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.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubuntu can do it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost every Linux distribution can manage this without any problem. Many of them doing it for free (as in beer).
And yet you're saying that Microsoft could not. Whatever.
Re: (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
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: (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 par
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:4, Informative)
RPM-based Red Hat ?
You, sir, are full of shit. Sure, Red Hat tends to be stable when you stick to the base packages. The reason everything is 18 months out of date is because they test the living shit out of their builds, and that's fine. We used to call that Debian, btw.
Now, install something non-standard on Red Hat, and you almost have to unless you're doing something extremely simple, and you'll quickly find yourself at the mercy of disjointed updates, and the beloved hassle of virtual packages. This is true of any package management system, but RPM seems to make it just a little more painful than average, being bound to archaic build routines and an intentional lack of "cheating" abilities.
I use Red Hat, but all my mission-critical apps are built from source and kept far far away from the package manager.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (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 s
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:4, Informative)
As other people said, you my friend are smoking something really overkill.
I have Ubuntu on my laptop, I installed 7.04 and made it work as fine as I could (i had to buy a separate wireless card because the one that came with the laptop did not work... that did not happen in Windows).
When I upgraded to 7.10, the 3D graphics acceleration which was working with the free x.org drivers in 7.04 just broke up. There is no freaking way in hell to make it work. And I spent two weekends (saturdays AND sundays) trying to make it work, including asking in the oh so good ubuntu forums. My questions just get ignored.
So yeah, Ubuntu could do it, Microsoft could do it to, and better than Ubuntu or any Linux distro. But it does not happens.
Now, please pass that shit you are smoking, it really seems to be good stuff.
Re:I said "Ubuntu can do it". (Score:4, Informative)
Vista's problem appears to be that drivers often don't exist for "legacy" devices -- that is to say devices that aren't currently being sold but were being sold last week. Ubuntu's problem is that they ship drivers that don't work with their kernel modifications. The solution to most device problems seems to be either to get source for an updated driver and compile it against the Ubuntu headers, or to replace the Ubuntu kernel with a stock Debian kernel. That is, that is the solution if you are lucky.
I hardly think Ubuntu deserves to be held up as an example of hardware compatibility, if they ship drivers with their distro that doesn't work with their kernel modifications. Microsoft, at least, can justly claim they don't have access to the driver source.
If you have a couple of different problems with Ubuntu and hardware, and search the net for solutions, you hear the same stories over and over again. The Ubuntu upgrade broke some piece of hardware, but some people had good luck getting the source and compiling it against Ubuntu's headers; others have luck replacing the Ubuntu kernel with the stock Debian kernel. Then you have a smattering of things that people tried and worked for some reason they can't fathom, then there are instructions of the jump-down-turn-around-pick-a-bale-of-cotton variety which might work but nobody real expects them to. Then you have a few lonely voices saying they tried every suggestion and nothing and worked, and does anybody please, please have any ideas of what to try next? Sometimes they get an answer, which is that this sort of thing should be much less common in the next major release, contrary to experience with every prior release since the project's inception.
Still, I'm using Ubuntu, not because it's perfect, but because it's better for what I need it for. I use virtual machines extensively, and they run more smoothly under Ubuntu X86_64 than under Ubuntu 32 bit or Vista. I can live without sound, although I miss playing music while I work.
Next time around I'm definitely going back to Debian. They may be slow to get the latest versions of everything out, but when they do it works better. I'd go back to Debian now, but I've spent way more than my budgeted time screwing around with the operating system, and its well past the "educational" stage where you do things like read the ACPI specs to figure out how things work, and into the stage of being a plain old PITA.
Clearly, Linux is a better operating system in this sense: given that it's mere fantasy that "things just work", it's better to have a single device fail than to have the entire OS unusable. Not that a bad device driver can't cause a kernel panic, but when the source to a driver is available, it's much less likely to make it into a distribution doing something that will bring the entire system down. It might not work -- that takes having the actual hardware in question available for testing.
I'm not saying Ubuntu is a bad distro. It'd be a great distro if it didn't fiddle with the kernel, then ship that kernel with drivers that don't work with its changes. If there is somebody else taking care of this for you, fine. I think Dell sells machines with Ubuntu preinstalled. But I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anybody who didn't have somebody supporting them who was comfortable doing things like installing custom kernels and the like.
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ubuntu can do it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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: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: (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
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.
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm confused, or perhaps it's the Magners. But why is it that a device that was supported under Vista isn't supported under Vista SP1?
Agreed, disabling devices would be bad and refusing to install on a working machine is good but did Microsoft take a red pen to the supported devices list in SP1?
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with giving people just enough rope to hang themselves is that they want a little slack so that it's not uncomfortable when they're tying the noose and getting on the chair, and get it by taping on their own rope with duct tape.
See this [slashdot.org] for an example of this. It's a really painful thing, and really makes me feel sorry for people like Raymond Chen [msdn.com] who has to deal with these kinds of issues for pay. (His book's kinda interesting tho)
Admittedly, a lot of the benefits to the linux driver model is that they *don't* get a lot of third party drivers, which helps eliminate a lot of this kind of problem. It still exists however. Just ask anyone who's trying to debug a kernel with the nvidia driver installed.
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft offered it, people would. (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to believe that the service packs are nothing more than a "roll-up" of the other patches.
Here's news for you, they aren't.
Re:If Microsoft offered it, people would. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't at all have the idea that an SP is a roll-up, the GP did. I was disabusing him of that notion.
That IS the service pack. (Score:4, Informative)
The question remains, why did Microsoft choose to do it that way rather than any of the other MORE PREFERABLE TO THE END USER ways that have been mentioned.
Re:That IS the service pack. (Score:4, Funny)
User: It doesn't install just because I don't have compatible hardware? This is madness!
Microsoft: Madness?
This...
is...
MICROSOFT!! *Throws user into sinkhole of support*
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was shopping for laptops around November. They all had Vista installed. I asked the geek at Best Buy how they ran with XP installed instead and he replied "You can't install XP on these because there aren't any device drivers for this new hardware."
That did it, I bought a used XP laptop on Ebay for $200. Heck it even plays World of Warcraft. Runs linux too! Of course I spent about $200 more upgrading the thing's RAM, HDD, and Wifi, and then a couple weeks screwing around with it. Nice ultra-portable thou
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Funny)
With emphasis on should, given Microsoft's history on error messages (my document failed to print!) the message probably says something along the lines of "You have incompatible hardware and we cannot install this service pack, have a nice next three days disabling drivers one at a time trying to figure out which one it is"
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy peasy!
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: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:How about ... (Score:5, Informative)
The people most responsible for the extreme number of hardware variations for the PC today? IBM. they allowed people to clone their architecture (not without a token fight, though, if I recall). Now we have two major cpu manufacturers, 3 major motherboard chipset manufacturers, 3 major video card manufacturers, millions of extra peripheral devices, and the end result is an impossibly large number of hardware configurations.
The main problem i've seen so far with SP1 has been it backing out after a good chunk of the installation process because some third party tool or driver (which is hard to identify) is holding onto a handle to something that windows update needs to update, but can't because there's an open handle.
At least it does the sane thing and backs out cleanly. Bummer to hear that it's failing for a few people, but you know, it's entirely likely that some third party software has snuck in where it was least expected.
Personally, I've never assumed that a service pack will apply cleanly on a machine that's been in use for some time. I tend to install them immediately after installing the O/S or service, and go from there. I'd do the same for going from RHEL 5.0 -> 5.1, or anything else. Takes away potential headaches.
Pity OEM installs of vista make that a pain, since the recovery image often contains a mountain of extra junk
Re:How about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about ... (Score:4, Informative)
Particularly for 64bit, which was almost twice the size of the 32bit update.
Sounds like progress to me. Note that the SP will only have included drivers that got updated *AND* passed the WHQL process, and of course, windows doesn't have the scatter-shot advantage of one-driver-fits-all that linux has (some chipsets under windows have a general driver for multiple oems, but often that's not the case)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, let's see. 64/32 = 2. Yup, twice the size sounds about right.
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would at least introduce some barriers for the newbies, without preventing the power users from trying whatever non-standard stuff they want to try.
Re: (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 abo
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: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: (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 probl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would settle it then (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With Linux, the kernel, something would be unsupported
No. In both cases, unsupported means the VENDOR doesn't support it.
You seem to be conflating this with Microsofts driver signing
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The standalone doesnt care if you have incompatible drivers. You're assumed to have figured it out and accept the risks if you install it that way.
So if you want to risk it, use the standalone installer. If you dont, use windows update.
Re: (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 questio
Well SP1 saved me some crucial time this morning.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Had to transfer files (photos) from my D70s memory card to my wife's USB stick so she could bring some shots to her work. Estimated time before I moved the stick was 15-20 minutes; just moving the stick to the monitor it took 2-3.
In effect it was saying, hey you g
Re:Well SP1 saved me some crucial time this mornin (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well SP1 saved me some crucial time this mornin (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And the problem is...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Those offsets changed when the new kernel was built, and the data structure in question was never published directly in the first place, it should have been manipulated via a proper API.
The result? When you *move* a system with the shock-monitor driver? the entire system crashes because that data structure is now garbage. That's right. Physically move the system, and it blue-screens.
Yet the nvidia driver in linux? Doing the same thing, potentially (it doesn't even have to actually do it, the kernel developers just believe that it does, and they may or may not be right, since I haven't checked), and the kernel devs will refuse to talk to you if that driver's loaded when the kernel crashes.
Microsoft at least takes it seriously, and the manufacturer was asked to produce a new driver, which they appear to have done.
This is the price you pay for getting OEM drivers. OEMs take shortcuts and horrible hacks to get the job done. Yet you constantly hear linux users clamouring for more support from OEMs. Personally, I think linux might just be better off even if it does reduce the amount of supported hardware in the short term.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Time to disable auto install of updates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time to disable auto install of updates (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Time to disable auto install of updates (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
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]
Re:A bad thing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A bad thing? (Score:4, Informative)
You can check the complete list of incompatible drivers here (under "Method for Cause 5"):
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=948343 [microsoft.com]
This isn't a for-pay whitelist, they are blacklisting software that conflicts in some manner with SP1 causing system instability or more general malfunction. There's a word for that. Incompatible. This "pay us and we'll certify you" fantasy is a wild conspiracy theory.
You can download and install SP1 from microsoft.com yourself, along with installing said drivers, if you want to verify this.
quick breath (Score:5, Funny)
uh, I mean,
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaates!!!
I've had no problems (Score:4, Interesting)
12 blog comments = news ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:12 blog comments = news ? (Score:4, 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."
Re:Vocal Minority, as Usual (Score:5, Interesting)
the fact that a few people might be moaning wildly does not mean the service pack met with a bad reception. This is the only place where it is vaguely an issue.
good (Score:5, Interesting)
"WINE COMPATIBLE"
Re:good (Score:5, Funny)
"Ooohh, How thoughtful, this game goes with Merlot. Honey! We need to stop at the liquer store"
Re:good (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Problem exists between keyboard and chair. (Score:5, Interesting)
This sort of thing is normal with major OS updates. Even OS 10.5 had some major problems when users upgraded. And, honestly, unless you're like me and testing the service pack for work-related reasons... why are you installing it the day it was released? That's just dumb. At least wait a week.
My only real beef is you can't slipstream the new service pack into the install disk. That's going to be a pain in the ass next time I install Vista.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also afaict there are official images with it built in though if you don't have MSDN, aren't using volume licensing and don't plan to buy any new copies you may have to resort to pirate sources to get your hands on it.
Something is wrong! (Score:2)
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:Dozens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus far... (Score:2)
I've got our trouble tracking software running (DKHelpDesk), SMS Admin Console (been using it heavily today), Visual Studio 2008, and Office 2007 installed (well, along with Firefox, JavaRE, Adobe Reader, etc).
'Course, this particular machine is used for business uses and not gaming, but, at least I'm one person without issues (so far).
I seriously never saw this one coming! (Score:2)
(I also take a similar stand on Office 2007. Fortunately, Microsoft has helped us out by giving out the 2007 format utilit
-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.
Yep. (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone's still waiting for SP1 to go to Vista??? (Score:3, Funny)
Newflash! (Score:5, Funny)
I hate to say it (Score:3, Interesting)
After installing the service pack certain things are incredibly faster.
1) startup: Before installing the service pack it took my computer (Hell laptop with 1.6ghz dual core AMD processor, 4GB RAM) 20 minutes to become usable. Now I can use my computer within 2 minutes of logging in to my domain. It seems like the indexing that happens actually runs in the backgroung and doesn't interfere with apps that you want to run in the foreground.
2) Browsing the domain network. Before installing the service pack, I could double-click on Network and watch the green bar slowly crawl across the top until finally after 5 minutes computers would appear. Now it is instantaneous.
3) Outlook 07 (probably related to the indexing changes). Before installing the service pack it took 5 minutes for Outlook to become usable and half the time it would tell me the local file closed incorrectly and it would now "repair" the file. Now Outlook takes abetween 20 and 40 seconds to be usable and downloading e-mail is much quicker. I haven't gotten the Incorrect file closure message yet either, and I have been opening and closing Outlook all day.
The new remote desktop removed the stupid login window.
The only thing I need to check on is if you still can't change IP settings when you first sign on. It used to take 5 minutes to be able to change IP settings.
The only complaint I have is that installing the Service Pack took alittle over 4 hours.
Omminous screen saver (Score:4, Funny)
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)
Re:there is something I dont get... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Reasons SP1 doesn't appear in Windows Update (Score:5, Informative)
1. You are already running Windows Vista SP1.
2. Windows Vista SP1 has not been released for the language of the language pack that you have installed.
3. Windows Service Pack Blocker Tool is used to block the delivery of Windows Vista SP1 from Automatic Updates or from Windows Update.
4. You tried to install Windows Vista SP1, and the installation failed with a known inconsistency in the file or registry structure.
5. A hardware device driver or device software was problematic when you updated to Windows Vista SP1. The Windows Update service can detect the small set of device drivers and software that falls into this category. The Windows Update service will not offer Windows Vista SP1 until an update for the hardware device driver or the device software has been installed.
6. You have installed a prerelease version of Windows Vista SP1, and you must uninstall the prerelease version, or start with a new installation of Windows Vista.
7.You used the third-party program vLite to configure the system, and you may have removed required system components that have to be available for Windows Vista SP1 to be installed.
8. You see one or more updates for Windows Vista when you run Windows Update. However, you do not see Windows Vista SP1 listed.
At that website are further causes for those 8 reasons, but the specifically mentioned drivers that block SP1 are:
Audio drivers
Realtek AC'97
For x86-based computers: Alcxwdm.sys - version 6.0.1.6242 or earlier
For x64-based computers: Alcwdm64.sys - version 6.0.1.6242 or earlier
SigmaTel
For x86-based computers: Sthda.sys - version 5.10.5762.0 or earlier
For x64-based computers: Sthda64.sys - version 5.10.5762.0 or earlier
SigmaTel
For x86-based computers: Stwrt.sys - version 6.10.5511.0 or earlier
For x64-based computers: Stwrt64.sys - version 6.10.5511.0 or earlier
Creative Audigy
For x86-based and x64-based computers: Ctaud2k.sys - version 6.0.1.1242 or earlier
For x86-based computers: P17.sys all versions (This was originally a Windows XP-based driver.)
Conexant HD Audio
For x86-based computers: Chdart.sys - version 4.32.0.0 or earlier
For x64-based computers: Chdart64.sys - version 4.32.0.0 or earlier
Biometric (Fingerprint) Sensors
AuthenTec Fingerprint Sensor with the Atswpdrv.sys driver file version 7.7.1.7 or earlier
UPEK Fingerprint Sensor with the Tcusb.sys driver file version 1.9.2.99 or earlier
Display drivers
Intel Display
For x86-based computers: Igdkmd32.sys versions between and including driver 7.14.10.1322 and 7.14.10.1403
For x64-based computers: Igdkmd64.sys versions between and including driver 7.14.10.1322 and 7.14.10.1403
Other drivers
Texas Instruments Smart Card Controller with the GTIPCI21.sys driver file version 1.0.1.19 or earlier
Sierra Wireless AirCard 580 with the Watcher.exe application version 3.4.0.9 or earlier (This application is located in the AirCard 580 Program Files folder.) Symantec software driver for Symantec Endpoint Protection and for Symantec Network Access Control clients]
For x86-based computers: Wgx.sys versions 11.0.1000.1091 or earlier
For x64-based computers: Wgx64.sys versions 11.0.1000.1091 or earlier
I agree (Score:5, Funny)
That's why when I want an even-handed tech assessment, I always go here first:
http://www.microsoftisawesome.com/ [microsoftisawesome.com]
Bias via experience and disappointment (Score:4, Insightful)