did find some converted XP drivers, but Vista uninstalled them upon reboot (every time you rebooted). OK, enough about that, I used an unsupported card, my bad. Same machine, same Vista install, a totally unrelated hard drive fails (happened to be the one with my XP partition on it). Now Vista won't boot at all. In fact it does nothing... spits out a couple errors and reboots. Screw Vista.
I fail to see how this is "easier" than dealing with hardware under Linux. At least with Linux you have a couple of very handy tools that will get you pointed in the correct direction. First off, you can lspci and lsmod to see what hardware is recognized and what drivers are loaded. You can also look at dmesg and
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. My point. Completely.
I was not implying that Windows > Linux. I was not implying that Linux is not on par with Windows. I was not implying just about anything that you seem to think I was implying. It's to be expected here on Slashdot that anyone who says anything other than "M$ iz teh sux0r!" and "Linux 1z d4h b3st!" gets barraged with belligerence from tards like you.
My original post said simply that Linux cannot magically do what Windows cannot, and thinking that it is some magic bullet that makes all IT issues disappear is naive at best. Linux does not just do everything Vista cannot, although there are many things that it does do far better Many (but not all) of Vista's problems are just the result of the fact that making software work for all people on all combinations of hardware given wildly varying usage environments is just damn hard. Reading any more into what I said is putting words into my mouth. But as I said, if you don't tow the "Linux Rulez!!@!" line around here you get yappy-mouthed twits following you around and badgering you like a bunch of underage groupies at a Snoop Dogg concert.
Re:That IS the service pack. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Mods must be crazy!
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny that I hear people talk about recopiling the drivers with the different version headers and then in the same sentence claim that the general public should give up on MS and move to Linux. Are you crazy? Do you really think that anyone non technical would have a CLUE about how to do that in what is frequently considered the most user friendly distro, (k)ubuntu? I am not a MS fan, but we have to be reasonable here; they have their place until things get better on that front. I am perfectly OK with the upgrade not occurring with drivers that will fail, as long as they tell me which drivers are the ones that screwed it up.